Proton CEO warns global age verification push will mean "the death of anonymity online"
-
Who says we need or are entitled to a decentralized replacement for the modern internet? Communication can be accomplished with much less, and necessity is the mother of invention. We managed to communicate quite effectively by having computers intermittently screeching at each other through a phone line for several decades. This discussion is about the modern internet being cut off while they try to identify and root out persecuted populations and dissidents against the regime. Nobody said it was going to be fun and you will still be able to freely watch all the youtube your bored brain can handle while streaming video games on another screen. If that's your expectation, you might as well go sign up for the brownshirts right now.
Damn dude, you don't have to get so defensive.
Who says we need or are entitled to a decentralized replacement for the modern internet?
This is a conversation about how to circumvent government surveillance and censorship. If you can't see the connection to a need for decentralized internet structure, that's on you.
Also, you said this:
I don't have to worry about my ISP either because I live in a still-civilized country, but yeah, if they really lock it down at that level that's going to be tough,
Wow, good for you, your government isn't rapidly implementing a surveillance state like seemingly most of the world is right now. That's not much of an argument for why other people don't need decentralized communication, though. Check your freaking privilege at the door.
You also said this:
There are countermeasures and workarounds though. VPN, mesh networking, borrowing somebody else's wifi or mobile data hotspot, finding open networks.
In case you didn't know, mesh networking is decentralized communication. I merely pointed out that it isn't robust enough at this time to fully replace an internet connection, meaning it would be impractical to implement the fediverse over one.
Furthermore, VPNs can increase anonymity, but they still rely on a connection to their servers. Which means, under the current infrastructure, that you're still relying on your ISP. If the ISP decides to throttle all connections going through VPN servers, or if the government shuts down VPN servers, then you're still fucked. So that's not a workaround for the necessity of decentralized internet.
And, "borrowing somebody else's wifi or mobile data hotspot, finding open networks" still means going through ISPs, and the point of "age verification" which we're discussing is so that they can still identify you regardless. So that's not a solution.
Lastly, you also said this:
Maybe we'll get to the point where we need point to point links, pirate satellites, datajacking ourselves into communication lines, who knows.
In other words, you agree that there is a point which might necessitate decentralized internet infrastructure. Unless you fail to understand the topic entirely.
Communication can be accomplished with much less, and necessity is the mother of invention.
Yes, communication can be accomplished, but to what extent depends on your technological capabilities. Mesh radios work for simple text-based messaging with limited bandwidth. Ham radios work for voice. Both of which can be dangerous when a government is actively hostile to radio communications, but there are ways to minimize the risk.
But in the context of maintaining the fediverse when the government tries to eliminate anonymous web use, neither of those things are a replacement.
You might be able to extend a LAN-based intranet by daisychaining wifi receivers, but how far? It'll probably be limited to a few houses or a neighborhood. It won't enable global communication like the modern internet does.
You could pass around USBs to share wikipedia articles and similar databases, but there's no real-time access/communication and this locks out anyone not in the "in-group," so it's not a full replacement either.
So in order to maintain the fediverse and anonymity, you still need some sort of internet infrastructure, which currently is dominated by ISPs and cell carriers. Which, if the government forces them to identify users through verification, will no longer be anonymous. Hence, the need for decentralized internet infrastructure.
We managed to communicate quite effectively by having computers intermittently screeching at each other through a phone line for several decades.
Okay, so you want to go back to using dial-up? Over landline? Is that what you're proposing? Because even that goes through centralized carrier services which could easily be co-opted by an authoritarian government. Not a solution for the topic at hand.
This discussion is about the modern internet being cut off while they try to identify and root out persecuted populations and dissidents against the regime.
Get off your high horse. Yes, the discussion is about the modern internet being cut off. And you can't see how that relates to necessitating a decentralized internet infrastructure to replace the one being locked down?
