5 ms·

It's not implemented like that because the true goal of these laws has nothing to do with protecting children or age verification, and instead have everything t

It's not implemented like that because the true goal of these laws has nothing to do with protecting children or age verification, and instead have everything to do with completely eliminating anonymity/pseudo-anonymity online. They want to ID everyone, and have all user generated content attributed to a known, identified individual.

ericmay 8mo ago
I think it's mostly easy to identify anyone if you actually want to - if you buy anything online you are 100% identifiable for example. Given the pros/cons in context, I think I'm in favor of it for social media, at least. I'd actually argue you would want to go further and you should have your full address, employer, and more available online. LinkedIn is a cesspool of awful salespeople, but you know what it's not? A massive Russian/Chinese/Maga disinformation site. Maybe you should think twice before saying something online you wouldn't say while standing in front of your house or at work. Anonymity on social media has brought a lot of problems and I'm not sure what the benefits are. Some point to a small percentage of folks who would be "outed" but, given that the alternative seems to be an emerging dystopia of bots, malicious actors, propaganda, and more, maybe actual transparency is better even taking into account potential harmful effects. I'm open-minded on this and see pros/cons either way. Though I think if you find yourself worried about this stuff you can just delete your accounts and move on with your life. Trust me you aren't missing out on anything.
- cosiiine 8mo ago
  "Anonymity on social media has brought a lot of problems and I'm not sure what the benefits are" Anonymity is a shield against public lynching for communities that are targeted by hate groups such as LGBTQ+ (one example, there are plenty).
  - ericmay 8mo ago
    But that is happening today with anonymity, but then we have all the negative stuff too.
    - 1209178 8mo ago
      > But that is happening today with anonymity It would happen a lot more often without anonymity.
      - ericmay 8mo ago
        No it wouldn't. Accounts would be identified right so you would know that some account is a China bot farm or Russian military or whatever. And then when Jane down the street starts talking about the need to kill "insert group here" well you know who they are and you can go down and have a talking to them or tell their employer, or whatever. If you say crazy stuff maybe there should be repercussions. Today there are none. It has a moderating effect when there are consequences.
        pibaker 8mo ago
        > And then when Jane down the street starts talking about the need to kill "insert group here" well you know who they are and you can go down and have a talking to them or tell their employer, or whatever. This works the other way too. You tell others online "hey maybe we should stop killing X people" or maybe expose that X people are being killed without the public knowing and the people in favor of killing X people can and will ruin your life. We in fact saw more of this happening in the past few years than the opposite.
        ericmay 8mo ago
        That's just the messy fundamentals of democracy. I think it comes down to perception of what the threat is. I think groups like white nationalists, Antifa, pro-Hamas, pro-Russia, &c. are a much greater threat now than the potential downside of supposedly silencing people who "speak up". How valuable is speaking up anyway? It's all good to argue when you see the positive case or the one you agree with, but do you also give sympathy to folks who are "speaking up" about white replacement theory or "speaking up" about avoiding COVID-19 vaccines, or other such nonsense?
- trhway 8mo ago
  > Maybe you should think twice before saying something online you wouldn't say while standing in front of your house or at work. then I'd never say the things i'm saying about Russia/Putin as i still have a family there or in case US kicks me out back there.
  - ericmay 8mo ago
    Right, there are trade-offs.
    - trhway 8mo ago
      it isn't trade-off. You're supporting a systematic chilling effect on legal free speech.
      - ericmay 8mo ago
        > it isn't trade-off. Yes it is. > You're supporting a systematic chilling effect on free speech. No I'm not. ~~~~~~ There's no point in free speech if the only free speech is from bots and propagandists. Social media platforms aren't free speech platforms either, you're subject to their terms and conditions.
        EMIRELADERO 8mo ago
