[JohnFen]

If we need a way to prove online personhood, then we've already lost. It means that the internet is no longer a place for humans and is, in fact, hostile to us.

I'm not saying that the personhood assertion is incorrect, only that it means something very bad.

[rekabis]

Plus, there is the issue of a surveillance state.

The crux is that only exceedingly large orgs - such as governments - can provide reliable and definitive identity services.

But when one of the largest democracies on the planet descends into authoritarian fascism, nerfs and outright destroys most of its democratic and independent pillars of government, and is two shakes away from a full-blown dictatorship (especially if it finds a way to delay or disable the midterm elections), any attempt by said government to implement surveillance techniques (age verification, flock, verified identity, etc.) should be met with extreme and even violent pushback.

Because nonviolent protest only works when opponents have a conscience. When they have none - and pretty much the entire Republican edifice is absolutely bereft of a conscience - non-violent protest is like digging your own grave and asking for a revolver to finish the job.

[0xdeadbeefbabe]

I agree. Maybe we have to sign a petition or something.

[arthurofbabylon]

“Already lost” — Culture doesn’t move towards an end state that is homeostatic, it keeps on evolving. The web will keep on evolving, digital tech and communications will keep on evolving. And as documented in the essay, there has in the past been a role for both identification and proof of personhood, and at present it continues to play a role, and in the future it will continue to play a role; this role shifts and changes, and good designs do emerge.

(I share your cynicism/pessimism regarding the state of the web right now, but as a realist I insist on recognizing continuous change and try to personally overcome the common “end state” fallacy/delusion.)