Those "persecuted populations and dissidents against the regime" can only benefit from a decentralized internet, and you're throwing them out like some token virtue-signaling buzzwords to make yourself sound morally superior, when the argument you're making actively hurts those people by making it easier for the government to root them out in the absence of decentralized communication infrastructure.
Nobody said it was going to be fun and you will still be able to freely watch all the youtube your bored brain can handle while streaming video games on another screen. If that's your expectation, you might as well go sign up for the brownshirts right now
I can only assume this is projection on your part. Is the only use you can think of for a decentralized internet so you can watch youtube and stream video games? Really? Is your imagination that limited?
Funny that you should call me a brownshirt, when you're the one who began your comment by questioning whether we're even "entitled" to a decentralized internet. In the context of a discussion about the government's assaults on anonymity. Do you not realize how fascist that sounds?
-
This post did not contain any content.
That's why they're fuckin doing it.
-
That makes no sense, when the age verification is being pushed to the OS and ISP levels.
Sure, you can connect to Lemmy, and not have to prove your identity to Lemmy, but Windows users will have to prove to microsoft, and also you'll have to prove it to Verizon, or Comcast, or whomever your ISP is.
So before you even turn on your computer, you've already proved your identity twice.
The person you're replying to is not a serious person. See below where they questioned whether we "need or are entitled to" a decentralized internet infrastructure...
They clearly don't understand ISPs, and they seem to think their VPN and peer-to-peer networks would still work if the government decided to intervene by shutting down VPN and proxy servers, or if their ISP decided to throttle any connection it couldn't fully analyze and link to a verified identity.
And then they told me that I should join the brownshirts... for... discussing the need for decentralized infrastructure? They seemed to assume I only want that so I can watch youtube and play games, which is kind of weird. But the weirdest part is that they were virtue signaling about "persecuted people" and "dissidents," as if a decentralized infrastructure wouldn't directly benefit those groups...
-
Thank you. Now I just wish somebody at the government level would understand this and the implications of what this entails. Like maybe mention that all their weird online fetishes could be tracked back to them. It’s like this one company doing the “verification “ would be rolling in kompromat.
it’s all by design. they don’t want the general public to put it together that these are identify tracking surveillance system, just a carefree age verification to keep kids away from the baddies
-
Damn dude, you don't have to get so defensive.
Who says we need or are entitled to a decentralized replacement for the modern internet?
This is a conversation about how to circumvent government surveillance and censorship. If you can't see the connection to a need for decentralized internet structure, that's on you.
Also, you said this:
I don't have to worry about my ISP either because I live in a still-civilized country, but yeah, if they really lock it down at that level that's going to be tough,
Wow, good for you, your government isn't rapidly implementing a surveillance state like seemingly most of the world is right now. That's not much of an argument for why other people don't need decentralized communication, though. Check your freaking privilege at the door.
You also said this:
There are countermeasures and workarounds though. VPN, mesh networking, borrowing somebody else's wifi or mobile data hotspot, finding open networks.
In case you didn't know, mesh networking is decentralized communication. I merely pointed out that it isn't robust enough at this time to fully replace an internet connection, meaning it would be impractical to implement the fediverse over one.
Furthermore, VPNs can increase anonymity, but they still rely on a connection to their servers. Which means, under the current infrastructure, that you're still relying on your ISP. If the ISP decides to throttle all connections going through VPN servers, or if the government shuts down VPN servers, then you're still fucked. So that's not a workaround for the necessity of decentralized internet.
And, "borrowing somebody else's wifi or mobile data hotspot, finding open networks" still means going through ISPs, and the point of "age verification" which we're discussing is so that they can still identify you regardless. So that's not a solution.
Lastly, you also said this:
Maybe we'll get to the point where we need point to point links, pirate satellites, datajacking ourselves into communication lines, who knows.
In other words, you agree that there is a point which might necessitate decentralized internet infrastructure. Unless you fail to understand the topic entirely.
