I found this video insightful because: It revealed why big tech companies did not oppose these laws as they usually do and actually lobbied for them and helped "shape" them. On first glance you...
I found this video insightful because:
It revealed why big tech companies did not oppose these laws as they usually do and actually lobbied for them and helped "shape" them.
On first glance you would think they would be against as it would hurt any potential profits from underage users. But that's not what occurred. According to the author, it also wasn't because these companies believed the benefits of mapping users' real identities to their accounts outweighed the profit losses.
It's because some of these big tech companies are investing hard into what they call "Digital Credentials" API. Which is essentially Google’s framework that lets websites and apps request verified identity information about you - things like your age, driver’s license, or national ID, without you needing to manually hand over scans or type the info every time. Something like "Login with google" but for your identity confirmation.
As he states, "they are creating the need and then providing the solution."
Gave insight on how something like a digital credentials API could be monetized and why it's so valuable for these tech companies:
They might be able to give you targeted ads that otherwise they wouldn't be able to and companies will pay higher prices for these kinds of ads. Like loans, credit cards, gambling sites.
Will make things purchasing easier as you won't need to enter your personal details. Good for their ad partners so good for them. Even if you don't buy from an ad, they might take a small cut from a business since you used their system to fill in the details.
They might charge businesses fees to use their systems.
Yeah, this was always the direction it was going in. They’re bending over backwards right now trying to identify you and theres so many ways you can keep yourself anonymous and this would get rid...
Yeah, this was always the direction it was going in. They’re bending over backwards right now trying to identify you and theres so many ways you can keep yourself anonymous and this would get rid of all of that, its going to make them so much money. Privacy will actually just not exist.
Yeah the problem was people generally wanted to remain anonymous on the internet rather than tying their identity to everything, so this digital credentials stuff was a hard sell. But now laws...
Yeah the problem was people generally wanted to remain anonymous on the internet rather than tying their identity to everything, so this digital credentials stuff was a hard sell. But now laws will force people to use it.
Tor is a cesspool because most of its users are engaging in illegal activities; the vast majority of decent people don't need Tor. Maybe now that authoritarianism is on the rise again, we'll see...
Tor is a cesspool because most of its users are engaging in illegal activities; the vast majority of decent people don't need Tor.
Maybe now that authoritarianism is on the rise again, we'll see more "normal" websites and services pop up on Tor, diluting all the heinous stuff... Just like internet was 30 years ago.
That's an unfortunate trend I see everytime when something promises to be more free... Turns out we really need strong moderation in the beginning tk establish a proper culture. But that might...
The moral of the story is: if you’re against witch-hunts, and you promise to found your own little utopian community where witch-hunts will never happen, your new society will end up consisting of approximately three principled civil libertarians and seven zillion witches. It will be a terrible place to live even if witch-hunts are genuinely wrong - Scott Alexander
That's an unfortunate trend I see everytime when something promises to be more free... Turns out we really need strong moderation in the beginning tk establish a proper culture. But that might mean you fail to overcome the network effect.
It's a real shame. A lot of problems online persist simply becsuse it's very hard to have people change habits. The will tolerate a lot of friction once they are comfortable with a certain space.
It didn’t have to be like that, Tor could have had some level of community policing and instead they encouraged users to go there to do illegal things. I’m hoping we can get another go at it and...
It didn’t have to be like that, Tor could have had some level of community policing and instead they encouraged users to go there to do illegal things.
I’m hoping we can get another go at it and maybe actually have a good solid non-illegal community to grow and thrive, instead of having every normie user leave because theres nothing but nazis and child molesters on the platform.
The project explicitly asked for people to use Tor for mundane purposes. The mundane websites banning Tor IPs for predictable reasons is what killed that normalized use. "Platform" is a very loose...
The project explicitly asked for people to use Tor for mundane purposes. The mundane websites banning Tor IPs for predictable reasons is what killed that normalized use.
"Platform" is a very loose term in the context of things like Tor. It seems unlikely that anyone using it for reasons of safety or mundanity would be turned off for the nazis and child molestors, since you have to actively navigate to servers with that content. Nobody left the network because they saw all the scum, the network just got captured by the US intelligence agencies and nobody with any sense trusts it any more than a random proxy these days.
There's just enough operational resistance for regular individuals to change over to using Tor (or whatever alternative) that it will functionally never happen, even without the reputation...
There's just enough operational resistance for regular individuals to change over to using Tor (or whatever alternative) that it will functionally never happen, even without the reputation problems that come with the crime/nazis/CSAM. Regular individuals just "want it to work."
I'm worried that the "internet" has been fully captured and we'll never get it back. Look at the full capture that Chrome(ium) has in web browsers. Look at the full capture that Tick Tock, Reddit, Facebook, and Instagram have of web traffic. Our small communities are hard to discover without constant proselytizing on the larger sites (and even then, you are moderating to try and maintain community identity.)
Guess I'm just not feeling positive about the future.
I think that pessimism is reasonable, but perhaps is assuming a bit of a short horizon. The internet has always been "captured" in the terms of things like Tor. Governments with nefarious motives...
I think that pessimism is reasonable, but perhaps is assuming a bit of a short horizon.
The internet has always been "captured" in the terms of things like Tor. Governments with nefarious motives and corporations that too-conveniently suit those motives have always been the actual maintainers of it. Tor was just a way for the CIA to get info in and out of other jurisdictions that happened to benefit non-US-aligned agents until recently.