        > Social media platforms aren't free speech platforms either, you're subject to their terms and conditions. Sure, but this verification rubbish comes from the government.
        mindslight 8mo ago
        > There's no point in free speech if the only free speech is from bots and propagandists. Social media platforms aren't free speech platforms either, you're subject to their terms and conditions. You're absolving the social media companies of why they continue choosing to amplify bots and extremist content in one big "community", rather than working towards creating smaller communities that can have social trust and social regulation. That is the core perverse incentive here that actually needs to be addressed, and by sidestepping that you're then going off into the weeds with some mistaken idea that we can approach the problem by purifying who can use such websites.
- mghackerlady 8mo ago
  I do agree that most people are able to be easily identified, and that anonymity has created problems, but people should be able to both use the internet and remain anonymous as without the anonymous or pseudonymous transmission of information a democracy can't function and makes it trivally easy for the state to further limit the rights of an individual
- 1209178 8mo ago
  [dead]
- iamnothere 8mo ago
  Fortunately your opinion doesn’t trump the Constitution or settled law. Anonymous (or at least pseudonymous) speech has been a feature of American discourse since before the Revolution. Without anonymity, you lose whistleblowers, effective criticism of the powerful from the weak, and “public interest” leaks like the Snowden revelations. You lose outlets where the abused can ask for help and advice in escaping bad situations. You lose any/all criticism of employers current and past; who wants to hire a complainer? You silence people who are afraid to give their opinion because of their employer or parent. So no thanks.
  - ericmay 8mo ago
    > Fortunately your opinion doesn’t trump the Constitution or settled law. Neither does yours? This is a nonsense claim. > Anonymous (or at least pseudonymous) speech has been a feature of American discourse since before the Revolution. You're just cherry-picking which ideas you like from the founders or early America. Slavery was also a feature of the United States. Whether we had something in the past or not isn't necessarily a good enough argument to keep doing it. > Without anonymity, you lose whistleblowers, We can figure out other ways to have whistleblowers without social media. > effective criticism of the powerful from the weak, and “public interest” leaks like the Snowden revelations. Snowden, who is living in Russia. > You lose outlets where the abused can ask for help and advice in escaping bad situations. The only way to do this is on social media, anonymously? If so, we have a much bigger problem. An emergency, even. > You lose any/all criticism of employers current and past; who wants to hire a complainer? I complain about past employers all the time. I don't think you lose this. > You silence people who are afraid to give their opinion because of their employer or parent. I don't think so. And both left and right political blocks have gotten plenty of people fired, even those who post anonymously.
    - iamnothere 8mo ago
      > Slavery was also a feature of the United States. Yes, and it required a Constitutional amendment to remove it. You’re welcome to try and push through an amendment to limit free speech rights, but it won’t pass! > We can figure out other ways to have whistleblowers without social media. I doubt it! The media is mostly dead or coopted, and the powerful won’t willingly set up a system where you can rat them out. > Snowden, who is living in Russia. Yes, to avoid retaliation. Your point? > The only way to do this is on social media, anonymously? If so, we have a much bigger problem. An emergency, even. Good, you’re getting it. > I complain about past employers all the time. I don't think you lose this. The popularity of anonymous outlets for this shows that most people don’t share your opinion. It would have a chilling effect. > I don't think so. And both left and right political blocks have gotten plenty of people fired, even those who post anonymously. Thanks for making my point for me. It’s even easier to target people when they are not anonymous. A number of left and right wing commentators are having to pay for private security because of threats. The ones who successfully remain anonymous don’t have to do this.
- AlienRobot 8mo ago
  >Maybe you should think twice before saying something online you wouldn't say while standing in front of your house or at work. If you have to behave everywhere like you are in public, that is the very definition of having no privacy whatsoever.