Communication can be accomplished with much less, and necessity is the mother of invention.
Yes, communication can be accomplished, but to what extent depends on your technological capabilities. Mesh radios work for simple text-based messaging with limited bandwidth. Ham radios work for voice. Both of which can be dangerous when a government is actively hostile to radio communications, but there are ways to minimize the risk.
But in the context of maintaining the fediverse when the government tries to eliminate anonymous web use, neither of those things are a replacement.
You might be able to extend a LAN-based intranet by daisychaining wifi receivers, but how far? It'll probably be limited to a few houses or a neighborhood. It won't enable global communication like the modern internet does.
You could pass around USBs to share wikipedia articles and similar databases, but there's no real-time access/communication and this locks out anyone not in the "in-group," so it's not a full replacement either.
So in order to maintain the fediverse and anonymity, you still need some sort of internet infrastructure, which currently is dominated by ISPs and cell carriers. Which, if the government forces them to identify users through verification, will no longer be anonymous. Hence, the need for decentralized internet infrastructure.
We managed to communicate quite effectively by having computers intermittently screeching at each other through a phone line for several decades.
Okay, so you want to go back to using dial-up? Over landline? Is that what you're proposing? Because even that goes through centralized carrier services which could easily be co-opted by an authoritarian government. Not a solution for the topic at hand.
This discussion is about the modern internet being cut off while they try to identify and root out persecuted populations and dissidents against the regime.
Get off your high horse. Yes, the discussion is about the modern internet being cut off. And you can't see how that relates to necessitating a decentralized internet infrastructure to replace the one being locked down?
Those "persecuted populations and dissidents against the regime" can only benefit from a decentralized internet, and you're throwing them out like some token virtue-signaling buzzwords to make yourself sound morally superior, when the argument you're making actively hurts those people by making it easier for the government to root them out in the absence of decentralized communication infrastructure.
Nobody said it was going to be fun and you will still be able to freely watch all the youtube your bored brain can handle while streaming video games on another screen. If that's your expectation, you might as well go sign up for the brownshirts right now
I can only assume this is projection on your part. Is the only use you can think of for a decentralized internet so you can watch youtube and stream video games? Really? Is your imagination that limited?
Funny that you should call me a brownshirt, when you're the one who began your comment by questioning whether we're even "entitled" to a decentralized internet. In the context of a discussion about the government's assaults on anonymity. Do you not realize how fascist that sounds?
Damn dude, you don’t have to get so defensive.
Wow, I guess I could say the same to you, huh? I'm not going to bother trying to explain the myriad ways you've misread and misunderstood my comment, go ahead and keep believing whatever it is you're believing right now, it doesn't bother me a bit.
-
Damn dude, you don’t have to get so defensive.
Wow, I guess I could say the same to you, huh? I'm not going to bother trying to explain the myriad ways you've misread and misunderstood my comment, go ahead and keep believing whatever it is you're believing right now, it doesn't bother me a bit.
I wasn't being defensive, I was merely dismantling your argument piece-by-piece.
And you can't be bothered to engage with my argument? I addressed yours in detail, and you can't even come up with a response? Sounds like someone who knows they've lost the argument, if maybe only subconsciously.
the myriad ways you've misread and misunderstood my comment
What way did I misread or misunderstand? Was it when you told me to sign up for the brownshirts? Or when you questioned whether we "need or are entitled to" a decentralized internet infrastructure?
I don't know, if you think I misread those things, then maybe the problem is that you didn't elaborate them very well. Cause it seemed pretty clear that you were hostile towards the idea of a decentralized internet infrastructure.
go ahead and keep believing whatever it is you're believing right now, it doesn't bother me a bit.
Oh, so you didn't read anything I said? Or you didn't understand any of it? And you can't be bothered to read something that might force you to reexamine your beliefs?
And then you tell me to keep on believing whatever I believe? As if I'm the one being obtuse. That's more projection on your part.