The ideal of the free and open internet only sort of existed for a short span well over a decade ago. It was a bunch of nerds sharing articles and making friends. By the time most of the planet even considered the internet any more affectionately than a phone line, Facebook et al. were ascendant. It was a flash in the pan, and it was never "free": you could send emails, look things up, and post on forums and chatrooms. There were more nuanced modes of engagement, but not substantively.
What we all fell in love with in that 10-15 year period was the hope, the opportunities, and the connection. The opportunities that weren't pipedreams then are still here, we're just more aware of the limits that always existed. The connection is still there, but like before, it requires two to tango, what changed was that the masses of people who seemed eager when they rushed the web and we assumed would join in on the enthusiast stuff turned out to be satisfied with news feeds.
So what we lost was the sense of hope. But we still have those planes of imagination, we still have the ability to communicate our ideas. We just need to get out of the mindset that communication is all it takes.
I am beginning to suspect that my future will involve less and less Internet use. Bit of a shame to lose the kind of community and information I used to have access to, but in the past couple of...
I am beginning to suspect that my future will involve less and less Internet use. Bit of a shame to lose the kind of community and information I used to have access to, but in the past couple of years these giant tech monopolies have already run most of it into the ground through enshittification.
I'm simply doing what I am right now and avoiding as much "mainstream" internet as possible. I don't know how bad it will get, but I'd be truly shocked if it got to the point where Tildes was in...
I'm simply doing what I am right now and avoiding as much "mainstream" internet as possible. I don't know how bad it will get, but I'd be truly shocked if it got to the point where Tildes was in danger of requiring ID to function. I don't think these big tech care about 100% coverage anyway; the top 100 sites have some 90% of internet traffic, after all.
It's hard to avoid everything, though. Youtube is basicslly a monopoly that acts as a cost center to the rest of Google, and it's hard to go full Linux when a few professional software have bad or no support (and even then, my workplace may dictate it anyway).
Yeah, same, I’m trying to get a head start by weening myself off Reddit. Antenna just stopped working for me about a month ago so that makes it easier. Im super thankful that I never started using...
Yeah, same, I’m trying to get a head start by weening myself off Reddit. Antenna just stopped working for me about a month ago so that makes it easier.
Im super thankful that I never started using most of those apps, IG, Snapchat, etc.
I don't think this is really a given. Are there any historical examples which give credence to this? I could see how it might reduce triangulation fraud--but really what advantage would this have...
its going to make them so much money
I don't think this is really a given. Are there any historical examples which give credence to this? I could see how it might reduce triangulation fraud--but really what advantage would this have over signing in with PayPal or using Google Pay to skip having to type in an address?
Specifically targeted ads. It's not just them knowing that you looked at X yesterday. It's that they know you usually buy the 32oz container of yogurt and went with the 16oz this time, perhaps...
Exemplary
Specifically targeted ads. It's not just them knowing that you looked at X yesterday. It's that they know you usually buy the 32oz container of yogurt and went with the 16oz this time, perhaps you're having money troubles, here's an ad for a personal loan.
It's a step in the direction of no longer allowing anonymity. You start getting ads because of what your partner looks at and they know you make more money than they do.
Payment processors stop allowing you to have a site if you don't implement this kind of age verification. "Think of the children" and instead want to know every single site you visit, every single thing you view, every single thing you type.
Speak ill of the government and you're getting a knock on the door.
You are no longer, ever, safe, private, or not being watched because they know every thing you're doing at all times because you have to do so with your real identification behind it.
Somehow we're hurtling toward Idiocracy and 1984 at the same time.
Much more valuable ad sales. No more will they have to guess at general geographic vicinity. If someone wants to microtarget an ad so that only the people on my block see it, that would be trivial...
Much more valuable ad sales. No more will they have to guess at general geographic vicinity. If someone wants to microtarget an ad so that only the people on my block see it, that would be trivial once everyone's home address is part of their profile.
Doesn't this already happen though? If you buy something then someone somewhere has your address. Maybe not everyone uses eBay, maybe not everyone uses PayPal... but how does my address go into a...
once everyone's home address is part of their profile
Doesn't this already happen though? If you buy something then someone somewhere has your address. Maybe not everyone uses eBay, maybe not everyone uses PayPal... but how does my address go into a database after mandatory ID legislation goes into effect? Does every website know my address? Is it a single private company that holds the monopoly on ID verification? If not, it will it be fractured and incomplete like it is already and I don't see how additional verification will solve this problem.
Also, if you've ever paid for ads on sites like Facebook or Google Ads, you can already target a very small area. The smallest radius you can target in Google Ads is 1 kilometer (or approximately 0.62 miles). They could already do even smaller but they don't allow you to purchase ads too targeted for privacy reasons. With Facebook, 1 mile radius and a minimum of 20 people within that radius (based on additional filtering).
The platforms that deliver advertisements to non-logged in users already have a pretty good idea where you are (even WHO you likely are--supercookies help but are not required for profiling) and even more importantly part of their revenue plan accounts for a certain degree of poor targeting. The fact that there is some uncertainty prevents you as a company from giving up after you know that all 3,000 potential customers of your niche local product have seen your ad but aren't all that interested. The uncertainty factor makes you want to spend more, not less.
Yes. In this case the payment processors have your address and card on file. But finance is highly highly regulated. They even sniff at that info and it could cost them millions per violation. Not...
Yes. In this case the payment processors have your address and card on file. But finance is highly highly regulated. They even sniff at that info and it could cost them millions per violation. Not to mention that the trust factor would scare off current and future customers.
