←back to thread

234 points gloxkiqcza | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
strken ◴[] No.44571994[source]
I'm in favour of A) a restricted internet with an encryption scheme based on state controlled hardware devices, like Estonia has, that's accessible by default from browsers, and B) an unrestricted internet that's available to anyone who clicks through a few scary browser warnings, but is generally regarded as weird, dangerous, and not commercially viable except for weird or dangerous stuff.
replies(2): >>44572065 #>>44573176 #
1. int_19h ◴[] No.44573176[source]
Realistically, the moment the two are decoupled, B) is going to be banned and blocked outright - and the more they are decoupled, the easier it would be to ban. By and large, the only reason why it's still possible to access "dark" content online is because it's so intermeshed with the more mundane stuff on infrastructure level that the most efficient blocking methods have unacceptably high levels of collateral damage.
replies(1): >>44576417 #
2. strken ◴[] No.44576417[source]
I don't see how you'd decouple one from the other, given that it's essentially just giving the user their own encryption certificate. Have the EU pass legislation saying that you can't request that the user sign anything unless they're in the process of making an account.