You know, plugging your ears isn't any way to win an argument. That's what fascist sympathizers do. This is exactly like trying to explain climate change to a republican.
-
That's why they're fuckin doing it.
I hate short replies that don't add much (so added more than agreed!) but I've always enjoyed being anonymous in forums, I'm quite a shy person.
Never was a jerk intentionally or anything just said my bit. But everyone possibly knowing who I was I'd probably say nothing ever. Fuck it I was private before I can be private later. But I'm old and recall before Internet when I had no (or little) interaction.
Like we all haven't seen data breeches over the years....oh it's the government that holds the master authentication? Fuck that shit is all. Nothing, from a person who does programming these days, like that is remotely better.
Some countries may be better but we're all democratic right? Takes a single election till shit stops working as a safeguard, then new ones in make a different law. The whole system was not built for current tech.
-
That's why they're fuckin doing it.
Never forget who is behind this
https://youtu.be/Yd7j_u-wPoM -
This post did not contain any content.
CEO of Honeypot declares water is wet
-
But does it have blackjack and hookers?
-
The good times are gone, fascism is back.
The US has always been an electoral oligarchy. It paints itself as a democratic republic to claim that it has consent of the people it governs, but the governed are given no real choices. Would you like to take a right hook or a left hook? Sorry, not getting hit wasn't an option.
We need to start demanding our cities and states use a ranked sortition approach. Put a lottery option on a ranked voting ballot and make politicians beat the lottery if they want to claim they're a legitimate ruling class.
-
I am old enough to remember when the internet was run by hobbyists and enthusiasts, companies were happy to pay "to be online" it wasn't riddled with ads and profits wasn't the default reason to create content.
Thems were heady days
You're kidding yourself if you think companies being online was ever about anything other than potential profit. At first it was just a way to reach a wider pool of customers. Like the yellow pages before. Then, once every company had an online presence, they started looking for new ways to monetize the connectivity.
-
I think fragmentation is great. Shows there's varied interest in the space and allows them to evolve. Let the best one stand the test of time!
A quick overview of the difference in the tech stacks:
Network Can run without IP? Can run without ISP? Primary Physical Medium Reticulum Yes (Identity-based) Yes Radio (LoRa/HF), Serial, Wi-Fi Mesh, Ethernet Yggdrasil No (Uses crypto IP) Yes Wi-Fi Mesh, Ethernet cjdns No (Uses crypto IP) Yes Wi-Fi Mesh, Ethernet I2P No (Overlay) Mostly No Existing Internet (TCP/UDP) Gemini No (Application) No Existing Internet (TCP) Isn't reticulum supposed to be really bad as traffic increases?
-
it’s all by design. they don’t want the general public to put it together that these are identify tracking surveillance system, just a carefree age verification to keep kids away from the baddies
It's never about the kids
-
That makes no sense, when the age verification is being pushed to the OS and ISP levels.
Sure, you can connect to Lemmy, and not have to prove your identity to Lemmy, but Windows users will have to prove to microsoft, and also you'll have to prove it to Verizon, or Comcast, or whomever your ISP is.
So before you even turn on your computer, you've already proved your identity twice.
They can't really do that or else their "Internet of Things" won't function.
-
My bad, auto completion and not rereading me did that.
Thank you, perfectly legible now.
-
This post did not contain any content.
They want this to keep track of your children, so they can traffick them more easily. Epstein class at it again.
-
The death of anonymity for most people, yes. Not me though. I'm going to make my own internet. With blackjack. And hookers. And protonmail too, probably.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Meta is pushing this so Zuck doesnt get sued for addicting kids. He can point his finger and say its the parents fault for kids seeing bad or addicting content. We are losing our rights and our privacy because a shithead like zuck doesnt want to get rightfully sued.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Maybe that asshole shouldn't have been supporting the fascists then...?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Εγγραφή Σύνδεση