91–100 of 113 posts
Banning them is in the right direction even at the cost of any deanonym. A dozen entities, both public and private, know us very well already. They know that eveyone watches porn, now they will know how offen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
de iure yes, prosecution would need to prove you was actually using the computer which posted whatever online
> de iure De jure?
https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/de-jure-or-de-iure.4...
So... de-facto mass deanonymisation of all Spanish social media users? I see a lot of supporters of these policies either not acknowledge that you can't identify under-16yo without identifying over-16yos.
> So... de-facto mass deanonymisation of all Spanish social media users? So all Spanish social media users are currently anonymous? I do not think so.
So... de-facto mass deanonymisation of all Spanish social media users? I see a lot of supporters of these policies either not acknowledge that you can't identify under-16yo without identifying over-16yos.
False dichotomy. Plenty of governments have a digitalised id/login service to log into the tax office, government portals, whatever. This is usually also offered as a "single sign-on". After signing on, the website can request any piece of information, the list of those pieces is presented to the user, who clicks Accept or Go Back. Pretty standard stuff. Meaning: these websites simply need to request 2 pieces of data…
Via the UUID. Also via the fact that the authentication service sees what you're logging into, regardless of whether the social media site does or not.
This isn't complicated. It's obvious if you're not desperately trying not to think about it.
This is really globally coordinated, isn't it? I'm just not sure why now and not previously. Is it just that Twitter went over the toxicity threshold that everyone noticed?
They will end up banning sites allowing purely anonymous comments. (This might include HN.) This is the consequence of the ambition that is already clearly anounced by the opposition leader Magdalena Andersson of the social democrats.
These anonymous comments are incidentally their current worst enemy. The are really good at amplifying stories that the 3 (three!) national news publishers (government/public service, Bonnier News, Schibsted) decide to ignore or deamplify for ideoleogical reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not preemptive cynicism. My issue isn't with private corporations having access to my data, it's with my government having access to my social media profile.
How does that follow? I don’t see the connection. Zero trust age verification means both sides don’t have to learn anything about each other beyond old enough yes/no. Should mean that. I’m fine with age verification if it fulfills at least the same criteria that offline age verification does. When you show your ID card in a supermarket to buy alcohol or cigarettes or whatever then the government doesn’t learn anythin…
Well, it doesn't. Absolutely none of the systems people are putting into place, or suggesting putting into place, are actually zero trust. The ones that claim to be are "somewhat lower trust if you don't think hard about how to exploit them". Yes, we know in theory how to do zero trust. The reality of these mandates is that people can easily get de-anonymized to all kinds of actors who should't be able to identify them.
It's also a "solution" to a massively exaggerated problem, one that's not in any way specific to any given age group. But that's unrelated to the fact that nobody is, in practice, doing or planning to do anything privacy-preserving.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its not preemptive, more like reactive, track record is bad and current PM is enshrouded in corruption, so do the maths.
Social media is toxic to kids (and adults, but that’s a different matter), extraordinary measures are called for, even with risks. It’s hyper optimized to be the equivalent of a drug, and should be regulated as such.
So... de-facto mass deanonymisation of all Spanish social media users? I see a lot of supporters of these policies either not acknowledge that you can't identify under-16yo without identifying over-16yos.
I’ve stopped using Facebook a long time ago, but started using a similar locally made social media app/site, which is based on logins tied indirectly to national ID. Holy crap it’s so much better. Only real people. No bots or scams. Even the ads are better. Actual relevant local businesses. And people hesitate before writing nasty comments. Not that I’m using it a lot, I’m still not a big social media guy, but having groups for the neighbourhood or town is nice for becoming aware of events and such happening nearby.
I still have the Facebook account for now. There’s a group or two I need to check in on sometimes. Every time I log in I get so confused why anyone would still use it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Social media is toxic to kids (and adults, but that’s a different matter), extraordinary measures are called for, even with risks. It’s hyper optimized to be the equivalent of a drug, and should be regulated as such.
Mass surveillance is toxic too. Choose your poison.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You need ID to buy cigarettes and alcohol, prescription drugs or to get sim card... you will need it to register for social network account... do not seem as big of a deal to me. Even less when considering all the positives.
When I show my ID at the cash register I assume the person working there doesn’t instantaneously memorize all my details and then write down when exactly I was at the shop, along with other details, to use this info later for their own reasons. Whereas if I upload my ID to a tech company (that potentially answers to both my own government and foreign governments, as well as having its own ad-related agenda) I am a bi…
"A bit less certain" is a really mild way of putting it. I'd be confident that whatever ID I upload to the Internet is going to be stored forever, shared with "partner" companies, linked with as much data about me as those partner companies can find, and then eventually leaked in a security breach, resulting in the company issuing a press release telling everyone they "Take Security Very Seriously."