Google and Co. Would be working directly with a government though. A government they can pay off to cwrce exceptions. Based on the video, the real goal isn't even ads (but the ad boon would be massive) but to be a middleman for the entire mainstream internet. That's true power.
You don't really use PayPal and Google Pay to verify your identity, though. In the same way PayPal solved the problem of 'how do i pay online?', Google and these other big tech companies aim to...
You don't really use PayPal and Google Pay to verify your identity, though.
In the same way PayPal solved the problem of 'how do i pay online?', Google and these other big tech companies aim to solve the 'how do i prove who i am online?' problem. They will charge a small fee and if you think about the industries where this will be used (financial services, online gambling / gaming, regulated commerce, maybe even gov services) this will add up to billions.
I'm guessing they will integrate google pay and this digital credentials stuff together somehow so that it streamlines the purchasing process even further.
This is basically the next evolution of "Login with Google / Facebook / X" where they will have factual, verified data about who you are and this will be able to make their ad business even more lucrative. E.g, "Congratulations, your verified identity means you are pre-approved for this mortgage" just like it was mentioned in the video.
Could we use Login.gov for this? Or something that builds on top of it? I'd rather see a government solution rather than a baker's dozen of CLEAR copycats competing to create the most invasive and...
Could we use Login.gov for this? Or something that builds on top of it? I'd rather see a government solution rather than a baker's dozen of CLEAR copycats competing to create the most invasive and thus the most accurate identity verification product. There's also this weird tendency for private companies to develop unchecked systemic biases like making it easy for some races to verify automatically but all non-white people need manual verification.
Yeah, I'd theoretically be more okay with something that has federal oversight. As an example, there are several US states that allow you to put your digital ID in Apple Wallet (and usually in...
Yeah, I'd theoretically be more okay with something that has federal oversight.
As an example, there are several US states that allow you to put your digital ID in Apple Wallet (and usually in their own app as well). This is acceptable identification for TSA in many (but not all) airports. Setting up a digital id in this very specific scenario is not giving your information to anyone who doesn't already have it. Perhaps the only additional information these parties will obtain from this are device type/OS and possibly some unique identifier from the device (but I'm admittedly not sure about this).
The main benefit of this for someone who enrolls? Not having to carry a wallet if you aren't driving. Supposedly it isn't sufficient identification if a cop pulls you over and asks for your license (but that may be state specific). So if you're going to a bar or something, they're supposed to accept this as valid ID.
If this system was used purely for age verification, and limited in such a way that the website/service only gets a yes/no response with no additional information about you, it would be okay-ish.
But we have to be realistic. Cybersecurity risks abound with this one, should it be exploited. Privacy issues too, as it can be added to what is already being tracked to confirm you are of age to gamble, smoke, drink, etc. Combined with just IP address, you can be targeted by location and the "over 18/21" identifier. It's almost certain the gov service would keep track of which sites you have visited that require this validation. We're seeing the current administration trying to correlate records that shouldn't be mixed together, and this would be yet another opportunity.
I agree with this--and it would be even easier for willing participants to "collaborate" if it was a private business and the government or a private business and a private business. Many...
We're seeing the current administration trying to correlate records that shouldn't be mixed together, and this would be yet another opportunity
I agree with this--and it would be even easier for willing participants to "collaborate" if it was a private business and the government or a private business and a private business.
Not having to carry a wallet if you aren't driving.
Many nation-states don't require IDs if you're just walking around; the caveat being: as long as you are a citizen. But proving you are a citizen without ID... the whole situation is somewhat dubious.
The fact that the digital ID is not effective as a replacement of a physical card makes the whole thing feel kind of meaningless. But I think Real ID is an interesting comparison to this idea of Internet ID. I think it will eventually end up kind of similar and kind of useless...
With the Trump administration in charge, the Doge folks might see login.gov as a good source of data about everyone, conveniently located on a government server. I think I'd rather have it on my...
With the Trump administration in charge, the Doge folks might see login.gov as a good source of data about everyone, conveniently located on a government server.
I think I'd rather have it on my phone.
But even then, I think the question is how much data you're comfortable sharing with the website that receives the data.
And I wonder how much control you will really have over this. Right now your consent is not required except in some cases when you are subject to GDPR / CCPA and when the website can verify that...
how much data you're comfortable sharing with the website that receives the data
And I wonder how much control you will really have over this. Right now your consent is not required except in some cases when you are subject to GDPR / CCPA and when the website can verify that you are actually subject to GDPR / CCPA. The big sites are pretty good at this but small sites are pretty hopeless.
But maybe increased verification will have the opposite effect that greedy people want. While it will decrease anonymity, it may actually increase the rights that people have over their data--especially if the big sites are not allowed to profile neither non-logged in users and there is no notion of "non-verified" users.
Historical examples of increased friction or reduced privacy increasing revenue? I guess it would make them money if they are selling the additional data that is harvested?--but I also wonder how...
Historical examples of increased friction or reduced privacy increasing revenue? I guess it would make them money if they are selling the additional data that is harvested?--but I also wonder how much of this will actually be additional as "they" already have shadow profiles.
First point I disagree with in the video is the claim that there is a downside - risk of being hacked. Big Tech security is basically the best you're going to get, they have dedicated security...
