Hacker News Reader

My first question to you is whether you are a pro-privacy advocate yourself, znnajdla. I don't see any biographical information listed in your profile so I'd initially assume that you value privacy on some degree. I am curious as to whether there are contexts where you want to be able to post an opinion through a pseudonym, without your ideas being easily tied to and subjected to judgments based on your legal name, your ethnic background, national origin, etc. Would you be willing to give up pseudonymity forever?

You speak positively about peer pressure, but on a basic level, peer pressure is power excercised against non-conformists. Robbers and abusers are non-conformists, but activists and reformers are also non-conformists. Peer pressure is often used in certain highly oppressive societies to enforce values I'd consider downright evil. Such societies take great care in limiting independent, anonymous access to digital tools and networks. Personally, I'd really like to keep living in a free society where there are ways to communicate and express non-conformist ideas without having to worry about who can easily stamp out such ideas. I think digital ID opens the way to oppressive societies which can wholesale block specific individuals' access to any effective communication tools. Digital ID us an overcorrection to a problem that DOES need to be corrected, but not in a way that destroys various essential aspects of free societies.

> I don't see any biographical information listed in your profile so I'd initially assume that you value privacy on some degree.

Extremely powerful entities like the CIA or NSA could easily personally identify me from my HackerNews profile if they wanted to, as could a dedicated attacker. The problem with "privacy" on the internet right now is that it's a lie - you only have privacy from your peers and ordinary citizens, but not from powerful entities. It would be better if we had a level playing field and everyone could be identified by everyone. Then the normal evolved human behaviours of trust-based social networks could function properly, and we could also fight AI-bot-based social media control, scam, and fraud.

It's not "privacy" it's "information asymmetry" which I'm attacking.

We will see how your opinion changes when someone steals your ID and voice and you end up being defrauded due to the government chosing the cheapest Indian shop to mishandle your data

Not going to be any worse than the oncoming onslaught of AI-powered scam, fraud, and hacks that are enabled by a lack of legal consequences.

There is a vast difference between being scammed and being defrauded. The latter can happen without any interaction with you by criminals using your leaked personal data. An AI empowered scam is just that. A scam can be avoided. Leaked IDs, voice and identity not so much

My point is that the data that you don't provide cannot be leaked

> would gladly support the shutting down of the whole internet if it would save the life of a single precious child.

We should sedate everyone and lock them in secure concrete cells, with food and water provided through tubes. My proposal will save far more than a single child from being killed. I really think the "pro existence" activists don't understand the scale of the harms, and how we can prevent them all by having everyone be permanently unconscious!

> Trust is primarily a function of reputation, peer pressure, and legal consequences.

The trust is somewhat of a one-way street. We are supposed to trust the entities in power. If we break their trust, there are consequences. If said entities break our trust, we can do little about it.

> I don’t see why anyone would want to remove any of this. To protect some freelance journalists in Iran?

For some, perhaps. However, I also would rather protect people from a potentially grim future. What is permissible and acceptable now may not always be the case in the future. The Holocaust, for example, only ended 81 years ago. The notion of another one, even against different groups, seems completely infeasible -- the same as the first one.

> I as a programmer who makes my living on the internet, would gladly support the shutting down of the whole internet if it would save the life of a single precious child.

Tone is hard to read in text, but are you be facetious? If not, you are essentially saying that you would support shutting down the Internet to protect even just one child. Yet, despite these real and active harms that already exists, you will continue to still use and profit off the Internet in the meantime?

There are several holocausts going on around the world right now. It's not completely infeasible for there to be another one. I doubt there's been a time in human history where there wasn't at least one holocaust going on.

The German one stands out only because they fought us.

I concur, but only if we sub genocide for holocaust. The two terms are similar, but not interchangeable. I think the distinction is important, but that should not detract from your main point.

You do have a point that Holocaust stands out because we fought Germany, but I would also argue that what makes the Holocaust unique was the speed and efficacy in which it was systematically carried out.

> you will continue to still use and profit off the Internet in the meantime

If I stop my internet use that won't save anybody, so there's no point in doing it. If shutting down the whole internet is necessary to save a life, I would support it. The only reason I don't is because that's not possible and even if it were possible it would not actually save more people than it would harm right now.

This reads like satire. Keep children off the internet, at the very least the open part.