[mschuster91]

> Which is why I have a conspiracy theory about why conspiracy theorists are against "digital ID".

Even if you're not a tinfoil hat wearer, "digital ID" projects are fraught with issues:

- private ones can instantly and permanently revoke your access for whatever reason they believe. Facebook, Google and Twitter have shown that often enough. Or they can go out of business like many OpenID providers which is even worse - you can, given enough resources, even hold Internet giants accountable, but it's impossible to resurrect a shuttered service once they delete their keyrings. Or they can use information about which services you use to push even more detailed ads.

- public (i.e. government-run) ones... you don't want your government to know which porn you watch, you don't want the government to be able to know what you're writing on Reddit, and you don't want the government to be able to take away your access to your (digital) assets on a whim like the Canadian government did by freezing the bank accounts of COVID deniers (note: I support actions against COVID deniers, but that's going way more than a few steps too far).

[justeleblanc]

I quite frankly don't care if the government knows what porn I watch. I'm really tired of this puritanical-inspired take on privacy. Always the same examples.

Freezing assets is completely different, but I don't see how that's relevant in the context. You're just waving the vague feeling that government is this evil omnipotent being.

[mschuster91]

> I quite frankly don't care if the government knows what porn I watch. I'm really tired of this puritanical-inspired take on privacy.

The thing is, invasive acts against civic freedoms tend to be started going against sex workers or be justified with sexuality/morals. Just look at Florida and the book bans or how sex work is criminalized in a lot of countries, including wide parts of the US. Why should I trust a government with my porn when it deems it necessary to determine under which conditions two adults can have consensual sex?

> Freezing assets is completely different, but I don't see how that's relevant in the context. You're just waving the vague feeling that government is this evil omnipotent being.

I'm German. My ancestors abused innoucuous data registers to have precise lists on who was to be transported off to gas chambers, less than a hundred years ago. I live less than 20km from the KZ Dachau, where the Nazis murdered tens of thousands of people. That gives a pretty harsh view on just how evil governments can become if citizens do not care.

[jrapdx3]

Many years ago I visited Dachau, truly an eye-opening experience. I'm certain many Germans did care what was happening but they were quickly silenced or intimidated, ultimately powerless to stop the horrific actions of the government. I do agree that governments do not always act in the interests of citizens. Often enough there's little basis for trusting officials or the bureaucracies that rule everywhere.

[Pxtl]

Emergencies Act was 100% necessary because the Canadian gov't does not have access to the kind of internal forces that the US does. They have to rely on municipal and provincial police forces who'd shown total disinterest in doing their jobs. The inquiry found that.

And the existence of digital ID doesn't mean it's mandatory for systems to use it. Why would a porn site want to authenticate their users against digital ID? And if some porn sites don't, why would anybody patronize one that did?

What matters is that the option needs to be there - people running a service need to be able to say "I want to be able to know which of my users are real humans, and to be able to revoke said humans permanently if necessary".

[mschuster91]

> They have to rely on municipal and provincial police forces who'd shown total disinterest in doing their jobs. The inquiry found that.

Well, the solution is to take over municipal and provincial police forces and make sure they do their jobs. The solution is not to freeze people's bank accounts.

> Why would a porn site want to authenticate their users against digital ID? And if some porn sites don't, why would anybody patronize one that did?

Because this is the situation in Germany and IIRC also the UK. (Guess the number of German porn sites Germans use - next to none)

> What matters is that the option needs to be there - people running a service need to be able to say "I want to be able to know which of my users are real humans, and to be able to revoke said humans permanently if necessary".

It's precisely the other way around. People should demand they can use any legal service anonymously, and it should be the default option to keep as much of a service anonymously usable - in fact, this is one of the core principles of the GDPR, to minimize the data anyone has.

[Pxtl]

To consume? Yes, I agree that should be anonymous. But to contribute? It's ridiculous to demand that a provider be willing to host your content, even simple comments, without knowing who you are.

> Well, the solution is to take over municipal and provincial police forces and make sure they do their jobs

Uh, I suspect you had a different opinion about how the government should keep law enforcement at arm's length when it was about the Attorney General.

[mschuster91]

> To consume? Yes, I agree that should be anonymous. But to contribute? It's ridiculous to demand that a provider be willing to host your content, even simple comments, without knowing who you are.

That is precisely why virtually all countries have privileges for services hosting user-generated content on the Internet.

Unfortunately, both wide parts on the right and less wide but still significant parts of the left want to cut that privilege in the US, and that is Just Not Good At All.