First point I disagree with in the video is the claim that there is a downside - risk of being hacked. Big Tech security is basically the best you're going to get, they have dedicated security teams fending off nation-state level attacks. Storing IDs is no more difficult than storing payment details e.g. google pay. The usage of age verification data / ID for ad targeting would violate GDPR as they are only allowed to use the data within the bounds you have consented to or in some reasonable manner, so that seems very likely to be false to me. "online businesses would need to pay a fee to them for their identification services" - not sure where this is coming from, don't think this is that likely, it's free right now and also there's plenty of competition from other services so it wouldn't make them that much money.
"they haven't been paying to fight the regulations. They've been paying to shape them"
The video doesn't really provide any evidence for this claim despite it being critical for their argument
The poll that you linked to specifically asks the question Whereas, the online safety act applies much more broadly than just for “pornographic material” from here The full act includes...
The poll that you linked to specifically asks the question
From everything you have seen and heard, do you support or oppose the recent rules requiring age verification to access websites that may contain pornographic material
Whereas, the online safety act applies much more broadly than just for “pornographic material” from here
Platforms are now required to use highly effective age assurance to prevent children from accessing pornography, or content which encourages self-harm, suicide or eating disorder content.
Platforms must also prevent children from accessing other harmful and age-inappropriate content such as bullying, hateful content and content which encourages dangerous stunts or ingesting dangerous substances
The full act includes restrictions on much more than just porn, such as “bullying” which is such a vague term that I feel could be generalised to pretty much apply to any site.
The article you linked even mentioned as part of its argument that the change in wording from “pornography sites” to the more general “pornographic material” may have lowered the percentage of people who said they support the act. So what’s to say that if you generalised the wording even more to a representative wording that the majority would disagree with the act.
It requires the platforms to perform a bunch of onerous and overreaching regulations, but I don't think that's relevant to the age verification bit AFAIK? like people aren't mad at gov for not...
The full act includes restrictions on much more than just porn
It requires the platforms to perform a bunch of onerous and overreaching regulations, but I don't think that's relevant to the age verification bit AFAIK? like people aren't mad at gov for not letting them bully / be bullied, but maybe there's crackdowns on knives/gun communities and that'd be bad (but pretty marginal and avg uk person probs doesn't care)? What sort of reworded poll question about age verification would you expect to change the results?
I think he actually claimed the opposite by listing a lot of smaller company breaches and stating that they can't be trusted to handle your ID, while something like Googles digital credentials API...
First point I disagree with in the video is the claim that there is a downside - risk of being hacked. Big Tech security is basically the best you're going to get, they have dedicated security teams fending off nation-state level attacks.
I think he actually claimed the opposite by listing a lot of smaller company breaches and stating that they can't be trusted to handle your ID, while something like Googles digital credentials API would be safer as you wouldn't need to hand out some random companies your ID and Googles security, like you said, is far superior.
The usage of age verification data / ID for ad targeting would violate GDPR as they are only allowed to use the data within the bounds you have consented to or in some reasonable manner, so that seems very likely to be false to me.
They might not use your data at all. They will just create a new, highly valuable user category : the "Verified Human". They can serve you an ad that says "you are pre-approved" not because they've seen your ID, but because Google's system has confirmed you belong to a verified, credit-worthy demographic.
"online businesses would need to pay a fee to them for their identification services" - not sure where this is coming from, don't think this is that likely, it's free right now and also there's plenty of competition from other services so it wouldn't make them that much money.
Just because it's free now doesn't mean they won't start charging some small fee into the future. The competition exists, but the argument is that by shaping legislation and leveraging their market power Google can make its solution the indispensable default. Look at the amount of Oauth providers. But most websites use Facebook, Amazon, Google, Microsoft (big tech).
The video doesn't really provide any evidence for this claim despite it being critical for their argument.
This is true. Weakest part in the videos argument.
Also also, I don't see how the video's argument generalises to tech companies which aren't google
Also true, but it's not too far fetched that platform owners like Apple will most likely quickly follow up here.
It's part of the Project 2025 roadmap. You have this pressure in various states in the US (plus the UK now). Then you have a dipshit representative introducing a bill that broadens the legal...
It's part of the Project 2025 roadmap. You have this pressure in various states in the US (plus the UK now). Then you have a dipshit representative introducing a bill that broadens the legal definition of "obscenity," reiterates that it's not protected speech, and will effectively make it a federal crime to host or transmit obscenity. Couple that with the ID push, and you have a convenient way of building lists for fascist shit.
Next up is continuing to move court case chess pieces around until anything LGBT related is considered obscenity.
Obscenity carve-outs in the first amendment have always been a loaded gun for christofascists and puritan normativity, not only abridging the freedom of speech and the press but also being a law in favor of a religious establishment. They should have been removed long ago for being blatantly unconstitutional. What sort of media you like or don't like, or what a large group does, is utterly irrelevant: that's the fucking point of the amendment.
Just want to chip in that this was the default state of affairs before legal wrangling, not some hypothetical slipery slope. It is inevitable as the courts have shown an eagerness to doublespeak...
anything LGBT related is considered obscenity.
Just want to chip in that this was the default state of affairs before legal wrangling, not some hypothetical slipery slope.
It is inevitable as the courts have shown an eagerness to doublespeak their way to reverting 100+ years of progress.
Smart people I know have this remarkable reluctance to learn what they're giving up for these services. *"It's just my ID, I didn't do anything wrong, it's just for advertising..." * ...and all...
Smart people I know have this remarkable reluctance to learn what they're giving up for these services.
*"It's just my ID, I didn't do anything wrong, it's just for advertising..." *
...and all because the threat of it isn't readily in front of them.
It will either kill small communities like Tildes or force all of us to log in with Google (etc.), tying our identities to every post we make online. It'll do the opposite of driving you away from...
