[b112]

I agree with much of what you say, except the timing is a bit off. It's really only been 20 to 15 years since the "average person" even knew what that "Internet thing" was. It was the early 2000s, and later where it really took off for Average Joe.

The problem here though, isn't what you or I think. I expressed dislike, as you do. The problem is, what's the average person think? And more importantly, those being elected to legislative bodies? They see this recent change, this change that's really only been around for a few turns of the legislative cycle, as complete lawlessness. And they don't really see or understand issues with tracking.

And when I talk to the average mobile phone owner about tracking, their eyes glaze over. So there will be no help here, either.

So tracking will happen, at least that's the framework I'm talking about. If not, well then this discussion is meaningless. But I have seen courts push back over and over about governmental tracking, about police going too far in their tracking, yet I have seen very little, comparatively, push back about tracking on the corporate side. And we need to be honest here, in both cases private enterprise will manage the infrastructure which handles tracking, it's just who handles the "who is this person" portion. State or corporate.

I know you just want it to remain as it is, but I'm sorry that's over. It's not as if I'm advocating this change, I'm saying it's going to happen. There's a difference. I don't want a tornado to touch down near my house, but I'm not going to close my eyes if it's about to happen.

If you don't want this to happen, you're going to have to engage, or someone is, those two bodies of people I mentioned. Those elected to legislative bodies. And the Average Joe. From what I can see, the first wants this, the second doesn't even understand any part of the discussion.

[tavavex]

> It's really only been 20 to 15 years since the "average person" even knew what that "Internet thing" was. It was the early 2000s, and later where it really took off for Average Joe.

When I brought up the 30 year figure, I was talking about the internet becoming more widely available, but still not mainstream or expected. I'm just trying to convey how long it's been around. Partially to illustrate that the equation hasn't changed in a long while, at least for a decade. Why did past attempts to control the entire internet with a heavy hand fail? They were tried extensively in the 2010s, and the 2000s, a few even before that. And now in 2026 we finally find the one worst thing ever that every government is suddenly in agreement over, moving in complete global lockstep, and everyone more or less knows that it will be forced on us no matter what.

I never disagreed about the probability of it happening, I was just trying to provide some points that probably led you to disagree with these measures, putting them into specifics instead of just a vague dislike that's expected of most tech enthusiasts like us.

> But I have seen courts push back over and over about governmental tracking, about police going too far in their tracking, yet I have seen very little, comparatively, push back about tracking on the corporate side. And we need to be honest here, in both cases private enterprise will manage the infrastructure which handles tracking, it's just who handles the "who is this person" portion. State or corporate.

This feels like you're talking about a specific country. Many nations will roll their own government-controlled identity systems, some already have the groundwork set up for it. The way courts react also depends on the nation, but a big problem for privacy legislation is that it's difficult to compel a foreign megacorporation not to do something, especially if you need their host nation as an ally. Either way, we've already been living under a corporate tracking regime for a while. If the identity system is controlled by the companies, at least it leaves gaps that can be filled by people who think otherwise, and it won't be linked to the data that governments already have on us. Companies also only exercise soft power for now, they can't physically force you to comply, although as we trend towards full monopolism, they sure can make your life hell. Even then, the disorganization still makes me think we should go with the private approach for this specific thing.

> I don't want a tornado to touch down near my house, but I'm not going to close my eyes if it's about to happen.

Does it matter how you react to it if you know it's going to obliterate you and everything you can see? If there's no escape, then that's that. Talking about convincing legislators and average Joes is self-soothing, because no one cares about us. People can't get their governments to do things that are much more popular than this, no one is in control. The best we can hope for is that we'll have some spare droplets of the free web left after all is said and done, because some nations will not care and create gaps in the system, especially if we don't get perfect great firewalls. But when every byte is attributable to you personally for every stranger who thinks to ask, it will truly be over. I've more or less accepted that we're going into a bleak world with very few worthwhile things left.