[BoxFour]

There are substantial incentives for practically everyone to adopt strong passwords, including yourself, even if it's just a temporary account.

The platform actually desires you to possess a robust password, given that hijacked accounts contribute to spam so heavily.

Many people often use the same "basic passwords" on multiple websites. If one of your temporary accounts gets hijacked all your other "temporary" (in quotes because some of them might actually be important) accounts, including older ones you might have forgotten about, could be exposed.

Essentially, there are hardly any valid grounds for any platform to permit the utilization of frail passwords, especially considering how effortless it is to create distinct passwords using a password manager nowadays.

[SanderNL]

I think creating a strong password and offering it once is better or am I overlooking something?

[BoxFour]

If you suggest making one powerful password and using it everywhere, then as soon as one website reveals your password all your accounts have been exposed. The usual practice is to remember one strong phrase and never use it for anything except your password keeper.

[SanderNL]

I mean if the website in questions generates a password and shows it (and then lets it go of course). This is used to show cert private keys for example. I can see it work with passwords.

I don’t care about passwords. I just want a “key” and I’ll store it.

[BoxFour]

Seems reasonable.

[robertlagrant]

Offering it once? Offering what?

[SanderNL]

The password, at account creation. Here is your password: ……

I have seen it being used for cert keys.

[robertlagrant]

Oh I see - the system generates the user a password? Yeah; makes sense.

[mrweasel]

> Essentially, there are hardly any valid grounds for any platform to permit the utilization of frail passwords, especially considering how effortless it is to create distinct passwords using a password manager nowadays.

One was just given: Users don't really care to create an account to begin with, so they provide throwaway email accounts and low security passwords. If the apps required longer, safer passwords, then they risk losing signups.

If I get a message complaining about my password being to weak, from a service I might not care that much about, then there's an increased risk that I opt to not create an account.

Apple solution is actually pretty good, it allows me to quickly create an account to try out an app or service. If I don't like it, meeh, they only have the Apple login info and nothing else.

[BoxFour]

It's clear that platforms don't view it as a major obstacle to registrations. Or, at least, not a hassle that weighs significantly against the issue of unauthorized access to accounts and, to put it bluntly, articles of this nature that tarnish their reputation.

Considering the ongoing trend towards the use of robust passwords rather than their abandonment, we can infer that either the impact on meaningful engagement hasn't been substantial or the decrease in signups is deemed overwhelmingly worthwhile in order to combat spam and other unfavorable aspects.

So, I stand by what I said.