It will either kill small communities like Tildes or force all of us to log in with Google (etc.), tying our identities to every post we make online. It'll do the opposite of driving you away from the junky internet, it will make the junky part the only part left.
"Likely" won't be targeted isn't a safe enough situation for a site/service owner to risk it. https://www.techdirt.com/2024/12/20/death-of-a-forum-how-the-uks-online-safety-act-is-killing-communities/
"Likely" won't be targeted isn't a safe enough situation for a site/service owner to risk it.
This feel performative to me. Nothing wrong with shutting down in protest, though. Why not transfer ownership of everything to a trusted individual in another country, host there, and continue...
This feel performative to me. Nothing wrong with shutting down in protest, though. Why not transfer ownership of everything to a trusted individual in another country, host there, and continue operating?
It's spreading across western countries rather quickly, so while it might not be there now I wouldn't be surprised if it comes. Even if Canada rejects the idea for their own citizens, blocking...
It's spreading across western countries rather quickly, so while it might not be there now I wouldn't be surprised if it comes. Even if Canada rejects the idea for their own citizens, blocking users from the US, UK, Australia, etc. would significantly shrink the userbase here. I mean I'd be happy the Canadians would still have anonymous online speech but I can't move to Canada, so my perspective is focused on being a US internet user.
It has been floating in Canada by all 3 major parties, and there is currently a private members bill in the Senate for just such a thing. It is coming to every western nation soon enough, everyone...
It has been floating in Canada by all 3 major parties, and there is currently a private members bill in the Senate for just such a thing. It is coming to every western nation soon enough, everyone in government on all sides seem to be on board, it's very sad.
IANAL, but I feel it might be legally possible (after courts) to launder age verification for a site like tildes. Have email service that requires age verification to join. Require confirmation...
IANAL, but I feel it might be legally possible (after courts) to launder age verification for a site like tildes.
Have email service that requires age verification to join. Require confirmation with that email to register. Throw away the email used to sever the tie.
Tildes has fulfilled its obligation (as user had account that was only attainable via age verification), and the tie is weak and does not require big tech.
I'm not super convinced that these regulations are in google or others tech giants interest, at least I haven't seen much data to back that up. But personally I'm very much in favor of such...
I'm not super convinced that these regulations are in google or others tech giants interest, at least I haven't seen much data to back that up. But personally I'm very much in favor of such regulations; I was looking for some info on youtube earlier and 90% of the content is AI garbage, and that will keep getting worse. That said I'd much prefer a independent agency (maybe at the EU level) providing digital certificates to citizens so that it maintains the same level of privacy we have now.
presumably banning spammers would be easy if they couldn't just make a new account (because it'd be linked to their ID), though I think there will always be enough hacked accounts up for sale that...
presumably banning spammers would be easy if they couldn't just make a new account (because it'd be linked to their ID), though I think there will always be enough hacked accounts up for sale that it won't really matter
My immediate reaction is wondering how long will this take to circumvent. They're going to have to make this at least somewhat backwards compatible and if it's a wide ranging initiative they'll...
My immediate reaction is wondering how long will this take to circumvent. They're going to have to make this at least somewhat backwards compatible and if it's a wide ranging initiative they'll need to support some cheaper devices. Pair the lowest quality camera they have to support with the easiest to fake ID from a worldwide collection of government issued IDs, some of which may allow decades-long expiration dates and circumventing all of this will hopefully be cracked quickly with at-home-printer level ID printing.
I found this video insightful because:
It revealed why big tech companies did not oppose these laws as they usually do and actually lobbied for them and helped "shape" them.
On first glance you would think they would be against as it would hurt any potential profits from underage users. But that's not what occurred. According to the author, it also wasn't because these companies believed the benefits of mapping users' real identities to their accounts outweighed the profit losses.
It's because some of these big tech companies are investing hard into what they call "Digital Credentials" API. Which is essentially Google’s framework that lets websites and apps request verified identity information about you - things like your age, driver’s license, or national ID, without you needing to manually hand over scans or type the info every time. Something like "Login with google" but for your identity confirmation.
As he states, "they are creating the need and then providing the solution."
Gave insight on how something like a digital credentials API could be monetized and why it's so valuable for these tech companies:
Yeah, this was always the direction it was going in. They’re bending over backwards right now trying to identify you and theres so many ways you can keep yourself anonymous and this would get rid of all of that, its going to make them so much money. Privacy will actually just not exist.
Yeah the problem was people generally wanted to remain anonymous on the internet rather than tying their identity to everything, so this digital credentials stuff was a hard sell. But now laws will force people to use it.
I just wish there was some way we could go and make another internet without it becoming a cesspool like Tor did
Tor is a cesspool because most of its users are engaging in illegal activities; the vast majority of decent people don't need Tor.
Maybe now that authoritarianism is on the rise again, we'll see more "normal" websites and services pop up on Tor, diluting all the heinous stuff... Just like internet was 30 years ago.
That's an unfortunate trend I see everytime when something promises to be more free... Turns out we really need strong moderation in the beginning tk establish a proper culture. But that might mean you fail to overcome the network effect.
It's a real shame. A lot of problems online persist simply becsuse it's very hard to have people change habits. The will tolerate a lot of friction once they are comfortable with a certain space.
It didn’t have to be like that, Tor could have had some level of community policing and instead they encouraged users to go there to do illegal things.
I’m hoping we can get another go at it and maybe actually have a good solid non-illegal community to grow and thrive, instead of having every normie user leave because theres nothing but nazis and child molesters on the platform.
