▲ 208 ▼ Greece to ban anonymity on social media (www.euractiv.com) submitted 3 months ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/world@lemmy.world 63 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] markz@suppo.fi 65 points 3 months ago* (3 children) So, lemmy would be illegal under this vision? an EU-wide approach may be more practical to implement If you want to do this, do it to yourself. Keep me out of it. permalink fedilink source hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago (2 children) Greece would essentially have to wall themselves off from every country that doesn't... So if an instance was hosted in Greece, and this actually happens... Yeah, it would effect that instance. It seems like you just quoted a tiny bit of the sentence so it would seem like a possibility tho... Critics highlight the technical complexity of the issue and suggest that an EU-wide approach may be more practical to implement. Meanwhile, the EU governments which consider such a measure will also need to address potential freedom of speech concerns – as digital rights campaigners have warned for years. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] markz@suppo.fi 6 points 3 months ago (1 child) I quoted it because I have a problem with it and it wasn't the main thing. Who in their right mind would even suggest this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago Because as a complete thought it clearly means: For X to work we'd have to d Y, which has even less chances of happening. And you picked out "we'd have to do Y" and presented that like it's a plan anyone is proposing and not an example of how impossible it would be... But I don't think any of that is going to help permalink fedilink source parent [–] rwrwefwef@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 months ago Greece would essentially have to wall themselves off from every country that doesn’t This is why the EU usually moves in packs, be it on Ukraine, emissions or anything else. Basically, it will take a few more countries to join in to see a real effect. permalink fedilink source parent [–] hanrahan@piefed.social 4 points 3 months ago (1 child) So, lemmy would be illegal under this vision? presumably hosted in Greece, yes..Hosted in Bumfuckistan, I can't see how. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Holytimes@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago Bumfuckistan is rather famously full of give no fucks poltics. Very freeing place. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Hapankaali@lemmy.world -21 points 3 months ago (5 children) Lemmy would not be illegal. Instead, Lemmy would be required to verify that each account belongs to a real person. Essentially, it's a way to make bots and astroturfing illegal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] markz@suppo.fi 69 points 3 months ago (1 child) I wouldn't be here if it asked for my id. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Hapankaali@lemmy.world -46 points 3 months ago (6 children) Me neither, probably. But it's still a good idea in principle. The spread of malicious misinformation and propaganda has already led to millions of deaths. If we have to give up some anonymous shitposting to curb these excesses, it's worth it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] GalacticSushi@piefed.blahaj.zone 32 points 3 months ago* (2 children) The spread of malicious misinformation and propaganda has already led to millions of deaths. Malicious misinformation and propaganda is constantly spread without any sort of anonymity, so I can't see how this is relevant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bloefz@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago Exactly, nation states and political parties are the worst in this regard. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Hapankaali@lemmy.world -23 points 3 months ago (3 children) Chemotherapy does not cure all forms of cancer, therefore chemotherapy is not relevant to cancer treatment. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] markz@suppo.fi 21 points 3 months ago (1 child) Home searches would catch some criminals, therefore a blanket search warrant is relevant to stopping crime. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] nogooduser@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago (1 child) That’s a little too close to reality for comfort. 😟 We have several governments saying that being able to read some people’s encrypted messages would catch some criminals, therefore we need to be able to read everyone’s encrypted messages. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Martineski@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 months ago Literally 2 days ago I was arguing with family about privacy online and I was the only person in car that gave a fuck about it. The 3 other family members were totally ok with being spied on online from start to finish and have this information used against because they had "nothing to hide" and that caring about it would not change anything in their personal lives anyway and that we don't live in a country that actively cracks down on people against certain things. No example or angle I brought up would change their mind. This was the moment I gave up on those family members in my head. Ugh... permalink fedilink source parent [–] nautilus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 3 months ago bro thought he really cooked with this one permalink fedilink source parent [–] Bloefz@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago (1 child) No but you don't give everyone chemotherapy just because some people have cancer permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] non_burglar@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago Thank you. I agree with this. permalink fedilink source parent [–] chinaski@lemmy.ml 26 points 3 months ago So youre the type of person who gives up some freedoms in the name of security and comfort. