As I said, having a government platform doing the encrypted id check means you would get the encrypted id check and verification, and the government would read your data (as it already does). Don’t try to sell fear.
And by the way, I’m registered as the owner and resident of my house that has an internet connection with an IP from which I’m writing, paid with my bank account, all of them well known to the government.
The only difference is you don’t know whether I’m an individual over 18 and a citizen of the EU or a sim on a multisim device in Vladivostok. And I think that’s not good.
And your point is? Creating an id check doesn’t increase the potential risk, the government already has all the data.
My question is, why do you want underage citizens to use social media platforms that a) have been proven to be damaging to their psychological health b) farm their data and store it far from our control c) don’t add anything to our economy.
I don’t want them to use it. I agree with all your points.
I strongly disagree that mandatory ID on the net is the solution to this.
It also fascinates me that you’d think putting such a tool, with all the trouble it could cause if our countries stop being democracies, in the hands of government as a purported solution to children being on social media. That’s throwing out the baby with the bathwater
The tool already exists and is used for serious stuff (dealing with the treasury department, police, banks, bond auctions), the only difference is you would be forcing mainstream social media platforms to get an OK from that government’s platform.
Sorry but if you can’t trust your country’s system as a legitimate large scale shield then there is no possible defense against multinational conglomerates and at that point you’re better off just going bunker prepper, I don’t really know what your point is. Democracy doesn’t stick in low trust societies.
There are other ways to ban social media for minors that don’t go through full fledged online IDs for everything. But you seem to want to ignore that, it’s a false dichotomy.
Banning social media for minors (or better yet, opaque algorithmic feeds for everyone) = Good.
Trying to achieve that by giving overreaching powers to a government, that can be used as a tool of oppression when democracy wavers = very bad.
As for low trust societies, mate, I’ve been gassed, beaten up and shot at with rubber bullets by riot police in Spain, for the egregious crime of peacefully protesting. It’s a country where the memory of the dictatorship, and it’s power structures, are still very much alive. Francoism never fully left
As I said, having a government platform doing the encrypted id check means you would get the encrypted id check and verification, and the government would read your data (as it already does). Don’t try to sell fear.
And by the way, I’m registered as the owner and resident of my house that has an internet connection with an IP from which I’m writing, paid with my bank account, all of them well known to the government.
The only difference is you don’t know whether I’m an individual over 18 and a citizen of the EU or a sim on a multisim device in Vladivostok. And I think that’s not good.
A government platform you say? From the government that regularly gets hacked, leaking the IDs of millions of Spanish citizens that can now be used to commit identity fraud? https://hipertextual.com/seguridad/hackers-venta-millones-dni-espanoles-dark-web/
and it’s not like this is a rare thing to happen.
And your point is? Creating an id check doesn’t increase the potential risk, the government already has all the data.
My question is, why do you want underage citizens to use social media platforms that a) have been proven to be damaging to their psychological health b) farm their data and store it far from our control c) don’t add anything to our economy.
Care to explain? Because it really fascinates me.
I don’t want them to use it. I agree with all your points.
I strongly disagree that mandatory ID on the net is the solution to this.
It also fascinates me that you’d think putting such a tool, with all the trouble it could cause if our countries stop being democracies, in the hands of government as a purported solution to children being on social media. That’s throwing out the baby with the bathwater
The tool already exists and is used for serious stuff (dealing with the treasury department, police, banks, bond auctions), the only difference is you would be forcing mainstream social media platforms to get an OK from that government’s platform.
Sorry but if you can’t trust your country’s system as a legitimate large scale shield then there is no possible defense against multinational conglomerates and at that point you’re better off just going bunker prepper, I don’t really know what your point is. Democracy doesn’t stick in low trust societies.
There are other ways to ban social media for minors that don’t go through full fledged online IDs for everything. But you seem to want to ignore that, it’s a false dichotomy.
Banning social media for minors (or better yet, opaque algorithmic feeds for everyone) = Good.
Trying to achieve that by giving overreaching powers to a government, that can be used as a tool of oppression when democracy wavers = very bad.
As for low trust societies, mate, I’ve been gassed, beaten up and shot at with rubber bullets by riot police in Spain, for the egregious crime of peacefully protesting. It’s a country where the memory of the dictatorship, and it’s power structures, are still very much alive. Francoism never fully left