541–550 of 655 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Things are, in fact, okay as they are, attempts to impose identity requirements would make things less okay, and people trying to claim they aren't okay need to be defeated.
Putting your head in the sand from position of wealthy privilege doesn't change the reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I saw a working payphone at Pinecrest Lake a month ago. Presuming you didn’t literally mean illegal, what did you mean?
You don't need to make libraries illegal to get rid of them, you just need to undermine their value and they'll be defunded and disappear. No passing laws necessary, just pubic ambivalence.
> You’re not happy about it, but you hand over a photo of your passport and hope it doesn’t come back to haunt you. I think for this argument to carry weight with voters, privacy advocates need to be much more specific about what "coming back to haunt you" looks like. They do a little bit of it later on[1], but I think most people do a rough cost benefit in their head and decide that the small benefit outweighs the s…
The biggest angle for me is censorship. You associate your online identity with your legal identity, there is no longer any recourse if you are banned from a platform. You could easily be arrested if your posts are determined to be 'offensive' in some manner considered to be in breach of the law, or simply have no ability to rejoin a platform under a new identity, or have identities across multiple platforms banned i…
Your defense against censorship and retaliation is not faux anonymity, but a functioning liberal democracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand why the act of buying internet access isn't considered a parental control. I doubt very many kids are doing it or can. Ok, but parents buy internet access and then let their kids use it, because the kids need it for school. So? The parents job is to keep their kids out of trouble. Learning how to keep track of what their kids access shouldn't be difficult, and maybe should be part of the obligation…
>The parents job is to keep their kids out of trouble. I challenge that anyone believes this, and for my evidence, I would submit all the age based laws that protect children regardless of what parents do. We have already, long ago, decided that it is the government's job to protect children, at least in cases where parents fail to do an adequate job. That's why I don't see this ending any other way. The march to tot…
For most of human history there were few, if any, laws governing how children were raised yet civilization didn't collapse because of that, and, indeed, there were no discernable effects. In many places parental-infanticide was even legal. Yet always parents did their best to keep their children safe in general, because that's what parents naturally do. Somehow its different now to you I guess but I fail to see why. Obviously some parents will do a poor job, that's true about every human thing. If people can't drive we take away their license. If people can't parent, however, we apperently have to bend everything in society to cater to their failure and create a massive surveillance state.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just off the top of my head, what if I want to use reddit mostly to talk about mundane things like local events in my city or technology and don't really care if that ties back to me, but I also want to ask about embarrassing health problems or just weird shit and I would rather not have that tied back to me? I should have no options without everyone in the world being able to easily find out about it? If some sites…
Isn't the entire idea that all sites and use of the internet should be tied to your real identity. Of not publicly displayed then at least verifiable by the state
I love the complete lack of reflection of the top comment in the website. > All those policies are created with one single goal in mind - to catalogue and enumerate ALL human beings on the planet, not just kids. 1. Your government already has you catalogued, you have a birth certificate, you pay taxes don't you? 2. All these platforms are doing exactly that, do you think you are fooling anyone with that nickname? (co…
- from "The frog cooking scrolls of the grannies"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> as anonymous digital currency and use cryptographic penalties like slashing Or make it so that tokens cannot be tested except by spending/burning them, which would significantly reduce (but not eliminate) a black market because it would be hard for any buyers to trust any sellers. The best outcome here is going to rest on getting people to agree that "good enough" is the best outcome. We want a system that gets the…
Yes "good enough" is right. At least until the issue become important enough to seek a full proof method.
I'm not talking about minimizing effort or deferring decisions.
What I mean is that there are conflicting and competing goals, where you need to accept that one of them must not be prioritized over all the others, because the overall outcome will be worse.
Do you think that this will lead to a new version of a alternative "internet" where people try to avoid the government control? And is that even possible? Or will we all just comply?
Ask yourself. I won't. Will you?