4 ms·

Yes, that's why we should deanonymizing the internet. Everyone should need a government-issued license to access websites. That's exactly what the modern societ

Yes, that's why we should deanonymizing the internet. Everyone should need a government-issued license to access websites. That's exactly what the modern society needs. (in case it's not super obvious, /s)

hypfer 16d ago
I hate to say it, but I do not see how else a nation state could act. The goal of a state is stability. The free, open, anonymous global internet otoh is a force of change. The west really liked that, back when it was useful to its geopolitical goals, but now, not only does it have outlived its usefulness, but also, it's suddenly being pointed at the west itself. At least I do not see how it could be any other way. You cannot simultaneously have high-trust and low-filtering in a space. I think a lot of confusion stems from the fact that this was actually always kinda the case. It was just not enforced by law, but by the fact that computers were weird, expensive and complex. As the technology matured, these core assumptions started holding true less, until, eventually, we've ended up where we are now. ___ This doesn't necessarily mean that we will have no more anonymous networks though. But they will be less global and less accessible. Thanks to open weights LLMs, we will have more capabilities within them than we did in the 90s and earlier, but, we will lack the leverage of tidal proportions that social media held. This, to me, sounds like the compromise to be found with the powers that keep the states we live in running.
fyredge 16d ago
But why not? I want to make the distinction on public and private speech. In the physical world, no one should ever have their private speech scrutinized, that's why there are laws banning covert recording. But in public, speech is very much moderated. We don't allow hate speech and we don't allow harassment of others. Social media is a public platform. We can't enforce moderation if we can't identify the abuser, they can always just make a new account. So deanonymize social media access, but for private communication? Let's leave that free from prying eyes. To bring it back to cars, roads are public infrastructure, that's why you need a license. No one cares if you drive licenseless on your private track.
- pjc50 16d ago
  I generally agree with this, but a problem I can't solve is: at what point does a "large group chat" become a "public channel"? If, hypothetically, someone is organizing a thousand people in balaclavas to turn up outside a business they want to intimidate, over Telegram or Signal, is that "private" or "public"? (also everyone in this thread saying deanonymisation does not on its own solve the problem is correct)
  - fyredge 16d ago
    I draw the line on discoverability. Reddit? Public. Hacker news? Public. 4chan? Public. Facebook and Instagram are also public with a slight caveat, private accounts will be considered private, otherwise public. Even ye old public forums are considered public. Discord and group chats will be considered private. Basically anything that requires an invitation / permission to view their content is considered private. To your example, I'm not sure if J6 members were organising publicly themselves. If the FBI wanted to, they could easily infiltrate these groups as an anonymous member themselves, so I don't see a contradiction there. Legislatively, it means that platforms will be held responsible for their public content, which I think is fair. If there are too much content to moderate, it's up to them to find solutions. I hear rumours of a promising automating tool called LLMs.
- halsafar 16d ago
  Not all internet usage would be deemed public. Social media sure. What about what you watch on PornHub? Should that be tied directly to your government ID? I know that's an easy one to cherry pick but just consider all you use the internet for and how an adversarial governmenft could use some of that info. Personally I'd love to see all social media corps required to verify ID but leave the rest of the internet alone.
  - hypfer 16d ago
    And that's how you get Minecraft letsplays on PornHub. Interesting question though, because IRL, before the internet, there was also ID verification to access that kind of content. And that was actually worse, because the person checking your ID lived in your city and could see you buying groceries. I suppose what you would want there is a verification mechanism that proves that you're an adult, but gives absolutely no info on which adult you are. This - to my understanding - is possible with the technology we have. But whether that will actually be what happens remains to be seen.
newsclues 16d ago
I definitely participate in a deanonymized internet social media platforms, especially for local issues, employment or niche hobbies. I also want anonymous internet, but having the choice between the two, for certain things may be great.

hypfer 16d ago

I hate to say it, but I do not see how else a nation state could act. The goal of a state is stability. The free, open, anonymous global internet otoh is a force of change. The west really liked that, back when it was useful to its geopolitical goals, but now, not only does it have outlived its usefulness, but also, it's suddenly being pointed at the west itself. At least I do not see how it could be any other way. You cannot simultaneously have high-trust and low-filtering in a space. I think a lot of confusion stems from the fact that this was actually always kinda the case. It was just not enforced by law, but by the fact that computers were weird, expensive and complex. As the technology matured, these core assumptions started holding true less, until, eventually, we've ended up where we are now. ___ This doesn't necessarily mean that we will have no more anonymous networks though. But they will be less global and less accessible. Thanks to open weights LLMs, we will have more capabilities within them than we did in the 90s and earlier, but, we will lack the leverage of tidal proportions that social media held. This, to me, sounds like the compromise to be found with the powers that keep the states we live in running.

fyredge 16d ago

But why not? I want to make the distinction on public and private speech. In the physical world, no one should ever have their private speech scrutinized, that's why there are laws banning covert recording. But in public, speech is very much moderated. We don't allow hate speech and we don't allow harassment of others. Social media is a public platform. We can't enforce moderation if we can't identify the abuser, they can always just make a new account. So deanonymize social media access, but for private communication? Let's leave that free from prying eyes. To bring it back to cars, roads are public infrastructure, that's why you need a license. No one cares if you drive licenseless on your private track.

pjc50 16d ago
I generally agree with this, but a problem I can't solve is: at what point does a "large group chat" become a "public channel"? If, hypothetically, someone is organizing a thousand people in balaclavas to turn up outside a business they want to intimidate, over Telegram or Signal, is that "private" or "public"? (also everyone in this thread saying deanonymisation does not on its own solve the problem is correct)
- fyredge 16d ago
  I draw the line on discoverability. Reddit? Public. Hacker news? Public. 4chan? Public. Facebook and Instagram are also public with a slight caveat, private accounts will be considered private, otherwise public. Even ye old public forums are considered public. Discord and group chats will be considered private. Basically anything that requires an invitation / permission to view their content is considered private. To your example, I'm not sure if J6 members were organising publicly themselves. If the FBI wanted to, they could easily infiltrate these groups as an anonymous member themselves, so I don't see a contradiction there. Legislatively, it means that platforms will be held responsible for their public content, which I think is fair. If there are too much content to moderate, it's up to them to find solutions. I hear rumours of a promising automating tool called LLMs.
halsafar 16d ago
Not all internet usage would be deemed public. Social media sure. What about what you watch on PornHub? Should that be tied directly to your government ID? I know that's an easy one to cherry pick but just consider all you use the internet for and how an adversarial governmenft could use some of that info. Personally I'd love to see all social media corps required to verify ID but leave the rest of the internet alone.
- hypfer 16d ago
  And that's how you get Minecraft letsplays on PornHub. Interesting question though, because IRL, before the internet, there was also ID verification to access that kind of content. And that was actually worse, because the person checking your ID lived in your city and could see you buying groceries. I suppose what you would want there is a verification mechanism that proves that you're an adult, but gives absolutely no info on which adult you are. This - to my understanding - is possible with the technology we have. But whether that will actually be what happens remains to be seen.

newsclues 16d ago

I definitely participate in a deanonymized internet social media platforms, especially for local issues, employment or niche hobbies. I also want anonymous internet, but having the choice between the two, for certain things may be great.