aka_

The id check already exists, they’re just planning on forcing social media companies to go through it.

In an ideal world social media would be decentralized and free of commercial purposes, just a public square. The stuff these people offer wrapped in social media is highly addictive, that’s basically where all the internal R&D goes.

My point is, I really doubt banning social media is democratically viable. It would get revoked shortly. Best thing we can realistically do is put in place the usual barriers and limitations we have developed over the years for other similar products and services: age, disclaimers, taxation, fines, and so on.

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.

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.

Yes, and not thanks to the internet.

You know the things that started happening everywhere in the democratic world from 2015 on or so though?

Turns out the internet as is doesn’t do much to advance democracy, but it’s great for destroying it.

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.

Worry not, they’re getting promoted as we speak. That’s the whole point of it: interested malicious parties and useful idiots.

“Not yet”

Spain was a dictatorship until the 70s and transitioned into a democracy without anonymous internet shitposting. The USA was a functioning democracy and transitioned into a shithole with anonymous internet shitposting.

Anonymous internet shitposting fixes nothing, it only damages the social fabric and pollutes the public discourse. That’s why foreign actors love to weaponize it.

Being a citizen of a free country comes with responsibilities: paying taxes, voting, expressing your opinions sensibly. Anonymous internet shitposting advances zero democratic values, it’s simply a great channel for conducting international destabilization campaigns.

It. Fixes. Nothing. If you’re as lazy as to need anonymity to post your opinions in a free country you’re going to overthrow no tyranny. You’ll just be fed psyops by others who will break your system.

Nobody would go to a political rally by an anonymous dude in a balaclava with a yank or russian accent, but somehow everybody loves to get their opinions molded by random anonymous, possibly paid and farm based, actors on the internet…

So does the government ban the news from criticizing them just because they’re not anonymous? That’s not the way it works in the EU. You’re very lost it would seem…