4 ms·
I understand that it can be used. I am saying that it is a bad idea to require that. Yes sure it is less invasive than the other option you gave. I mean income
by tharkun__ 4y ago
I understand that it can be used. I am saying that it is a bad idea to require that.
Yes sure it is less invasive than the other option you gave. I mean income tax statement to show I worked somewhere, are you kidding me? To LinkedIn? Showing exactly how much I made? Your suggestions are not getting better. Less invasive doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Making the president dictator for 20 years is less bad than making him dictator for life. I still like democracy better, even if it's not perfect.
- derefr 4y agoI don't think you've grasped the spirit of what I'm saying. In a perfect world, every interaction with a service would require exactly as much identity verification as is required to entirely, 100% prohibit people pretending to be you... but also, people being people, they would then voluntarily avoid interactions which would necessitate giving that proof. In other words, in a perfect world, the government requires LinkedIn and similar services to put users through KYC (i.e. demand proof-of-identity+income for sign-up)... and poof! These services cease to exist, because nobody's going to give them that for only the small amount of value LinkedIn provides people.