←back to thread

234 points gloxkiqcza | 1 comments | | HN request time: 1.352s | source
Show context
xandrius ◴[] No.44571816[source]
Shouldn't surprise absolutely nobody, once you become the gatekeeper of the Internet, you're going to gatekeep.

Now it's torrent sites and next it's going to be other things the party in charge doesn't like.

replies(3): >>44571870 #>>44571886 #>>44572140 #
gjsman-1000 ◴[] No.44571870[source]
About a decade ago, there were proposals for a "driver's license for the internet."

Nowadays... I actually think it might be a lesser evil. Picture such an ID, if there were a standard for it, enrolled into your computer.

If it were properly built, your computer could provide proof of age, identity, or other verified attributes on approval. The ID could also have micro-transaction support, for allowing convenient pay-as-you-go 10 cents per article instead of paywalls, advertising, and subscriptions everywhere. Websites could just block all non-human traffic; awfully convenient in this era of growing spam, malware, AI slop, revenge porn, etc. Website operators, such as those of small forums, would have far less moderation and abuse prevention overhead.

Theoretically, it would also massively improve cybersecurity, if websites didn't actually need your credit card number and unique identity anymore. Theoretically, if it was tied to your ID, it's like Privacy.com but for every website; much lower transaction friction but much higher security.

I think that's the future at this rate. The only question is who decides how it is implemented.

replies(6): >>44571968 #>>44571987 #>>44571994 #>>44572073 #>>44572106 #>>44648434 #
dingnuts ◴[] No.44571987[source]
oh good, and your authoritarian government can know you're in the closet and trying to figure out how to leave the country, too!

no, fuck this idea so hard. if this is inevitable, our duty is to build technology that defeats it

replies(3): >>44571992 #>>44572119 #>>44572246 #
gjsman-1000 ◴[] No.44571992[source]
Local ID Proofs =/= Surveillance
replies(1): >>44572032 #
dingnuts ◴[] No.44572032[source]
it absolutely will mean surveillance, unless you were born yesterday. governments will implement what you're describing in a way that is not privacy preserving

this is supposed to be HACKER news, not fucking bootlicker news

replies(2): >>44572056 #>>44572696 #
sophacles[dead post] ◴[] No.44572696[source]
[flagged]
1. int_19h ◴[] No.44573143[source]
The recipes and tools for bypassing these kinds of blocks (and far worse ones as well - compared to what Russia and China are doing, this is child play) are one search away. The only thing necessary is the desire to actually do it.