That's just a means of banning social media for everyone, which is even better than banning it for teens.

TheOtherHobbes 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

No, it's a means of removing anonymity so promoters of ideologically unsound sentiment can be identified.

	▲	mitxela 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Promoting it on billionaire owned platforms was always a losing battle - it makes you controlled opposition. When those platforms fall, we can have true ideological competition.

▲

bakugo 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

How so? Do you believe the average person will think twice when TikTok asks them to submit a picture of their ID? No, they'll do it without a second thought so they can go back to mindlessly scrolling through the slop.

The ones who will think twice are exactly the sort of people these laws are intended to punish: the dissenters, the wrong-thinkers, those who must be silenced. Either they choose not to verify and cease to use social media (successfully silenced), or they allow their wrong thoughts to be tied to their identity, such that they can be identified and punished accordingly.

	▲	fyredge 8 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		True as that may be, I find it unconvincing as it is the same argument that is used against teen bans. Do you believe the average parent will think twice when allowing their children to use social media? No, they'll do it without a second thought so they their children will stop pestering them about it. The ones who will think twice will have to see their children ostracized because all the cools are on it except themselves. I lean towards teen bans. We already have the same framework for cigarettes and alcohol. They didn't prevent teenage consumption 100% anyways but they did their job
	▲	mitxela 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Then the networks will be full of solely slop, and will have no value. Look at Reddit right now - who still uses it? Only people who mainly hang out in subreddits the slop hasn't caught up with yet.