4 ms·

So many people advocating for this in HN and elsewhere when it's so clearly a draconian slippery slope for invasive surveillance and choice restriction. After

So many people advocating for this in HN and elsewhere when it's so clearly a draconian slippery slope for invasive surveillance and choice restriction. After these things get implemented people pretend it was always like this. We don't need the governments to mass surveil us to protect us. We need them to sort the economy and stop invading countries and being deferential to corporate interests instead of the people they represent. It's such an obvious push that If you don't want to see it, it makes me think you're shielding yourself to avoid contending with the reality: These politicians and govs all around, including the countries you claim "work" are absolutely power hungry and beholden to interests other than yours and will push for as much total surveillance as they can, including as much curtailment of freedoms as they can. Obviously that won't mean elites will actually face justice or crimes will actually be solved because more surveillance is not accompanied with more government transparency, quite the opposite and bigger and more powerful burocracies, with more authoritarianism, allow for easy hidden exceptions that you can't question. It's nothing new. Corruption is common. It's just mediocre to see "hackers" pushing for it just because the government and corporations tell them to, because foreign country bad, bad social media influences kids, drugs, word-ism, etc.

ViktorRay 1y ago
At the time this comment was posted there was only one other comment in this entire thread. You say “so many people are advocating for this in HN” but this thread was empty except for one other comment (which was also critical of this) at the time you posted your comment.
- isaacremuant 1y ago
  I think if you use critical thinking to read you may easily find I'm talking about my experience with reading comments in relation to imposing age verification for online access, which means digital ID for internet access. HN and even the GitHub comments mostly start with the assumption that of course we should do this. Of course we should restrict social media to under 16/18s and either are in favor of ID to access the Internet or pretend it won't happen by consequence of this. Now try to address what I said instead of poorly calling me out.
  - lukan 1y ago
    Linking to some comments in favour of this might help your case.
    - isaacremuant 1y ago
      My case? What's YOUR case. Assert a position and provide proof in triplicate please. Please tell me exactly what you think and I can nitpick it vaguely instead of putting forth mine. Heh. In any case, just look at the comments under my comment. You'll see them. - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44705630 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44705630 (this is good, we need this). - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44705597 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44705597 (are you a conservative?! Anonymity should be reduced.) Don't be disingenuous with your proof demands and tell us what you think and then we can discuss the merits of your argument.
      - Dylan16807 1y ago
        > My case? The case that "so many" people are advocating this on HN. Sounds like a significant percentage! > What's YOUR case. Assert a position Their case is that you should give evidence. > and provide proof in triplicate please. Please tell me exactly what you think and I can nitpick it vaguely instead of putting forth mine. Heh. "you should give evidence" doesn't need its own proof. And nitpicking such a simple idea would be a waste of everyone's time.
        isaacremuant 1y ago
        You're not the original poster of the question so why are you trolling? "So many" means "so many". You're creating a straw man in bad faith. What's your take on digital Age verification. Either provide useful commentary or stop trolling. Address the existence of the other comments I linked.
        Dylan16807 1y ago
        Giving you a clear answer to your questions is trolling?
ActorNightly 1y ago
I don't think you are fully wrong, but the issue is your rhetoric is very much used by conservatives or "both sides are bad" which are just mask-on conservatives who end up voting the same way. And the problem with conservatives is not really the ideals and ideas, but the fact that they vote Republican (or whatever the equivalent party is in other countries), that all pretty much are the exact opposite of those ideals. Age verification is already a thing IRL, there is no reason to not extend it online considering so much of our lives is digital. Overall I think anonymity should be reduced on the internet in general - a big reason of the world issues, especially in USA is that ideas can grow in forums where people under etherial identities can tell lie after lie without any repercussion.
- djrj477dhsnv 1y ago
  How can you criticize those for voting Republican when you're advocating for the extremely authoritarian and dystopian position of banning anonymous discourse online?
  - ActorNightly 1y ago
    Im criticizing voting Republicans because in practice, they are the ones that vote for people who are actually in the process of implementing authoritarian measures in real life. So when those people start talking about anything they deem as authoritarian or dystopian, its a moot conversation because they are the LEAST qualified to talk about those things.
- heavyset_go 1y ago
  > a big reason of the world issues, especially in USA is that ideas can grow in forums where people under etherial identities can tell lie after lie without any repercussion. See, I wouldn't have as much of an issue if you were honest about this real intention, because of how on the nose it is to reasonable people. The idea that I will have to upload 3D models of my face and ID, or get permission from Google, just to go online because you don't like the idea of someone else's kids using the internet is absurd. Please stop using appeals to children in your quest to "stop ideas from growing".
avidiax 1y ago
> it's so clearly a draconian slippery slope for invasive surveillance and choice restriction It's a privacy preserving over 18 check. Is it a "slope"? Sure, you can imagine an extension to the system that is "worse". Is it "slippery"? This thing isn't draconian enough to be effective. It will be a minor speedbump that prevents exactly zero determined under-18's from accessing anything that they'd want to. So then the question is, does the government react by trying something more draconian, or does it give up?
- latentsea 1y ago
  Things like this are a pain in the ass for GrapheneOS users. It's not great to get locked out of legitimate usage of things when using an OS that actually puts privacy first.
- sunaookami 1y ago
  Do you really think this will stop there? Websites need to contact an attestation server and the EU can just ban verification for any website they don't like.
Gunax 1y ago
It's just information. Data. Bytes. We need a proper George Orwell for the digital age. The internet used to be a bastion of freedom. That era ended around 2005.

