> 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.

> 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.

> 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.