ericmay 8mo ago

I think it's mostly easy to identify anyone if you actually want to - if you buy anything online you are 100% identifiable for example. Given the pros/cons in context, I think I'm in favor of it for social media, at least. I'd actually argue you would want to go further and you should have your full address, employer, and more available online. LinkedIn is a cesspool of awful salespeople, but you know what it's not? A massive Russian/Chinese/Maga disinformation site. Maybe you should think twice before saying something online you wouldn't say while standing in front of your house or at work. Anonymity on social media has brought a lot of problems and I'm not sure what the benefits are. Some point to a small percentage of folks who would be "outed" but, given that the alternative seems to be an emerging dystopia of bots, malicious actors, propaganda, and more, maybe actual transparency is better even taking into account potential harmful effects. I'm open-minded on this and see pros/cons either way. Though I think if you find yourself worried about this stuff you can just delete your accounts and move on with your life. Trust me you aren't missing out on anything.

cosiiine 8mo ago
"Anonymity on social media has brought a lot of problems and I'm not sure what the benefits are" Anonymity is a shield against public lynching for communities that are targeted by hate groups such as LGBTQ+ (one example, there are plenty).
- ericmay 8mo ago
  But that is happening today with anonymity, but then we have all the negative stuff too.
  - 1209178 8mo ago
    > But that is happening today with anonymity It would happen a lot more often without anonymity.
    - ericmay 8mo ago
      No it wouldn't. Accounts would be identified right so you would know that some account is a China bot farm or Russian military or whatever. And then when Jane down the street starts talking about the need to kill "insert group here" well you know who they are and you can go down and have a talking to them or tell their employer, or whatever. If you say crazy stuff maybe there should be repercussions. Today there are none. It has a moderating effect when there are consequences.
      - pibaker 8mo ago
        > And then when Jane down the street starts talking about the need to kill "insert group here" well you know who they are and you can go down and have a talking to them or tell their employer, or whatever. This works the other way too. You tell others online "hey maybe we should stop killing X people" or maybe expose that X people are being killed without the public knowing and the people in favor of killing X people can and will ruin your life. We in fact saw more of this happening in the past few years than the opposite.
        ericmay 8mo ago
        That's just the messy fundamentals of democracy. I think it comes down to perception of what the threat is. I think groups like white nationalists, Antifa, pro-Hamas, pro-Russia, &c. are a much greater threat now than the potential downside of supposedly silencing people who "speak up". How valuable is speaking up anyway? It's all good to argue when you see the positive case or the one you agree with, but do you also give sympathy to folks who are "speaking up" about white replacement theory or "speaking up" about avoiding COVID-19 vaccines, or other such nonsense?
trhway 8mo ago
> Maybe you should think twice before saying something online you wouldn't say while standing in front of your house or at work. then I'd never say the things i'm saying about Russia/Putin as i still have a family there or in case US kicks me out back there.
- ericmay 8mo ago
  Right, there are trade-offs.
  - trhway 8mo ago
    it isn't trade-off. You're supporting a systematic chilling effect on legal free speech.
    - ericmay 8mo ago
      > it isn't trade-off. Yes it is. > You're supporting a systematic chilling effect on free speech. No I'm not. ~~~~~~ There's no point in free speech if the only free speech is from bots and propagandists. Social media platforms aren't free speech platforms either, you're subject to their terms and conditions.
      - EMIRELADERO 8mo ago
        > Social media platforms aren't free speech platforms either, you're subject to their terms and conditions. Sure, but this verification rubbish comes from the government.
      - mindslight 8mo ago
        > There's no point in free speech if the only free speech is from bots and propagandists. Social media platforms aren't free speech platforms either, you're subject to their terms and conditions. You're absolving the social media companies of why they continue choosing to amplify bots and extremist content in one big "community", rather than working towards creating smaller communities that can have social trust and social regulation. That is the core perverse incentive here that actually needs to be addressed, and by sidestepping that you're then going off into the weeds with some mistaken idea that we can approach the problem by purifying who can use such websites.
mghackerlady 8mo ago
I do agree that most people are able to be easily identified, and that anonymity has created problems, but people should be able to both use the internet and remain anonymous as without the anonymous or pseudonymous transmission of information a democracy can't function and makes it trivally easy for the state to further limit the rights of an individual
1209178 8mo ago
[dead]
iamnothere 8mo ago
Fortunately your opinion doesn’t trump the Constitution or settled law. Anonymous (or at least pseudonymous) speech has been a feature of American discourse since before the Revolution. Without anonymity, you lose whistleblowers, effective criticism of the powerful from the weak, and “public interest” leaks like the Snowden revelations. You lose outlets where the abused can ask for help and advice in escaping bad situations. You lose any/all criticism of employers current and past; who wants to hire a complainer? You silence people who are afraid to give their opinion because of their employer or parent. So no thanks.
- ericmay 8mo ago
  > Fortunately your opinion doesn’t trump the Constitution or settled law. Neither does yours? This is a nonsense claim. > Anonymous (or at least pseudonymous) speech has been a feature of American discourse since before the Revolution. You're just cherry-picking which ideas you like from the founders or early America. Slavery was also a feature of the United States. Whether we had something in the past or not isn't necessarily a good enough argument to keep doing it. > Without anonymity, you lose whistleblowers, We can figure out other ways to have whistleblowers without social media. > effective criticism of the powerful from the weak, and “public interest” leaks like the Snowden revelations. Snowden, who is living in Russia. > You lose outlets where the abused can ask for help and advice in escaping bad situations. The only way to do this is on social media, anonymously? If so, we have a much bigger problem. An emergency, even. > You lose any/all criticism of employers current and past; who wants to hire a complainer? I complain about past employers all the time. I don't think you lose this. > You silence people who are afraid to give their opinion because of their employer or parent. I don't think so. And both left and right political blocks have gotten plenty of people fired, even those who post anonymously.
  - iamnothere 8mo ago
    > Slavery was also a feature of the United States. Yes, and it required a Constitutional amendment to remove it. You’re welcome to try and push through an amendment to limit free speech rights, but it won’t pass! > We can figure out other ways to have whistleblowers without social media. I doubt it! The media is mostly dead or coopted, and the powerful won’t willingly set up a system where you can rat them out. > Snowden, who is living in Russia. Yes, to avoid retaliation. Your point? > The only way to do this is on social media, anonymously? If so, we have a much bigger problem. An emergency, even. Good, you’re getting it. > I complain about past employers all the time. I don't think you lose this. The popularity of anonymous outlets for this shows that most people don’t share your opinion. It would have a chilling effect. > I don't think so. And both left and right political blocks have gotten plenty of people fired, even those who post anonymously. Thanks for making my point for me. It’s even easier to target people when they are not anonymous. A number of left and right wing commentators are having to pay for private security because of threats. The ones who successfully remain anonymous don’t have to do this.
AlienRobot 8mo ago
>Maybe you should think twice before saying something online you wouldn't say while standing in front of your house or at work. If you have to behave everywhere like you are in public, that is the very definition of having no privacy whatsoever.