5 ms·

> The only thing that’s going to stop every random company you have an account with from trying to extort a fee just to make sure an account is actually you is

> The only thing that’s going to stop every random company you have an account with from trying to extort a fee just to make sure an account is actually you is going to be regulation. Remember the backlash when Eric Schmidt was pushing for identity verification for Google+. This is the flip side of that coin; we can't have it both ways.

8note 4y ago
I think this is the same problem, not a flip of it. Tying real world identities to online accounts is bad, and Google+ did a lot to create the problem. Before that, it was unrealistic to believe that the name of an account was particularly meaningful
moremetadata 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenID https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenID Since 1999 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_account#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_account#History
DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
> Remember the backlash when Eric Schmidt was pushing for identity verification for Google+. This is the flip side of that coin; we can't have it both ways. No, that was a separate problem: Google+, and later YouTube, both pushed for having to always use a verified identity *without* the option to be anonymous, pseudonymous, or to otherwise assume a fictional identity - especially in venues where people would have many legitimate reasons to not use their real-identity that aren't nefarious, criminal or misleading at all: anything from teenagers with abusive parents, forums like Erowid; Google has enough furries and otaku in their own ranks who'd be opposed to this policy anyway - and there is genuine democratic value in being able to speak anonymously - I'm surprised it isn't an enumerated constitutional right in more places, really. With Facebook/Instagram/Twitter's Verified-identity-costs-money feature the problem is that it seems the onus is on the individual to stump-up to avoid having their identity hijacked or misrepresented by someone else. What the Internet clearly needs is the good-parts-of-both: no-one should be forced to use their single real-life identity on the Internet, but also that no-one should be allowed to hijack another real-life identity - and that, ideally, no-one should have to pay to have to protect their own real-life identity from hijacking or misrepresentation either. These are not mutually-exclusive or otherwise incompatible goals - and paying for identity verification is not unethical in itself either.
- LoganDark 4y ago
  > Google has enough furries and otaku in their own ranks who'd be opposed to this policy anyway Yeah, I would be absolutely devastated if I were required to link a "real life" identity, especially since I do not identify with that. Species dysphoria makes me uncomfortable. I need spaces to express myself. Not the body I happen to be trapped in. (Basically agreeing with you and confirming that these people totally exist.)
  - DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
    After seeing your Twitter account I can see that you're being sincere, but your reply to my post really does come across as edgelord - just letting you know.
    - LoganDark 4y ago
      Sorry about that, expression of "ugh yeah I'd hate that" tends to overlap significantly with sarcasm. Being autistic also hurts the tone a little. I was being sincere, yeah. (I... usually forget to put emotion into my text here. I'm always self-conscious about my comments getting reported somehow if I act too playful or anything. I try to be more serious and informative.)
      - Jcowell 4y ago
        I think the cases where you italicized might be better bolded? For me personally, italicization could emphasize certain words but sarcasm-ized others depending on the context.
  - KennyBlanken 4y ago
    > Species dysphoria makes me uncomfortable I'm pretty sure thinking you're not "supposed to be" human is a mental illness and you should be seeking treatment for it, not leaning into it.
    - danShumway 4y ago

8note 4y ago

I think this is the same problem, not a flip of it. Tying real world identities to online accounts is bad, and Google+ did a lot to create the problem. Before that, it was unrealistic to believe that the name of an account was particularly meaningful

moremetadata 4y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenID https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenID Since 1999 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_account#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_account#History

DaiPlusPlus 4y ago

> Remember the backlash when Eric Schmidt was pushing for identity verification for Google+. This is the flip side of that coin; we can't have it both ways. No, that was a separate problem: Google+, and later YouTube, both pushed for having to always use a verified identity *without* the option to be anonymous, pseudonymous, or to otherwise assume a fictional identity - especially in venues where people would have many legitimate reasons to not use their real-identity that aren't nefarious, criminal or misleading at all: anything from teenagers with abusive parents, forums like Erowid; Google has enough furries and otaku in their own ranks who'd be opposed to this policy anyway - and there is genuine democratic value in being able to speak anonymously - I'm surprised it isn't an enumerated constitutional right in more places, really. With Facebook/Instagram/Twitter's Verified-identity-costs-money feature the problem is that it seems the onus is on the individual to stump-up to avoid having their identity hijacked or misrepresented by someone else. What the Internet clearly needs is the good-parts-of-both: no-one should be forced to use their single real-life identity on the Internet, but also that no-one should be allowed to hijack another real-life identity - and that, ideally, no-one should have to pay to have to protect their own real-life identity from hijacking or misrepresentation either. These are not mutually-exclusive or otherwise incompatible goals - and paying for identity verification is not unethical in itself either.

LoganDark 4y ago
> Google has enough furries and otaku in their own ranks who'd be opposed to this policy anyway Yeah, I would be absolutely devastated if I were required to link a "real life" identity, especially since I do not identify with that. Species dysphoria makes me uncomfortable. I need spaces to express myself. Not the body I happen to be trapped in. (Basically agreeing with you and confirming that these people totally exist.)
- DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
  After seeing your Twitter account I can see that you're being sincere, but your reply to my post really does come across as edgelord - just letting you know.
  - LoganDark 4y ago
    Sorry about that, expression of "ugh yeah I'd hate that" tends to overlap significantly with sarcasm. Being autistic also hurts the tone a little. I was being sincere, yeah. (I... usually forget to put emotion into my text here. I'm always self-conscious about my comments getting reported somehow if I act too playful or anything. I try to be more serious and informative.)
    - Jcowell 4y ago
      I think the cases where you italicized might be better bolded? For me personally, italicization could emphasize certain words but sarcasm-ized others depending on the context.
- KennyBlanken 4y ago
  > Species dysphoria makes me uncomfortable I'm pretty sure thinking you're not "supposed to be" human is a mental illness and you should be seeking treatment for it, not leaning into it.
  - danShumway 4y ago