5 ms·

> Second, I think people will start to put a premium on accounts being "verified" as genuinely human. IMO this is long overdue. And I think people should/will

> Second, I think people will start to put a premium on accounts being "verified" as genuinely human. IMO this is long overdue. And I think people should/will eventually even pay for this feature. > Powerful nation states will be more than eager to assist them in this regard. I agree - world governments could consider even subsidizing this in some way in order to foster fewer anonymous botnets sowing discord. The web of trust could be useful to help bolster this - if only in providing the process by which new social networks could eliminate anonymity. I hear a lot about SSI [1] from a family member who works on this stuff. I'll be honest - I don't know whether it's promising or dystopian. Maybe a little bit of each. But I optimistically think it could be a way to help mitigate some of the problems created by anonymity. The loss of anonymity won't be a panacea -- for example: people with legitimate accounts bound to their identity today accept bribes to create positive reviews of goods. And the loss of anonymity comes with significant drawbacks: criticizing government and powerful people becomes more difficult. Having a digital reputation that you can taint could put people on their best behavior. But then again it's a bit dystopian [2, 3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-sovereign_identity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-sovereign_identity [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosedive_(Black_Mirror) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosedive_(Black_Mirror)

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ls15 4y ago
> But then again it's a bit dystopian I am having a hard time to imagine a scenario that is more dystopian
- babyoil 4y ago
  The Black Mirror episode handling this is one of the most dystopian and scary ones for me.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ourlordcaffeine 4y ago
Won't bot/troll farms just buy "verified human" accounts?
- eru 4y ago
  That's what they are doing already. It's just that the human verification involves solving some captchas etc.
taylorportman 4y ago
I've always wondered why governments can't run social networks for giving voice/reputation to citizens weighing in on current issues to give rise to a phenomenon similar to the net in the Ender's Game books that gave voice to Ender's siblings. There exists a lot of untapped potential to harness the passion of the armchair pundits but no pressure to mold this passion into grassroot hierarchical influence that could potentially grant political sway for individual's expert opinions. Currently opinionated relatives of holiday dinner & BBQ socials are under little pressure to cultivate their passion beyond a small inner circle of hostages of social etiquette - if only they had an outlet to mold that cunning & passion, to temper it with the satisfaction of having your opinionated views addressed by the big shot president of the times. In the book, these kids are calling shots under pen names. It's fun to think about.
- ls15 4y ago
  Even though it is not an official service, in Germany there is Abgeordnetenwach [0](Translate: representative watch), where citizen can ask parlamentarians directly. Some parlamentarians are great at answering questions, while some never reply and some only let their offices copy & paste standard replies. I wish politicians would be forced to make an effort to reply to their sovereign. Certain reasonable anti-spam and DoD measures granted. [0] https://www.abgeordnetenwatch.de/ https://www.abgeordnetenwatch.de/
Renaud 4y ago
>loss of anonymity comes with significant drawbacks: criticizing government and powerful people becomes more difficult. How don't see how making our lives more dystopian can be a net benefit. How many of us expose different aspects of ourselves through different identities? Maybe most people are happy to show everyone all aspects of their lives, but I'm not, in part because who I am could get me or the people I meet in trouble, harassed, imprisoned or worse in some places. Anonymity should remain a fundamental right. We have the right to live and expose different parts of ourselves to different audiences without overlap. Anonymity is also a counter-power to governments. A government that knows all about its citizen is bound to abuse this power. We see it in many democracies; elected governments enact laws that restrict freedoms to keep itself in power (Russia of course, Turkey, Algeria, but also EU countries like Bulgaria). Tools like government-issued ID that become mandatory to express yourself online are doubly dangerous: they make it easy to target those who cause trouble, and they can be used to remove means of expression (who can listen to you if you are denied an ID and there is no freedom of press to expose the abuse?).
