alt Hacker News> How does digital ID prevents you from speaking out?
What? In the US, arguments #1 and #2 are entirely invalid and meritless. As I mentioned:
One of the huge reasons for the First Amendment is to ensure that people are able to counter lies uttered in the public sphere with truth.
> A good example of it today is Russia, where...
We're talking about the US. Many other governments (and governed people) do not agree that freedom of speech is important or even desirable.
> It is not handled perfectly at all, and easily bypassed.
For quite some time now it has been handled at least as well as these new schemes that authoritarians (and those that profit from their actions) are strong-arming companies into preemptively complying with.
> Moreover, influence campaigns are not about truth or lies, but about making the public loose face on the institutions.
If the institution that's being actually damaged by losing face [0] is (or is intimately associated with) one that has spent the last many decades normalizing the replacement of cogent political discussion with Twitter-grade zingers and ragebait, and is now finding it difficult to engage in cogent discussion then, well, they've made the bed they're now forced to lie in. The way out of that bed is sustained, good faith, cogent discussion, rather than building dossiers and the automated infrastructure for information restriction.
But, in truth, most of the folks pushing these systems aren't interested in cogent discussion and are arguing for them in some combination of ignorance and bad faith.
[0] As is often the case in matters like this, I expect the claimed damage is far, far greater than the actual damage.
> You address lies with truth. I don't see what requiring videos of your face and photo ID has to do with this.
How do you address lies with truth if the distribution of lies and truth is uncontrollable?
> We're talking about the US. Many other governments (and governed people) do not agree that freedom of speech is important or even desirable.
The example of Russia has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Read again.
Moreover, as I stated earlier, we already have documentation requirements for 2nd amendment, so why not for the 1st? Asking for ID to post on the internet does not preclude you from exercising your rights.
> The way out of that bed is sustained, good faith, cogent discussion, rather than building dossiers and the automated infrastructure for information restriction.
How can you make a good faith argument if the whole space is polluted by bots, trolls, and various influence groups? Perhaps your argument is in good faith, and factually correct, but for one of you there may be 10,000 bots. So, what value is in your voice?
> But, in truth, most of the folks pushing these systems aren't interested in cogent discussion and are arguing for them in some combination of ignorance and bad faith.
This quite a reach. I personally believe that people who have zero chance to get a real life backlash in their community will engage in bad faith arguments, etc.