3 ms·

Doesn't even need to be a "social network"; a government digital ID that others can use for authentication would enable a lot of things that currently stumble f

Doesn't even need to be a "social network"; a government digital ID that others can use for authentication would enable a lot of things that currently stumble for lack of trust. Of course, there's drawbacks: take the usual problems people have with say, getting their google account cancelled that you see posted here. When those problems are in the single silo of a Federal ID system, even with the presumable mechanisms they'll have to deal with that; its still going to be worse. Google doesn't ruin people's entire lives; losing your FedID might.

RyanAdamas 3y ago
That's precisely my point; the government should be supporting free speech, expression and association, all through a platform citizens can use to ensure their rights are being trampled by corporate tech giants and billionaires with a public grudge or social agenda. Being able to prove who you are at a government facility, like the Post Office, with a finger print or face scan, is going to be a lot simpler than a thousand back and forth emails with Google, Facebook, Twitter, and whoever else, because someone hacked your email. A single silo given public trust is better than a distributed network of silos with corporate interests.
- mikecoles 3y ago
  "public trust" isn't something I would grant a government organization. You can decide to ditch corporations. Good luck ditching the government. Government should be minimally invasive rather than ever-expanding.
  - RyanAdamas 3y ago
    Given that the US Government hasn't been reduced since the 1789 reformation into the current Constitution and Union; I don't see how that logic ever plays out in actuality. States Rights were destroyed in the Civil War and economic activity transferred to the Federal Reserve before WW1 and the first income tax levied over a hundred years ago. Why would anyone think "keep the gov. small" is ever a good faith argument?
- h2odragon 3y ago
  How much effort would it take for state governments to make Drivers License databases available to the public? Could that data be used as a public ID system? If not how short could that path be made? This was mentioned in the 90s: the answers often hinged on "but the states' databases will be hacked like swiss cheese!" which isn't an invalid argument.

RyanAdamas 3y ago

That's precisely my point; the government should be supporting free speech, expression and association, all through a platform citizens can use to ensure their rights are being trampled by corporate tech giants and billionaires with a public grudge or social agenda. Being able to prove who you are at a government facility, like the Post Office, with a finger print or face scan, is going to be a lot simpler than a thousand back and forth emails with Google, Facebook, Twitter, and whoever else, because someone hacked your email. A single silo given public trust is better than a distributed network of silos with corporate interests.

mikecoles 3y ago
"public trust" isn't something I would grant a government organization. You can decide to ditch corporations. Good luck ditching the government. Government should be minimally invasive rather than ever-expanding.
- RyanAdamas 3y ago
  Given that the US Government hasn't been reduced since the 1789 reformation into the current Constitution and Union; I don't see how that logic ever plays out in actuality. States Rights were destroyed in the Civil War and economic activity transferred to the Federal Reserve before WW1 and the first income tax levied over a hundred years ago. Why would anyone think "keep the gov. small" is ever a good faith argument?
h2odragon 3y ago
How much effort would it take for state governments to make Drivers License databases available to the public? Could that data be used as a public ID system? If not how short could that path be made? This was mentioned in the 90s: the answers often hinged on "but the states' databases will be hacked like swiss cheese!" which isn't an invalid argument.