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Sharkticon@lemmy.zip 14 points 3 months ago Malicious misinformation gets spread by plenty of elected officials and journalists every day. You don't have to be anonymous to do that. Hell pretty much the entire US government does it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Diva@lemmy.ml 10 points 3 months ago no, its not permalink fedilink source parent [–] PseudoSpock@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 months ago No. permalink fedilink source parent [–] kbobabob@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 months ago The spread of malicious misinformation and propaganda has already led to millions of deaths. Ah, I see you turned the TV on. Fox News I'm guessing. permalink fedilink source parent [–] EvergreenGuru@lemmy.world 26 points 3 months ago* (1 child) The whole point of anonymity is that people can say whatever they want publicly without it affecting their real life. So you can be against whatever war or business practices without the government or your boss bothering you. Now they want to stifle dissent by putting your face to every opinion you have online. They want to card you for being against the war. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Hapankaali@lemmy.world -16 points 3 months ago (3 children) The proposal isn't to ban pseudonyms. Greece isn't in any war that I am aware of. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] PseudoSpock@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 months ago (1 child) Since you like the idea so much, you go first. What’s your real name, “friend”? Put your money where your mouth is. Let’s see how safe you feel giving out that information. C’mon, old buddy old pal. What’s the harm, right? Out with it. Triple dog dare ya, bud. We’re waiting. Oh, and until you tell us, maybe can it otherwise. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Hapankaali@lemmy.world -4 points 3 months ago (2 children) It seems you don't understand the idea, which wouldn't be that people would be forced to disclose their identity on social media. Instead, social media would be required to check that users are who they say they are. Imagine Coca-Cola puts out an ad saying Pepsi instantly makes your balls explode, or that the Daily Mail publishes an op-ed from a Labour insider who is actually an LLM prompted by a GRU operative. It is this type of "free speech" that currently runs rampant on social media, and would be curtailed under this type of proposal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ms_lane@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago Have you messaged the admins of every lemmy instance lemmy.world is federated with to tell them your Name, Date of Birth, Street Address, etc? If not, why not? That's what you want for others? permalink fedilink source parent [–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 months ago It seems you don't understand the idea, which wouldn't be that people would be forced to disclose their identity on social media. Instead, social media would be required to check that users are who they say they are. that makes no sense whatsoever. you are saying your name is "Hapankaali". do you have any documents proving that you are actually "Hapankaali"? if you don't, how are you planning to prove you are who you claim to be? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Bloefz@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago Pseudonyms aren't anonymous by their very definition. permalink fedilink source parent [–] EvergreenGuru@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago If it was expanded to the EU, I assume it’d be the Ukraine war. Europe seems to be leaning towards a war with Russia or keeps hinting it might happen. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Janx@piefed.social 14 points 3 months ago (1 child) It's impossible to verify humanity without verifying identity. Just like all attemps to verify age this will result in vast databases of all our personal data that will be abused, sold, leaked, and hacked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago and because of at the very least leaking, even verifying identity is not sufficient to verify humanity permalink fedilink source parent [–] Rothe@piefed.social 12 points 3 months ago (1 child) So lemmy would in fact be illegal, because it wouldn't be lemmy if anonymity wasn't possible. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Hapankaali@lemmy.world -8 points 3 months ago Anonymity would still be possible, in the same sense that anonymous op-eds in newspapers are possible. permalink fedilink source parent [–] rwrwefwef@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago ...you know you're using an anonymous account right now, right? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago (2 children) Greece would essentially have to wall themselves off from every country that doesn't... So if an instance was hosted in Greece, and this actually happens... Yeah, it would effect that instance. It seems like you just quoted a tiny bit of the sentence so it would seem like a possibility tho... Critics highlight the technical complexity of the issue and suggest that an EU-wide approach may be more practical to implement. Meanwhile, the EU governments which consider such a measure will also need to address potential freedom of speech concerns – as digital rights campaigners have warned for years. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] markz@suppo.fi 6 points 3 months ago (1 child) I quoted it because I have a problem with it and it wasn't the main thing. Who in their right mind would even suggest this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago Because as a complete thought it clearly means: For X to work we'd have to d Y, which has even less chances of happening. And you picked out "we'd have to do Y" and presented that like it's a plan anyone is proposing and not an example of how impossible it would be... But I don't think any of that is going to help permalink fedilink source parent [–] rwrwefwef@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 months ago Greece would essentially have to wall themselves off from every country that doesn’t This is why the EU usually moves in packs, be it on Ukraine, emissions or anything else. Basically, it will take a few more countries to join in to see a real effect. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] markz@suppo.fi 6 points 3 months ago (1 child) I quoted it because I have a problem with it and it wasn't the main thing. Who in their right mind would even suggest this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago Because as a complete thought it clearly means: For X to work we'd have to d Y, which has even less chances of happening. And you picked out "we'd have to do Y" and presented that like it's a plan anyone is proposing and not an example of how impossible it would be... But I don't think any of that is going to help permalink fedilink source parent