- swader999 4y ago
  Yep, a functioning society that benefits the most needs some form of anonymous dissent.
  - bilbo0s 4y ago
    You guys are misunderstanding how things are developing here. The danger is not that you'll lose anonymity. The danger is that if you use anonymity, no one will listen to you. I'd wager a lot of algorithms will just shadow ban you. This is because you become viewed, effectively, the same way as the AI agent generating brand placement tweets for Bob's Bargain Basement Bar-B-Que and Bitcoin. No one will know the difference between you and the corporate AI's. Only the verifiable humans will end up with opinions that anyone pays any attention to. It's like everything else will be a banner ad. Whether it's a banner ad or not.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      > Only the verifiable humans will end up with opinions that anyone pays any attention to. This depends on people valuing who is saying something rather than what is being said. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm saying that if we're just trading in celebrity rather than ideas that I'm pretty sure we can also create celebrity AIs people would listen to.
pavel_lishin 4y ago
> Having a digital reputation that you can taint could put people on their best behavior. I've seen some pretty reprehensible behavior from people who put their full name and a photo of their face on Facebook.
LarryMullins 4y ago
I think as soon as people see "verified humans" posting things they utterly disagree with, the temptation to call those people "bots" will be too great to resist. A substantial portion of internet commenters will sooner call a human verification system into disrepute than admit that some real people really do earnestly disagree with them. They'll spin conspiracy yarns about how "the other side" controls the verification process and allow their own bots to participate. I think the solution to all of this is smaller tight-knit discussion groups where all the participants know and trust each other. Echo chambers will inevitability form. I don't think there is any way around this.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  You're just poisoning the well. edit: I find it very bizarre and very fashionable to defend the integrity of a verification service that does not exist, and to already dismiss the non-existent people who could suspect that this hypothetical system of verification was corrupt as conspiracy theorists.
  - LarryMullins 4y ago
    Your response is very strange. I have not "defended the integrity of a verification system", nor am I inclined to because I do not support the creation of such verification systems in the first place. And I have no clue what "well" you think I'm poisoning. My point was not that such verification systems are incorruptible. My point is that such verification systems are pointless because they will inevitably be perceived as corrupt. Whether or not the verification system is actually corrupt makes no difference. Such systems are worthless because people won't trust them. Any system will be accused of being corrupt by "both sides" of any heated debate, and they're not both going to be right. But it doesn't matter of one, the other or neither are correct. What matters is that the system won't work because people won't trust it.
    - Faark 4y ago
      Sure, people will complain. But at the end of the day, you platform either has it or will actually be drowned out by bots. Just like everyone is complaining about moderators, but all the "free speech" have them anyway. Bots doing their part to split society & boosting echo chambers sounds reasonable, but i doubt verification system will have much impact.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

