> there is a lot of coordinated astroturfing.

Interesting. Are you saying all the concerns raised by the proponents of ID verification are invalid and meritless? For example,

1. Foreign influence campaigns

2. Domestic influence campaigns

3. Filtering age-appropriate content

I’m sure there are many other points with various degree of validity.

▲ hellojesus 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If you drive out everyone with identity filters, those folks will naturally flock to sites run in nations without the same controls. I don't think you really solve anything except to push traffic elsewhere.

Instead it would be more appropriate to let sites pass headers, such as "we have adult content", thst you could filter on the network or client side. It's still voluntary, of course. Anyone will just visit sites that don't have the checks if necessary.

▲ simoncion 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Interesting. Are you saying all the concerns raised by the proponents of ID verification are invalid and meritless?

In the US, #1 and #2 are invalid and meritless. Wholly and without reservation. One of the huge reasons for the First Amendment is to ensure that people are able to counter lies uttered in the public sphere with truth.

#3 is handled by parental controls that have existed in mainstream OSs for quite some time now. [0][1][2] However, those preexisting parental controls don't justify additional expansion of the power and influence of authoritarians, so here we are.

[0] <https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/family-safety>

[1] <https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/set-up-content-and-...>

[2] <https://support.google.com/android/answer/16766047?hl=en-rw>

▲ reliabilityguy 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> In the US, #1 and #2 are invalid and meritless. Wholly and without reservation. One of the huge reasons for the First Amendment is to ensure that people are able to counter lies uttered in the public sphere with truth.

How does digital ID prevents you from speaking out? For example, 2nd amendment requires a lot of hoops in some jurisdictions, which were deemed constitutional, and not violating 2nd amendment. Same with the 1st amendment. You can argue that with digital IDs there will be less privacy and anonymity than before, but it’s a different story.

Moreover, influence campaigns are not about truth or lies, but about making the public loose face on the institutions. A good example of it today is Russia, where the public does not believe that democratic elections are possible at all, in principle.

> #3 is handled by parental controls that have existed in mainstream OSs for quite some time now.

It is not handled perfectly at all, and easily bypassed. To pretend that information access on the internet can be regulated through parental controls is ridiculous.

	▲	simoncion 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> How does digital ID prevents you from speaking out? What? In the US, arguments #1 and #2 are entirely invalid and meritless. As I mentioned: `One of the huge reasons for the First Amendment is to ensure that people are able to counter lies uttered in the public sphere with truth.` You address lies with truth. I don't see what requiring videos of your face and photo ID has to do with this. > A good example of it today is Russia, where... We're talking about the US. Many other governments (and governed people) do not agree that freedom of speech is important or even desirable. > It is not handled perfectly at all, and easily bypassed. For quite some time now it has been handled at least as well as these new schemes that authoritarians (and those that profit from their actions) are strong-arming companies into preemptively complying with. > Moreover, influence campaigns are not about truth or lies, but about making the public loose face on the institutions. If the institution that's being actually damaged by losing face [0] is (or is intimately associated with) one that has spent the last many decades normalizing the replacement of cogent political discussion with Twitter-grade zingers and ragebait, and is now finding it difficult to engage in cogent discussion then, well, they've made the bed they're now forced to lie in. The way out of that bed is sustained, good faith, cogent discussion, rather than building dossiers and the automated infrastructure for information restriction. But, in truth, most of the folks pushing these systems aren't interested in cogent discussion and are arguing for them in some combination of ignorance and bad faith. [0] As is often the case in matters like this, I expect the claimed damage is far, far greater than the actual damage.

▲ inigyou 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]