The project explicitly asked for people to use Tor for mundane purposes. The mundane websites banning Tor IPs for predictable reasons is what killed that normalized use.
"Platform" is a very loose term in the context of things like Tor. It seems unlikely that anyone using it for reasons of safety or mundanity would be turned off for the nazis and child molestors, since you have to actively navigate to servers with that content. Nobody left the network because they saw all the scum, the network just got captured by the US intelligence agencies and nobody with any sense trusts it any more than a random proxy these days.
There's just enough operational resistance for regular individuals to change over to using Tor (or whatever alternative) that it will functionally never happen, even without the reputation problems that come with the crime/nazis/CSAM. Regular individuals just "want it to work."
I'm worried that the "internet" has been fully captured and we'll never get it back. Look at the full capture that Chrome(ium) has in web browsers. Look at the full capture that Tick Tock, Reddit, Facebook, and Instagram have of web traffic. Our small communities are hard to discover without constant proselytizing on the larger sites (and even then, you are moderating to try and maintain community identity.)
Guess I'm just not feeling positive about the future.
I think that pessimism is reasonable, but perhaps is assuming a bit of a short horizon.
The internet has always been "captured" in the terms of things like Tor. Governments with nefarious motives and corporations that too-conveniently suit those motives have always been the actual maintainers of it. Tor was just a way for the CIA to get info in and out of other jurisdictions that happened to benefit non-US-aligned agents until recently.
The ideal of the free and open internet only sort of existed for a short span well over a decade ago. It was a bunch of nerds sharing articles and making friends. By the time most of the planet even considered the internet any more affectionately than a phone line, Facebook et al. were ascendant. It was a flash in the pan, and it was never "free": you could send emails, look things up, and post on forums and chatrooms. There were more nuanced modes of engagement, but not substantively.
What we all fell in love with in that 10-15 year period was the hope, the opportunities, and the connection. The opportunities that weren't pipedreams then are still here, we're just more aware of the limits that always existed. The connection is still there, but like before, it requires two to tango, what changed was that the masses of people who seemed eager when they rushed the web and we assumed would join in on the enthusiast stuff turned out to be satisfied with news feeds.
So what we lost was the sense of hope. But we still have those planes of imagination, we still have the ability to communicate our ideas. We just need to get out of the mindset that communication is all it takes.
I am beginning to suspect that my future will involve less and less Internet use. Bit of a shame to lose the kind of community and information I used to have access to, but in the past couple of years these giant tech monopolies have already run most of it into the ground through enshittification.
I'm simply doing what I am right now and avoiding as much "mainstream" internet as possible. I don't know how bad it will get, but I'd be truly shocked if it got to the point where Tildes was in danger of requiring ID to function. I don't think these big tech care about 100% coverage anyway; the top 100 sites have some 90% of internet traffic, after all.
It's hard to avoid everything, though. Youtube is basicslly a monopoly that acts as a cost center to the rest of Google, and it's hard to go full Linux when a few professional software have bad or no support (and even then, my workplace may dictate it anyway).
Yeah, same, I’m trying to get a head start by weening myself off Reddit. Antenna just stopped working for me about a month ago so that makes it easier.
Im super thankful that I never started using most of those apps, IG, Snapchat, etc.
I don't think this is really a given. Are there any historical examples which give credence to this? I could see how it might reduce triangulation fraud--but really what advantage would this have over signing in with PayPal or using Google Pay to skip having to type in an address?
Specifically targeted ads. It's not just them knowing that you looked at X yesterday. It's that they know you usually buy the 32oz container of yogurt and went with the 16oz this time, perhaps you're having money troubles, here's an ad for a personal loan.
It's a step in the direction of no longer allowing anonymity. You start getting ads because of what your partner looks at and they know you make more money than they do.
Payment processors stop allowing you to have a site if you don't implement this kind of age verification. "Think of the children" and instead want to know every single site you visit, every single thing you view, every single thing you type.
Speak ill of the government and you're getting a knock on the door.
You are no longer, ever, safe, private, or not being watched because they know every thing you're doing at all times because you have to do so with your real identification behind it.
Somehow we're hurtling toward Idiocracy and 1984 at the same time.
Much more valuable ad sales. No more will they have to guess at general geographic vicinity. If someone wants to microtarget an ad so that only the people on my block see it, that would be trivial once everyone's home address is part of their profile.
Doesn't this already happen though? If you buy something then someone somewhere has your address. Maybe not everyone uses eBay, maybe not everyone uses PayPal... but how does my address go into a database after mandatory ID legislation goes into effect? Does every website know my address? Is it a single private company that holds the monopoly on ID verification? If not, it will it be fractured and incomplete like it is already and I don't see how additional verification will solve this problem.
Also, if you've ever paid for ads on sites like Facebook or Google Ads, you can already target a very small area. The smallest radius you can target in Google Ads is 1 kilometer (or approximately 0.62 miles). They could already do even smaller but they don't allow you to purchase ads too targeted for privacy reasons. With Facebook, 1 mile radius and a minimum of 20 people within that radius (based on additional filtering).
The platforms that deliver advertisements to non-logged in users already have a pretty good idea where you are (even WHO you likely are--supercookies help but are not required for profiling) and even more importantly part of their revenue plan accounts for a certain degree of poor targeting. The fact that there is some uncertainty prevents you as a company from giving up after you know that all 3,000 potential customers of your niche local product have seen your ad but aren't all that interested. The uncertainty factor makes you want to spend more, not less.
