[specialist]

> The point of ID laws is not to stop "bots"...

Then make it the point.

The Internet is already all but dead. We could fix it (as I propose). Or we let it die.

I'm fine with either outcome.

> criminalizing dissent

When has that not been true? Serious question.

Socrates was compelled to commit suicide. Jesus was nailed to a cross. Journalist and activists are routinely murdered. How many political prisoners are there right now?

The outcome you fear happened a long time ago.

[hellojesus]

Yet we discourse here just fine. The internet isn't dead. It's just boring if you go to the boring parts.

[specialist]

> The internet isn't dead.

I was referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Internet_theory#Claims

> Yet we discourse here just fine.

True. But what makes HN an outlier?

[hellojesus]

Probably the lack of pictures. Maybe the moderation. Maybe the slight niche.

It could die if it becomes profitable to spamers. Or maybe it's dead now and one or both of us are llms.

But as long as the content quality meets my personal utility threshold, it makes sense for me to visit it, regardless of whether it is a victim of DIT. Ultimately it's probably up to webmasters to understand if the traffic on their site is either profitable or of a high enough quality to justify the operating costs of a hobby.

[specialist]

No ads. No algorithmic hate machine. Active moderation.

Two other fine examples of thriving online communities are metafilter and ravelry.

I'm sure there's many more on the web. I just don't get out much.

And many, many not on the web. Using discord, telegram, old school BBSes, etc. But, as dead Internet theory notes, they're not publicly visible and therefore not discoverable, not being indexed.