Or, you know, they actually want to protect the mental health of people.

You may argue that the approach is bad (I would agree) but it's not because of some evil mastermind plot.

There's been some pretty clear information from countries enacting online ID laws that they want it precisely so that they can control discourse, not for any kind of protection. This isn't a hypothetical, it's the actual stated goals.

https://bsky.app/profile/tupped.bsky.social/post/3lwgcmswmy2...

> The U.K. Online Safety Act was (avowedly, as revealed in a recent High Court case) “not primarily aimed at protecting children” but at regulating “services that have a significant influence over public discourse.”

▲

barbazoo 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> There's been some pretty clear information from countries enacting online ID laws that they want it precisely so that they can control discourse, not for any kind of protection.

Please do share that information.

▲

cocoto 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Free speech violations in UK and the country pushing for more ID checks is a simple example.

	▲	barbazoo 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not seeing how it's an example showing that they're doing it "precisely so that they can control discourse". You could still argue that ID checks are done to partition content by underage/adult which for many is a reasonable thing to do absent any better solutions.

▲

JoshTriplett 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Edited the comment to include an example.

▲

9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]