3 ms·

How in God's green Earth do you think giving everyone a static IPv6 address guaranteed somehow by the government would help mitigate privacy issues? You literal

How in God's green Earth do you think giving everyone a static IPv6 address guaranteed somehow by the government would help mitigate privacy issues? You literally just handed aggregators yet another primary key for data aggregation. Nothing about IPv6 even tilts one way or the other on the centralization vs. decentralized axis. In point of fact, your implementation maximizes centralization pretty much by default.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Kim_Bruning 2y ago
> You literally just handed aggregators yet another primary key for data aggregation. The key phrase is "Yet Another". They already collect so much data about you that one more data point won't shift the needle. The only way to deal with this is to force decentralization, so that aggregators don't get to see your data in the first place. Or at least, you have a fighting chance to keep it from them. > Nothing about IPv6 even tilts one way or the other on the centralization vs. decentralized axis. IPv6 allows every single device on earth to have its own unique IP address. This makes it possible for them to talk to each other directly; you don't need a central server to relay between them. IPv4 used to be this way too in the '90s at least, but we've started running out of IPv4 addresses since then. The solutions to fix this (especially NAT) lead to a need for centralized servers to mitigate the downsides. > In point of fact, your implementation maximizes centralization pretty much by default. You're saying a government mandate to switch everyone to IPv6 on a short timescale leads to centralization? That seems like a contradiction with your previous sentence: "Nothing about IPv6 even tilts one way or the other on the centralization vs. decentralized axis." Maybe you were thinking something else?

3 ms·

How in God's green Earth do you think giving everyone a static IPv6 address guaranteed somehow by the government would help mitigate privacy issues? You literal

by salawat 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Kim_Bruning 2y ago
> You literally just handed aggregators yet another primary key for data aggregation. The key phrase is "Yet Another". They already collect so much data about you that one more data point won't shift the needle. The only way to deal with this is to force decentralization, so that aggregators don't get to see your data in the first place. Or at least, you have a fighting chance to keep it from them. > Nothing about IPv6 even tilts one way or the other on the centralization vs. decentralized axis. IPv6 allows every single device on earth to have its own unique IP address. This makes it possible for them to talk to each other directly; you don't need a central server to relay between them. IPv4 used to be this way too in the '90s at least, but we've started running out of IPv4 addresses since then. The solutions to fix this (especially NAT) lead to a need for centralized servers to mitigate the downsides. > In point of fact, your implementation maximizes centralization pretty much by default. You're saying a government mandate to switch everyone to IPv6 on a short timescale leads to centralization? That seems like a contradiction with your previous sentence: "Nothing about IPv6 even tilts one way or the other on the centralization vs. decentralized axis." Maybe you were thinking something else?