alt Hacker News> 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.
> Perhaps your argument is in good faith, and factually correct, but for one of you there may be 10,000 bots. ... How can you make a good faith argument [in this scenario?]
In exactly the same way urban dwellers made cogent, good faith arguments back in the late 1800s when one could never hope to keep up with the pace of printed material available for sale, and there were far, far more people speaking in the area than one could have a conversation with in a day, let alone half a year.
is from the 1700s. I expect there have been variations on that sentiment [0] expressed for as long as there have been humans capable of using spoken language.> How do you address lies with truth if the distribution of lies and truth is uncontrollable?
The same way you have for the last two-hundred and fifty years.
> The example of Russia has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
I'm aware. That's why I dragged the conversation back on topic.
> This quite a reach. [sic]
When put into its surrounding context, it is a plain statement of fact and reasonable assessment of the situation.
[0] and the essay that contains that sentiment