Yes. In this case the payment processors have your address and card on file. But finance is highly highly regulated. They even sniff at that info and it could cost them millions per violation. Not to mention that the trust factor would scare off current and future customers.
Google and Co. Would be working directly with a government though. A government they can pay off to cwrce exceptions. Based on the video, the real goal isn't even ads (but the ad boon would be massive) but to be a middleman for the entire mainstream internet. That's true power.
You don't really use PayPal and Google Pay to verify your identity, though.
In the same way PayPal solved the problem of 'how do i pay online?', Google and these other big tech companies aim to solve the 'how do i prove who i am online?' problem. They will charge a small fee and if you think about the industries where this will be used (financial services, online gambling / gaming, regulated commerce, maybe even gov services) this will add up to billions.
I'm guessing they will integrate google pay and this digital credentials stuff together somehow so that it streamlines the purchasing process even further.
This is basically the next evolution of "Login with Google / Facebook / X" where they will have factual, verified data about who you are and this will be able to make their ad business even more lucrative. E.g, "Congratulations, your verified identity means you are pre-approved for this mortgage" just like it was mentioned in the video.
Could we use Login.gov for this? Or something that builds on top of it? I'd rather see a government solution rather than a baker's dozen of CLEAR copycats competing to create the most invasive and thus the most accurate identity verification product. There's also this weird tendency for private companies to develop unchecked systemic biases like making it easy for some races to verify automatically but all non-white people need manual verification.
Maybe the US could have something like
Yeah, I'd theoretically be more okay with something that has federal oversight.
As an example, there are several US states that allow you to put your digital ID in Apple Wallet (and usually in their own app as well). This is acceptable identification for TSA in many (but not all) airports. Setting up a digital id in this very specific scenario is not giving your information to anyone who doesn't already have it. Perhaps the only additional information these parties will obtain from this are device type/OS and possibly some unique identifier from the device (but I'm admittedly not sure about this).
The main benefit of this for someone who enrolls? Not having to carry a wallet if you aren't driving. Supposedly it isn't sufficient identification if a cop pulls you over and asks for your license (but that may be state specific). So if you're going to a bar or something, they're supposed to accept this as valid ID.
If this system was used purely for age verification, and limited in such a way that the website/service only gets a yes/no response with no additional information about you, it would be okay-ish.
But we have to be realistic. Cybersecurity risks abound with this one, should it be exploited. Privacy issues too, as it can be added to what is already being tracked to confirm you are of age to gamble, smoke, drink, etc. Combined with just IP address, you can be targeted by location and the "over 18/21" identifier. It's almost certain the gov service would keep track of which sites you have visited that require this validation. We're seeing the current administration trying to correlate records that shouldn't be mixed together, and this would be yet another opportunity.
I agree with this--and it would be even easier for willing participants to "collaborate" if it was a private business and the government or a private business and a private business.
Many nation-states don't require IDs if you're just walking around; the caveat being: as long as you are a citizen. But proving you are a citizen without ID... the whole situation is somewhat dubious.
The fact that the digital ID is not effective as a replacement of a physical card makes the whole thing feel kind of meaningless. But I think Real ID is an interesting comparison to this idea of Internet ID. I think it will eventually end up kind of similar and kind of useless...
With the Trump administration in charge, the Doge folks might see login.gov as a good source of data about everyone, conveniently located on a government server.
I think I'd rather have it on my phone.
But even then, I think the question is how much data you're comfortable sharing with the website that receives the data.
And I wonder how much control you will really have over this. Right now your consent is not required except in some cases when you are subject to GDPR / CCPA and when the website can verify that you are actually subject to GDPR / CCPA. The big sites are pretty good at this but small sites are pretty hopeless.
But maybe increased verification will have the opposite effect that greedy people want. While it will decrease anonymity, it may actually increase the rights that people have over their data--especially if the big sites are not allowed to profile neither non-logged in users and there is no notion of "non-verified" users.
Historical examples of having to use your actual ID to verify your age on social media?
Historical examples of increased friction or reduced privacy increasing revenue? I guess it would make them money if they are selling the additional data that is harvested?--but I also wonder how much of this will actually be additional as "they" already have shadow profiles.
So are these digital identification solutions tied to state license/id databases?
What's stopping someone from photoshopping or using a fake id?
First point I disagree with in the video is the claim that there is a downside - risk of being hacked. Big Tech security is basically the best you're going to get, they have dedicated security teams fending off nation-state level attacks. Storing IDs is no more difficult than storing payment details e.g. google pay. The usage of age verification data / ID for ad targeting would violate GDPR as they are only allowed to use the data within the bounds you have consented to or in some reasonable manner, so that seems very likely to be false to me. "online businesses would need to pay a fee to them for their identification services" - not sure where this is coming from, don't think this is that likely, it's free right now and also there's plenty of competition from other services so it wouldn't make them that much money.
The video doesn't really provide any evidence for this claim despite it being critical for their argument
Also the online safety act is very popular in the UK! 70% of people support it when polled post implementation
Also also, I don't see how the video's argument generalises to tech companies which aren't google
The poll that you linked to specifically asks the question
Whereas, the online safety act applies much more broadly than just for “pornographic material” from here
The full act includes restrictions on much more than just porn, such as “bullying” which is such a vague term that I feel could be generalised to pretty much apply to any site.