ViktorRay 1y ago

At the time this comment was posted there was only one other comment in this entire thread. You say “so many people are advocating for this in HN” but this thread was empty except for one other comment (which was also critical of this) at the time you posted your comment.

isaacremuant 1y ago
I think if you use critical thinking to read you may easily find I'm talking about my experience with reading comments in relation to imposing age verification for online access, which means digital ID for internet access. HN and even the GitHub comments mostly start with the assumption that of course we should do this. Of course we should restrict social media to under 16/18s and either are in favor of ID to access the Internet or pretend it won't happen by consequence of this. Now try to address what I said instead of poorly calling me out.
- lukan 1y ago
  Linking to some comments in favour of this might help your case.
  - isaacremuant 1y ago
    My case? What's YOUR case. Assert a position and provide proof in triplicate please. Please tell me exactly what you think and I can nitpick it vaguely instead of putting forth mine. Heh. In any case, just look at the comments under my comment. You'll see them. - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44705630 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44705630 (this is good, we need this). - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44705597 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44705597 (are you a conservative?! Anonymity should be reduced.) Don't be disingenuous with your proof demands and tell us what you think and then we can discuss the merits of your argument.
    - Dylan16807 1y ago
      > My case? The case that "so many" people are advocating this on HN. Sounds like a significant percentage! > What's YOUR case. Assert a position Their case is that you should give evidence. > and provide proof in triplicate please. Please tell me exactly what you think and I can nitpick it vaguely instead of putting forth mine. Heh. "you should give evidence" doesn't need its own proof. And nitpicking such a simple idea would be a waste of everyone's time.
      - isaacremuant 1y ago
        You're not the original poster of the question so why are you trolling? "So many" means "so many". You're creating a straw man in bad faith. What's your take on digital Age verification. Either provide useful commentary or stop trolling. Address the existence of the other comments I linked.
        Dylan16807 1y ago
        Giving you a clear answer to your questions is trolling?

ActorNightly 1y ago

I don't think you are fully wrong, but the issue is your rhetoric is very much used by conservatives or "both sides are bad" which are just mask-on conservatives who end up voting the same way. And the problem with conservatives is not really the ideals and ideas, but the fact that they vote Republican (or whatever the equivalent party is in other countries), that all pretty much are the exact opposite of those ideals. Age verification is already a thing IRL, there is no reason to not extend it online considering so much of our lives is digital. Overall I think anonymity should be reduced on the internet in general - a big reason of the world issues, especially in USA is that ideas can grow in forums where people under etherial identities can tell lie after lie without any repercussion.

djrj477dhsnv 1y ago
How can you criticize those for voting Republican when you're advocating for the extremely authoritarian and dystopian position of banning anonymous discourse online?
- ActorNightly 1y ago
  Im criticizing voting Republicans because in practice, they are the ones that vote for people who are actually in the process of implementing authoritarian measures in real life. So when those people start talking about anything they deem as authoritarian or dystopian, its a moot conversation because they are the LEAST qualified to talk about those things.
heavyset_go 1y ago
> a big reason of the world issues, especially in USA is that ideas can grow in forums where people under etherial identities can tell lie after lie without any repercussion. See, I wouldn't have as much of an issue if you were honest about this real intention, because of how on the nose it is to reasonable people. The idea that I will have to upload 3D models of my face and ID, or get permission from Google, just to go online because you don't like the idea of someone else's kids using the internet is absurd. Please stop using appeals to children in your quest to "stop ideas from growing".

avidiax 1y ago

> it's so clearly a draconian slippery slope for invasive surveillance and choice restriction It's a privacy preserving over 18 check. Is it a "slope"? Sure, you can imagine an extension to the system that is "worse". Is it "slippery"? This thing isn't draconian enough to be effective. It will be a minor speedbump that prevents exactly zero determined under-18's from accessing anything that they'd want to. So then the question is, does the government react by trying something more draconian, or does it give up?

latentsea 1y ago
Things like this are a pain in the ass for GrapheneOS users. It's not great to get locked out of legitimate usage of things when using an OS that actually puts privacy first.
sunaookami 1y ago
Do you really think this will stop there? Websites need to contact an attestation server and the EU can just ban verification for any website they don't like.

Gunax 1y ago

It's just information. Data. Bytes. We need a proper George Orwell for the digital age. The internet used to be a bastion of freedom. That era ended around 2005.