| I think this "solution" is the exact inverse of what is actually needed: Strong identity and attribution. identity need not be just an "individual". It can be a group of individuals that agree to mutually sign data before dissemination. Individuals, corporations and your toaster can create as many identities as necessary. Right now we are all living seemingly schizoid lifestyle because we are forced to partition multiple selves into molds that are being provided to us. The partitioning is necessary for organizing information. But the way it is partitioned should be flexible enough for the end user to have the ultimate say in what and how that information is curated. Currently, all we have are blackbox "algorithms." People are asking for transparency, thinking this will solve the problem. I think it will only lead to obfuscating the problem even more so. Until the individual has unfettered control, we will always be playing this game. I really wish conversations would wind back to towards discussing ideas tangential to the web of trust... I think that problem was hard to solve for a reason. Being impossible not being one of them... but an easy position to sell if you feared the consequences ultimately lead to a loss of control. |
With video and audio deep fakes we are rapidly approaching a world where anything can be trivially faked by anyone. As a result, anonymous information is becoming worthless. Unless the provenance and chain of custody of a piece of evidence is precisely known, it has a high and growing likelihood of being bullshit.
I do think there are roles for anonymity, but getting "the truth" out is not one of them.
What is far more important is selective privacy and the ability for individuals to define their own envelope of visibility and trust.