←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 #
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 #
derektank ◴[] No.44572119[source]
You can create an ID card system that reliably verifies some sort of personal attribute (such as age) without revealing other personal information or a validation request being sent to the government which shares what sites you may or may not have been browsing
replies(4): >>44572218 #>>44572474 #>>44573688 #>>44574037 #
pjc50 ◴[] No.44572218[source]
I think the point is that "can" is not the same as "will".
replies(1): >>44572437 #
perching_aix ◴[] No.44572437{3}[source]
Because only people who are engaging in cynicism can predict the future.
replies(4): >>44573100 #>>44573433 #>>44574531 #>>44577823 #
secstate ◴[] No.44573100{4}[source]
Cynicism wins the day because negative outcomes are easier to plan for than positive outcomes. Humans defaulting to optimistic outcomes of the future often end up littering the ground with externalities that they failed to consider. And we also only have a single model for infinite growth (cancer) that always leads to destruction, so relentless optimism as a biological organism means a need for infinite growth, which we only know to be a path to destruction.

The answer, therefore, is not bitching on the internet about all the wet blankets who only see negative outcomes, but acknowledging that everything we know needs to end eventually including ourselves, and balancing optimism for the short term with cynicism for the long term. And thus discovering that a healthy cynicism for the future predictions is probably appropriate, unless you truly want to live forever and have infinite energy for everything. But that's a god.

replies(1): >>44573206 #
1. perching_aix ◴[] No.44573206{5}[source]
Easier to plan for is an interesting lens to look through, can't immediately discard it for sure.

From my perspective, negative expectations do have a higher chance of turning out real, but because negative expectations most often are just code for human misalignment. We have some philosophical, instinctual, or aesthetic (etc.) preferences, but then reality is always going to be broader than that. So you're bound to hit things that are in misalignment. It takes active effort to cultivate the world to be whatever particular way. But this is also why I find simple pleas to cynicism particularly hollow. It comes off as resignation, exactly where the opposite is what would be most required.

replies(1): >>44573453 #
2. secstate ◴[] No.44573453[source]
That's a fair counter argument, and I do genuinely believe (not know) that everyone needs a balance of cynicism and optimism to function optimally as a human. I also believe the resignation you feel from cynicism is rampant exactly because as humans we've become very good at basic survival and beyond that it's not totally clear what our targets for living should be. Certainly we can all agree that trying to harness ever more energy and growing forever can't be the target. But that's all we've done for two millennia now. How to we avoid becoming a cancer to our planet (or any other environment we find ourselves in)?