The article you linked even mentioned as part of its argument that the change in wording from “pornography sites” to the more general “pornographic material” may have lowered the percentage of people who said they support the act. So what’s to say that if you generalised the wording even more to a representative wording that the majority would disagree with the act.
It requires the platforms to perform a bunch of onerous and overreaching regulations, but I don't think that's relevant to the age verification bit AFAIK? like people aren't mad at gov for not letting them bully / be bullied, but maybe there's crackdowns on knives/gun communities and that'd be bad (but pretty marginal and avg uk person probs doesn't care)? What sort of reworded poll question about age verification would you expect to change the results?
I think he actually claimed the opposite by listing a lot of smaller company breaches and stating that they can't be trusted to handle your ID, while something like Googles digital credentials API would be safer as you wouldn't need to hand out some random companies your ID and Googles security, like you said, is far superior.
They might not use your data at all. They will just create a new, highly valuable user category : the "Verified Human". They can serve you an ad that says "you are pre-approved" not because they've seen your ID, but because Google's system has confirmed you belong to a verified, credit-worthy demographic.
Just because it's free now doesn't mean they won't start charging some small fee into the future. The competition exists, but the argument is that by shaping legislation and leveraging their market power Google can make its solution the indispensable default. Look at the amount of Oauth providers. But most websites use Facebook, Amazon, Google, Microsoft (big tech).
This is true. Weakest part in the videos argument.
Also true, but it's not too far fetched that platform owners like Apple will most likely quickly follow up here.
thx for responding, definitely worth being aware of this as a possibility, we will see what happens
It's part of the Project 2025 roadmap. You have this pressure in various states in the US (plus the UK now). Then you have a dipshit representative introducing a bill that broadens the legal definition of "obscenity," reiterates that it's not protected speech, and will effectively make it a federal crime to host or transmit obscenity. Couple that with the ID push, and you have a convenient way of building lists for fascist shit.
Next up is continuing to move court case chess pieces around until anything LGBT related is considered obscenity.
Obscenity carve-outs in the first amendment have always been a loaded gun for christofascists and puritan normativity, not only abridging the freedom of speech and the press but also being a law in favor of a religious establishment. They should have been removed long ago for being blatantly unconstitutional. What sort of media you like or don't like, or what a large group does, is utterly irrelevant: that's the fucking point of the amendment.
Just want to chip in that this was the default state of affairs before legal wrangling, not some hypothetical slipery slope.
It is inevitable as the courts have shown an eagerness to doublespeak their way to reverting 100+ years of progress.
Smart people I know have this remarkable reluctance to learn what they're giving up for these services.
*"It's just my ID, I didn't do anything wrong, it's just for advertising..." *
...and all because the threat of it isn't readily in front of them.
It baffles me.
Honestly this kind of surveillance might be a net positive for me as it could drive me further from the junky parts of the internet.
It will either kill small communities like Tildes or force all of us to log in with Google (etc.), tying our identities to every post we make online. It'll do the opposite of driving you away from the junky internet, it will make the junky part the only part left.
I doubt it. Small sites likely won’t be targeted. The server can always be moved to a safe haven as well.
"Likely" won't be targeted isn't a safe enough situation for a site/service owner to risk it.
https://www.techdirt.com/2024/12/20/death-of-a-forum-how-the-uks-online-safety-act-is-killing-communities/
This feel performative to me. Nothing wrong with shutting down in protest, though. Why not transfer ownership of everything to a trusted individual in another country, host there, and continue operating?
It doesn't seem like it would affect Tildes. I haven't read anything about age verification becoming a requirement in Canada. Have you?
It's spreading across western countries rather quickly, so while it might not be there now I wouldn't be surprised if it comes. Even if Canada rejects the idea for their own citizens, blocking users from the US, UK, Australia, etc. would significantly shrink the userbase here. I mean I'd be happy the Canadians would still have anonymous online speech but I can't move to Canada, so my perspective is focused on being a US internet user.
It has been floating in Canada by all 3 major parties, and there is currently a private members bill in the Senate for just such a thing. It is coming to every western nation soon enough, everyone in government on all sides seem to be on board, it's very sad.
IANAL, but I feel it might be legally possible (after courts) to launder age verification for a site like tildes.
Have email service that requires age verification to join. Require confirmation with that email to register. Throw away the email used to sever the tie.
Tildes has fulfilled its obligation (as user had account that was only attainable via age verification), and the tie is weak and does not require big tech.
I'm not super convinced that these regulations are in google or others tech giants interest, at least I haven't seen much data to back that up. But personally I'm very much in favor of such regulations; I was looking for some info on youtube earlier and 90% of the content is AI garbage, and that will keep getting worse. That said I'd much prefer a independent agency (maybe at the EU level) providing digital certificates to citizens so that it maintains the same level of privacy we have now.
What does AI garbage on YouTube have to do with digital identity verification?
presumably banning spammers would be easy if they couldn't just make a new account (because it'd be linked to their ID), though I think there will always be enough hacked accounts up for sale that it won't really matter
Exactly, ideally the ID system would also use tokens with limited life time so stolen accounts wouldn't be a huge issue.
My immediate reaction is wondering how long will this take to circumvent. They're going to have to make this at least somewhat backwards compatible and if it's a wide ranging initiative they'll need to support some cheaper devices. Pair the lowest quality camera they have to support with the easiest to fake ID from a worldwide collection of government issued IDs, some of which may allow decades-long expiration dates and circumventing all of this will hopefully be cracked quickly with at-home-printer level ID printing.
Are there any current or proposed laws requiring biometrics at all? It’s not like everyone is using Face ID.