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago Because as a complete thought it clearly means: For X to work we'd have to d Y, which has even less chances of happening. And you picked out "we'd have to do Y" and presented that like it's a plan anyone is proposing and not an example of how impossible it would be... But I don't think any of that is going to help permalink fedilink source parent
[–] rwrwefwef@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 months ago Greece would essentially have to wall themselves off from every country that doesn’t This is why the EU usually moves in packs, be it on Ukraine, emissions or anything else. Basically, it will take a few more countries to join in to see a real effect. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] hanrahan@piefed.social 4 points 3 months ago (1 child) So, lemmy would be illegal under this vision? presumably hosted in Greece, yes..Hosted in Bumfuckistan, I can't see how. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Holytimes@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago Bumfuckistan is rather famously full of give no fucks poltics. Very freeing place. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Holytimes@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago Bumfuckistan is rather famously full of give no fucks poltics. Very freeing place. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Hapankaali@lemmy.world -21 points 3 months ago (5 children) Lemmy would not be illegal. Instead, Lemmy would be required to verify that each account belongs to a real person. Essentially, it's a way to make bots and astroturfing illegal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] markz@suppo.fi 69 points 3 months ago (1 child) I wouldn't be here if it asked for my id. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Hapankaali@lemmy.world -46 points 3 months ago (6 children) Me neither, probably. But it's still a good idea in principle. The spread of malicious misinformation and propaganda has already led to millions of deaths. If we have to give up some anonymous shitposting to curb these excesses, it's worth it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] GalacticSushi@piefed.blahaj.zone 32 points 3 months ago* (2 children) The spread of malicious misinformation and propaganda has already led to millions of deaths. Malicious misinformation and propaganda is constantly spread without any sort of anonymity, so I can't see how this is relevant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bloefz@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago Exactly, nation states and political parties are the worst in this regard. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Hapankaali@lemmy.world -23 points 3 months ago (3 children) Chemotherapy does not cure all forms of cancer, therefore chemotherapy is not relevant to cancer treatment. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] markz@suppo.fi 21 points 3 months ago (1 child) Home searches would catch some criminals, therefore a blanket search warrant is relevant to stopping crime. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] nogooduser@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago (1 child) That’s a little too close to reality for comfort. 😟 We have several governments saying that being able to read some people’s encrypted messages would catch some criminals, therefore we need to be able to read everyone’s encrypted messages. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Martineski@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 months ago Literally 2 days ago I was arguing with family about privacy online and I was the only person in car that gave a fuck about it. The 3 other family members were totally ok with being spied on online from start to finish and have this information used against because they had "nothing to hide" and that caring about it would not change anything in their personal lives anyway and that we don't live in a country that actively cracks down on people against certain things. No example or angle I brought up would change their mind. This was the moment I gave up on those family members in my head. Ugh... permalink fedilink source parent [–] nautilus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 3 months ago bro thought he really cooked with this one permalink fedilink source parent [–] Bloefz@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago (1 child) No but you don't give everyone chemotherapy just because some people have cancer permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] non_burglar@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago Thank you. I agree with this. permalink fedilink source parent [–] chinaski@lemmy.ml 26 points 3 months ago So youre the type of person who gives up some freedoms in the name of security and comfort. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Sharkticon@lemmy.zip 14 points 3 months ago Malicious misinformation gets spread by plenty of elected officials and journalists every day. You don't have to be anonymous to do that. Hell pretty much the entire US government does it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Diva@lemmy.ml 10 points 3 months ago no, its not permalink fedilink source parent [–] PseudoSpock@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 months ago No. permalink fedilink source parent [–] kbobabob@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 months ago The spread of malicious misinformation and propaganda has already led to millions of deaths. Ah, I see you turned the TV on. Fox News I'm guessing. permalink fedilink source parent [–] EvergreenGuru@lemmy.world 26 points 3 months ago* (1 child) The whole point of anonymity is that people can say whatever they want publicly without it affecting their real life. So you can be against whatever war or business practices without the government or your boss bothering you. Now they want to stifle dissent by putting your face to every opinion you have online. They want to card you for being against the war. