The UK's War on Anonymity Has Come to America

> These NGOs have converged upon a unified strategy: use the rhetoric of ‘child safety’ to advocate for digital ID laws that would prevent adults from using the internet anonymously.Of course.Anyone who brings up kids is trying to manipulate you into giving up your freedom for security. Whatever argument they make should be simply ignored and dismissed. reply: Worth noting that there's no security in a system that abusively collects your data. That goes for children as well.

HN has this guideline for comments:> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says.If the same standard were applied for posts, this one would fail. I recognize that it is a popular perspective that these measures are essentially a war on anonymity, but that is not what they intend to fix, although it is quite possible that anonymity is a casualty of whatever war is at hand.I believe efforts to resist these measures would be more effective if they engaged with the problem: the modern internet is a harmful experience for young minds, beyond what any society should consider acceptable. I personally don't think shocking content is the worst of it. Algorithms that maximize engagement over enriching experience are a curse for any age group, and developing brains face the worst of it.Is age-gating the internet the right answer? Will it even help? Those are open questions that need discussion. Dismissing a genuine problem is choosing not to engage in the discussion. reply:...

Digital ID is fully stalled in the UK. Will not happen in this parliamentary term, seems not that likely in the next.I’m sure the shining city on the hill can see off us perfidious Brits.

Like it or not, there is a large constituency who wants to “protect the children”.By demonizing them and failing to engage with the worries over social media and pornography We have brought it on ourselves.Is it to be wondered at that many people are angry when tech companies have polluted the commons with their effluvium?

I see you're putting "no internet access without scanning your ID" laws and "every OS must have a checkbox that turns on parental controls" laws into the same bucket. I can't read this in any way other than intentional dishonesty. You should be banned.

On this topic, have people noticed the sudden coordinated media push for Flock Is Your Friend? The Free Press, The Atlantic, and Axios have all churned out pro-Flock articles in the last week. Clearly someone (I assume A16Z, but it could be multiple groups) is panicking about the mounting bipartisan backlash to Flock cameras and is starting to write checks to try and head it off. reply: Pro-Flock bots come out in droves in the replies to any Xitter post that’s even mildly negative towards them too. It’s not the least bit subtle.

Several states have already had this for a while now.

The whole think of the children angle is so cursed. Used to push surveillance meanwhile actual harm against children goes ignored. See Epstein files and the grooming gangs in the UKIf it actually did anything to protect the children it wouldn’t be so objectionable reply: Epstein is real, the “grooming gangs” are not, unless you’re talking about Jimmy Saville.

I'm always surprised how defensive people get in here about privacy when so many corporations have vastly more information about you than the government does.