cross-posted from : https://lemmy.zip/post/59424100
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has called for an end to widespread anonymity on the internet, saying users should post under their real names.
cross-posted from : https://lemmy.zip/post/59424100
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has called for an end to widespread anonymity on the internet, saying users should post under their real names.
In the age of AI, without verifying the identity of people there’s no way to really distinguish AI spam. A trusted user under a well-known pseudonym might work, but that requires they build up trust anonymously and as time goes on that’d be harder.
So basically, the internet is dead without this, and it’s dead with it.
That’s a problem as old as the Internet. If you go through ancient forum discussions from 25 years ago, you won’t be able to spot the bots. It doesn’t take modern AI to create posts online. That tech has been around forever.
A Web of Trust/friend-of-a-friend system could somewhat work. Where every person has their own personal trust scores of others, including implied trust by navigating the graph. Global trust scores are susceptible to Sybil attacks, but local ones are more resilient (still susceptible though). Hyphanet seems to have a decent WoT implementation, though the user count is so low, it hasn’t really went through a trial by fire yet.
conspiracy theory time: “AI” is a psyop designed to manufacture consent for unpopular internet regulations such as this one. We used to take anonymity and privacy for granted and now every other website demands you to “prove you are human” (my instance is unfortunately no exception… its a necessary evil).
That’s a choice communities should get to make.
Hmm. Perhaps requiring PGP public / private keys could be used to show provenance without leaking PII helter skelter?
As in - you don’t need to sign your name per se but it can be traced back to you.
I might be talking out of my ®ear, but that might be a middle ground (if at all technologically possible).
The goal is mass surveilance. Sensible solutions are unwelcome. The current politicians need to be voted out.
A grim analysis…but one I fear has merit, based on priors.
To pivot briefly though: what are people’s feeling towards pseudonymous PGP?
Sometimes I think Mike Tyson had a point: “Social media made y’all way too comfortable with disrespecting people and not getting punched in the face for it”
There has to be a privacy respecting, non-surveillance state, yet “own it or retract it” method to posting on line. What we have right now… has not work out so well for us. As I see it there are 3 options going forwards -
The vast vast majority of human history had no social media and people were disrespecting others and not getting punched
We maybe have a different recollection of human history. “Talk shit, get hit” was pretty popular across the ages.
Perhaps I should have said “…disrespecting others ANONYMOUSLY”. I think that last little bit makes all the difference.
There is no middle ground to be found here because the reasons the government gives are ad hoc, they are to accomplish other goals they can’t be honest about.
They are the purveyors, and protectors, of many influence operations on the internet, and use their influence to help ban accounts those influence operations identify as hostile to their operations.
This is about crushing dissent, and controlling the population, and logging everything said or done or looked at and having ai threat detection parse it all and promulgate half baked conclusions to business and government to use against you secretly without you knowing, done for them by Palantir and their ilk at that.
Israel first always, but also climate and environmental protesters already, but there is no limit to it. They want to entrench powerful interests in power.