mhoyeFeb 20
Once you realize it’s not “age verification”, but actually “identity verification”, then it’s easy to understand that the real goal is “papers, please” for the entire internet.
Show threadtxtx 🇪🇺Feb 20

@mhoye Unpopular opinion:

Identity verification isn't so unattractive in 2026 — social media is destroying democracies via anonymous armies of bot people steered by aggressive foreign actors like Putin and Musk.

The libertarian model that the Internet was built on is failing societies.

Show threadCassandrichFeb 20
@txtx @mhoye Rightfully unpopular. This is not a libertarian position but an anarchist and antifascist one. It's not Ayn Rand bros who are harmed by needing to show ID to participate in public life. It's queer youth, undocumented folks, unhoused folks, dissidents, ppl living under regimes that don't want them having international contacts, etc. who this shit harms.
Show threadbencourticeFeb 20
@dalias @txtx @mhoye 100%. We can’t control how the billionaire class use the media they own to spread crappy propaganda. But the right to anonymity is also about safety and the ability to organise away from hostile surveillance.
Show threadtxtx 🇪🇺

@bencourtice I think we need a more sophisticated approach. I'll give an example:

Twitter users generally appreciated the blue checkmark that verified official accounts.

I think that, in working democracies, an opt-in verification for citizens could be an answer. This may mean being an ID to a post office, but we can still make it anonymous so that neither the govt nor the server owner knows which ID was used to verify which account.

Then I can safely ignore unverified users.

Feb 20 at 11:33amMastodon for Android
Show threadPaul LockettFeb 20
@txtx @bencourtice And what would be the point of that? You've constructed a system where an admin process exists to enable a website to state "This account belongs to someone. We don't know who."
Show threadtxtx 🇪🇺Feb 20

@plock @bencourtice I would know that A) it's a real person and B) that person is in the EU. The rest I can ignore or treat with caution, which would be especially easy if X/Facebook/TikTok are banned.

This is a massive improvement over the current situation where every other person is a scam artist botperson.

Show threadPaul LockettFeb 20
@txtx @bencourtice So, pointless, with a dose of insularity. Thanks for clarifying.
Show threadtxtx 🇪🇺Feb 20
@plock It looks like you ran out of arguments and jumped straight to passive aggressive adjectives.
Show threadPaul LockettFeb 20
@txtx I wasn't presenting an argument. I asked a question then followed up with an observation.
Show threadtxtx 🇪🇺Feb 20
@plock and you're telling me I had a pointless comment.......
Show threadPaul LockettFeb 20
@txtx No, I said your suggestion was pointless, not your comment.
Show threadbencourticeFeb 20
@txtx I'm not against that kind of verification existing in principle. But the problem with "functioning democracies" is that sometimes they turn into something else.
Show threadtxtx 🇪🇺Feb 20

@bencourtice I agree, this is a problem.

On the other hand, I think we have a somewhat false sense of security with internet anonymity.

What I mean is, when the state decides to go after people, they have the means. In Iran, they shut down the Internet and start mass killings. In the US, people snitch to ICE. And so on.

Maybe social media isn't the place where we should be seeking safety or freedom.

Show threadbencourticeFeb 20
@txtx true. but non-state actors like your employer, neo-nazis, crooked cops, the mafia, your violent ex - all these can be foiled to varying degrees by online anonymity. The state may still have the power to discover who your profile is (unless you use Signal and Tor exclusively) but if they need a warrant to act on that, there is also a degree of protection from their scrutiny.
Show threadbencourticeFeb 20
@txtx and this won't stop at social media. They will try to extend it to everything.