←back to thread

596 points pimterry | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.207s | source
Show context
lifeisstillgood ◴[] No.36862777[source]
I kind of get both sides here. If we take the "see the best of others intentions" then a web that is populated by identified humans (and their authorised proxies!) is likely to be the "cleanest", most ideal web space we can see (a web full of sock puppets and link farms is not ideal).

The clearest end point for this is some government issued digital ID that just asserts who you are, acts as a login etc.

You can see this as a stepping stone to there. if you squint.

Is it the idealism of the 70s coke to life? No. Is it some sane compromise - I think so.

What if we cannot trust our government ? Sorry it is pretty sure that no internet is going to solve that. That's on the real world.

replies(10): >>36862946 #>>36863031 #>>36863074 #>>36863126 #>>36863250 #>>36863286 #>>36863456 #>>36863735 #>>36864436 #>>36871915 #
1. jauntywundrkind ◴[] No.36863735[source]
There is absolutely nothing to prevent troll farms from buying dozens of cheap trusted PC systems & using screen share to automate the heck out of these devices. Or plugging in fake mice/keyboards that directly feed input.

Secure hardware feels like it has no upside. It will not even be a speed bump for anyone spreading disinformation at any level of scale. It mildly inconveniences only extremrly unsophisticated/casual bad actors. And it greatly constrains who can make a browser and those with non-Trusted devices, such as Linux users or people who turn off Trusted Boot.