ls15 4y ago

> But then again it's a bit dystopian I am having a hard time to imagine a scenario that is more dystopian

babyoil 4y ago
The Black Mirror episode handling this is one of the most dystopian and scary ones for me.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

ourlordcaffeine 4y ago

Won't bot/troll farms just buy "verified human" accounts?

eru 4y ago
That's what they are doing already. It's just that the human verification involves solving some captchas etc.

taylorportman 4y ago

I've always wondered why governments can't run social networks for giving voice/reputation to citizens weighing in on current issues to give rise to a phenomenon similar to the net in the Ender's Game books that gave voice to Ender's siblings. There exists a lot of untapped potential to harness the passion of the armchair pundits but no pressure to mold this passion into grassroot hierarchical influence that could potentially grant political sway for individual's expert opinions. Currently opinionated relatives of holiday dinner & BBQ socials are under little pressure to cultivate their passion beyond a small inner circle of hostages of social etiquette - if only they had an outlet to mold that cunning & passion, to temper it with the satisfaction of having your opinionated views addressed by the big shot president of the times. In the book, these kids are calling shots under pen names. It's fun to think about.

ls15 4y ago
Even though it is not an official service, in Germany there is Abgeordnetenwach [0](Translate: representative watch), where citizen can ask parlamentarians directly. Some parlamentarians are great at answering questions, while some never reply and some only let their offices copy & paste standard replies. I wish politicians would be forced to make an effort to reply to their sovereign. Certain reasonable anti-spam and DoD measures granted. [0] https://www.abgeordnetenwatch.de/ https://www.abgeordnetenwatch.de/

Renaud 4y ago

>loss of anonymity comes with significant drawbacks: criticizing government and powerful people becomes more difficult. How don't see how making our lives more dystopian can be a net benefit. How many of us expose different aspects of ourselves through different identities? Maybe most people are happy to show everyone all aspects of their lives, but I'm not, in part because who I am could get me or the people I meet in trouble, harassed, imprisoned or worse in some places. Anonymity should remain a fundamental right. We have the right to live and expose different parts of ourselves to different audiences without overlap. Anonymity is also a counter-power to governments. A government that knows all about its citizen is bound to abuse this power. We see it in many democracies; elected governments enact laws that restrict freedoms to keep itself in power (Russia of course, Turkey, Algeria, but also EU countries like Bulgaria). Tools like government-issued ID that become mandatory to express yourself online are doubly dangerous: they make it easy to target those who cause trouble, and they can be used to remove means of expression (who can listen to you if you are denied an ID and there is no freedom of press to expose the abuse?).

swader999 4y ago
Yep, a functioning society that benefits the most needs some form of anonymous dissent.
- bilbo0s 4y ago
  You guys are misunderstanding how things are developing here. The danger is not that you'll lose anonymity. The danger is that if you use anonymity, no one will listen to you. I'd wager a lot of algorithms will just shadow ban you. This is because you become viewed, effectively, the same way as the AI agent generating brand placement tweets for Bob's Bargain Basement Bar-B-Que and Bitcoin. No one will know the difference between you and the corporate AI's. Only the verifiable humans will end up with opinions that anyone pays any attention to. It's like everything else will be a banner ad. Whether it's a banner ad or not.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    > Only the verifiable humans will end up with opinions that anyone pays any attention to. This depends on people valuing who is saying something rather than what is being said. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm saying that if we're just trading in celebrity rather than ideas that I'm pretty sure we can also create celebrity AIs people would listen to.

pavel_lishin 4y ago

> Having a digital reputation that you can taint could put people on their best behavior. I've seen some pretty reprehensible behavior from people who put their full name and a photo of their face on Facebook.

LarryMullins 4y ago

I think as soon as people see "verified humans" posting things they utterly disagree with, the temptation to call those people "bots" will be too great to resist. A substantial portion of internet commenters will sooner call a human verification system into disrepute than admit that some real people really do earnestly disagree with them. They'll spin conspiracy yarns about how "the other side" controls the verification process and allow their own bots to participate. I think the solution to all of this is smaller tight-knit discussion groups where all the participants know and trust each other. Echo chambers will inevitability form. I don't think there is any way around this.

pessimizer 4y ago
You're just poisoning the well. edit: I find it very bizarre and very fashionable to defend the integrity of a verification service that does not exist, and to already dismiss the non-existent people who could suspect that this hypothetical system of verification was corrupt as conspiracy theorists.
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  Your response is very strange. I have not "defended the integrity of a verification system", nor am I inclined to because I do not support the creation of such verification systems in the first place. And I have no clue what "well" you think I'm poisoning. My point was not that such verification systems are incorruptible. My point is that such verification systems are pointless because they will inevitably be perceived as corrupt. Whether or not the verification system is actually corrupt makes no difference. Such systems are worthless because people won't trust them. Any system will be accused of being corrupt by "both sides" of any heated debate, and they're not both going to be right. But it doesn't matter of one, the other or neither are correct. What matters is that the system won't work because people won't trust it.
  - Faark 4y ago
    Sure, people will complain. But at the end of the day, you platform either has it or will actually be drowned out by bots. Just like everyone is complaining about moderators, but all the "free speech" have them anyway. Bots doing their part to split society & boosting echo chambers sounds reasonable, but i doubt verification system will have much impact.