The only thing I’m slghtly concerned about is proposition #2. I hope that gets struck down due to its censorship potential.
IE. No ChatGPT for toddlers
The only thing I’m slghtly concerned about is proposition #2. I hope that gets struck down due to its censorship potential.
IE. No ChatGPT for toddlers
This is the definition of reactionary and I would ask you to think things through more calmly. There isn’t a binary between allowing tech corps that kind of control and mandating it at a government level. There are many ways to hold these corporations accountable and mitigate the harm they cause. I strongly believe that adopting their data mining tactics is not the answer.
I’m super calm about this. This is based on rational analysis and technical knowledge about how the framework for this can work.
I wish to clip the wing feathers of every single US tech giant spewing their right wing, authoritarian bullshit straight into the eyeballs of every democratic citizen in Europe. I wish to do it calmly, and I am convinced it can be done.
There is 100% a route to verifying identity without privacy invasion. EU’s framework mandates ZKPs and the trial states are building it accordingly. No one will know who is verifying, where they verify, when or what they verify. The site itself will simply know “this is a legit person”.
I’m giving you an upvote, of course, because I believe in rational debate even if we disagree.
I want the exact same things you’re wishing for so vividly and poetically, but could not disagree more with your binary “us vs them” nationalism or the methods you’re proposing. I trust the proposed certifying authorities exactly as much as the current techlords and think the same infrastructure with different leadership will still have essentially the same consequences. Plenty of the harmful bullshit these platforms push isn’t just authoritarian (do you see the irony of advocating for a certifying authority here yet?) but profit or just plain ego driven. Any central authority will have an agenda of some kind, and at best be corruptible. Rather than establishing a framework for institutions to verify the identity of individuals and monitor their activity in the name of safety, I believe the solution involves facilitating and protecting their unmediated, unmonitored access to one another
In the EU framework, the certifying authorities are the same that issue your passport, your driving license; the state. I fail to see the issue with allowing them to issue another proof of who I am.
The risk is tracking. The way the EU mandates this framework is built requires zero knowledge built into the system. Then you can definitely say “they lie”, but if you believe your government would lie about this, then you already believe they would lie about all the other million ways they could track you, if it wasn’t illegal for them to do so. You’re really not giving up anything you haven’t already given up when the national state was formed as a concept. And in this case we gain a lot, namely keeping profit and “engagement” out of having a conversation online. Eventually you have to trust someone - I’d prefer my democratically elected government (but I acknowledge that I live in places where I have that luxury).
Still can’t say I agree, but would like to thank you for the insight into your position and wish you luck out there