Hacker News Reader

Comment by hooverd | Hacker News Reader

You want full corporate control and mandatory remote attestation on your devices to comply with these laws?

I don’t think that’s where this goes. I think this leads to less internet use in general. Just like when Apple broke Facebook’s mobile tracking the ad dollars dried up and forced Facebook to scramble to find a new tracking mechanism which most agree is subpar and thus that revenue hasn’t returned. I’m hopeful that people spend less time in anonymized spaces that aren’t conducive to healthy discussion and relationships and instead seek out each other in real life.

There are benefits to reducing anonymity: accountability, trust, relationships, etc. It's why humans evolved to recognize faces so well. We decide who to trust based on experience. It doesn't matter who controls the identification process, so long as its done fairly. And if corporations or government misuse identification for self-serving purposes, we should certainly push back.

> And if corporations or government misuse identification for self-serving purposes, we should certainly push back.

The time to push back is now, before we give them this power.

There are also downsides to reducing anonymity - many more than benefits.

Like what?

Two off the top of my head:

- Chilling effect on political discussions. Good luck campaigning to overturn these laws if you can't do so without fear of reprisal from government officials or your local community.

- Limiting the ability for marginalized groups to seek support; LGBTQ youth, ex-mormons, etc., would be directly harmed by this.

Why would your local community attack you for campaigning for anonymity?

It doesn't necessarily have to be these laws, it could be anything, but to answer your question - they might paint me as somehow being "against the children", having bought in to the angle that these laws make children safer.

Just curious is the any different from what happens right now, when someone campaigns against something you disagree with? If someone online, pseudo-anonymously posts something that is perceived to be against trans rights or pro-life, there is already a mob of people working to de-anonymize and punish them for their wrong-think. How is it any different or better to have the current system?

> Just curious is the any different from what happens right now

Because right now you can be anonymous/pseudonymous? Of course people will try to unmask you, but I'm contrasting it in a world where you can't even attempt it.

But what’s the benefit if any time you actually espouse an unpopular opinion you will be unmasked.

There's a difference between _guaranteed_ unmasking, and not.

Thank you for your time.

Some people love being controlled

Reply on news.ycombinator.com