In web of trust, anyone could publicly certify who they know is a real person (i.e. validate a link from their id to another id). Then, if you received a message from someone, the system would find the path in the graph of real people you trust, to determine the trustworthiness of the source. So if the account is a bot, there would be no path from it to you in the trust graph.
The advantage is that everyone could supply their own subjective trustworthiness score, altering the graph. They could even publish it, so that other people could use trustworthiness assesment of accounts they personally trust.
The big issue with a system of web of trust is that it is too efficient, and just kills commercial advertising (and also propaganda). Because that is all about overcoming the natural web of trust that humans have.
This is propaganda, none of those supposed networks exists or were successful in anything and when the media do show some supposed accounts they don't have a lot of views. Please stop falling for this, your democracy sucks because the politicians suck and the people want change so they turn to extremist parties.
Countries have been interfering in the internal workings of other countries for centuries, if not millennia. If you want to read up on more recent accounts of this, many of which predate social media, the book Active Measures by Thomas Rid is a good place to start.
Or you can continue to think that this is all just made up "propaganda" and we're all fools, but you alone have seen the light.
Wouldn't it be strange if solving a problem didn't affect elections?
The governments themselves are "dumber, sadder, and more scared". They are worried because social media puts regular people talking on equal footing to official propagandas (being able to reach everybody else). That's what they fear, because they have the lowest approval ratings and legitimization in over half a century, and they're also making everything shittier and shittier to the benefit of their corporate overlords.
The problem is the algorithm and the "explicitly suppressed and censored" and that's on the governments and corporations. So that's the worst argument for giving the government more control.
That argument seems easily debunked by pointing at the effectiveness of propaganda, which is in its essence indistinguishable from bots.
People have control over their government, at least in democracies that are functioning to a basic level (see Hungary recently). But they have zero control over social media, in fact the only organisations that can control global billion dollar tech companies are nation state governments...
But it's becoming increasingly clear how badly compromised the whole thing is with fake opinions and enemy propaganda.
I don't like either of the options. I don't like control by the state, and I don't like control by mad billionaires. I don't like the far right cesspool of 4chan, but can't disagree with their position that they shouldn't have to care about OFCOM.
While I agree with this statement, I thought there was some kind of requirement that OFCOM goes through a process like this before being allowed to ask for a domain to be blocked in the UK?
The latter is, I think, something OFCOM should be allowed to do with a restriction that it can only come after other options fail.
Imgur have gone the other direction: they have voluntarily blocked the UK (!), which is very irritating when trying to browse Reddit.
There's certainly a process, but not a good one.
(separate from all this, the Internet Watch Foundation maintains a blocklist which ISPs voluntarily follow, of actual CSAM.)
Until the process is complete, that's not evidence of inability, that's just the process:
Where appropriate, if a provider fails to comply with its safety duties, we can also seek a court order for ‘business disruption measures’, such as requiring payment providers or advertisers to withdraw their services from a platform, or requiring Internet Service Providers to block a site in the UK.
> There's certainly a process, but not a good one.
Indeed. There does seem to be a mutual non-comprehension of how the internet functions amongst lawmakers and enforcers in both the UK and the USA; both seem to act like they have more sovereignty over the internet than is possible without reaching much faster for a block order for sites outside their respective jurisdictions.
By forcing us to go through devices completely controlled by US companies?
Whitelabel/demo implementation specifically pushes FOR Google Play Integrity after being explained why that's a bad idea: https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/av-doc-technic...
Via: https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24452-eu-might-enforce-goog... which specifically quotes the law that should forbid such approach (Article 6(4) DMA) - so EU initiative and engineers consciously and intentionality breaking EU law in the prototype that is supposed to be replicated later.
That kind of serves as a proof to your opinion it's a boogeyman.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/musk-summoned-by-fr...
But they would gladly use that for more control.
That would be a very gentle way to express hurt feelings, not the way to treat a guy who knowingly does that.