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Hapankaali@lemmy.world -16 points 3 months ago (3 children) The proposal isn't to ban pseudonyms. Greece isn't in any war that I am aware of. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] PseudoSpock@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 months ago (1 child) Since you like the idea so much, you go first. What’s your real name, “friend”? Put your money where your mouth is. Let’s see how safe you feel giving out that information. C’mon, old buddy old pal. What’s the harm, right? Out with it. Triple dog dare ya, bud. We’re waiting. Oh, and until you tell us, maybe can it otherwise. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Hapankaali@lemmy.world -4 points 3 months ago (2 children) It seems you don't understand the idea, which wouldn't be that people would be forced to disclose their identity on social media. Instead, social media would be required to check that users are who they say they are. Imagine Coca-Cola puts out an ad saying Pepsi instantly makes your balls explode, or that the Daily Mail publishes an op-ed from a Labour insider who is actually an LLM prompted by a GRU operative. It is this type of "free speech" that currently runs rampant on social media, and would be curtailed under this type of proposal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ms_lane@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago Have you messaged the admins of every lemmy instance lemmy.world is federated with to tell them your Name, Date of Birth, Street Address, etc? If not, why not? That's what you want for others? permalink fedilink source parent [–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 months ago It seems you don't understand the idea, which wouldn't be that people would be forced to disclose their identity on social media. Instead, social media would be required to check that users are who they say they are. that makes no sense whatsoever. you are saying your name is "Hapankaali". do you have any documents proving that you are actually "Hapankaali"? if you don't, how are you planning to prove you are who you claim to be? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Bloefz@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago Pseudonyms aren't anonymous by their very definition. permalink fedilink source parent [–] EvergreenGuru@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago If it was expanded to the EU, I assume it’d be the Ukraine war. Europe seems to be leaning towards a war with Russia or keeps hinting it might happen. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Janx@piefed.social 14 points 3 months ago (1 child) It's impossible to verify humanity without verifying identity. Just like all attemps to verify age this will result in vast databases of all our personal data that will be abused, sold, leaked, and hacked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago and because of at the very least leaking, even verifying identity is not sufficient to verify humanity permalink fedilink source parent [–] Rothe@piefed.social 12 points 3 months ago (1 child) So lemmy would in fact be illegal, because it wouldn't be lemmy if anonymity wasn't possible. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Hapankaali@lemmy.world -8 points 3 months ago Anonymity would still be possible, in the same sense that anonymous op-eds in newspapers are possible. permalink fedilink source parent [–] rwrwefwef@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago ...you know you're using an anonymous account right now, right? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] markz@suppo.fi 69 points 3 months ago (1 child) I wouldn't be here if it asked for my id. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Hapankaali@lemmy.world -46 points 3 months ago (6 children) Me neither, probably. But it's still a good idea in principle. The spread of malicious misinformation and propaganda has already led to millions of deaths. If we have to give up some anonymous shitposting to curb these excesses, it's worth it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] GalacticSushi@piefed.blahaj.zone 32 points 3 months ago* (2 children) The spread of malicious misinformation and propaganda has already led to millions of deaths. Malicious misinformation and propaganda is constantly spread without any sort of anonymity, so I can't see how this is relevant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bloefz@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago Exactly, nation states and political parties are the worst in this regard. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Hapankaali@lemmy.world -23 points 3 months ago (3 children) Chemotherapy does not cure all forms of cancer, therefore chemotherapy is not relevant to cancer treatment. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] markz@suppo.fi 21 points 3 months ago (1 child) Home searches would catch some criminals, therefore a blanket search warrant is relevant to stopping crime. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] nogooduser@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago (1 child) That’s a little too close to reality for comfort. 😟 We have several governments saying that being able to read some people’s encrypted messages would catch some criminals, therefore we need to be able to read everyone’s encrypted messages. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Martineski@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 months ago Literally 2 days ago I was arguing with family about privacy online and I was the only person in car that gave a fuck about it. The 3 other family members were totally ok with being spied on online from start to finish and have this information used against because they had "nothing to hide" and that caring about it would not change anything in their personal lives anyway and that we don't live in a country that actively cracks down on people against certain things. No example or angle I brought up would change their mind. This was the moment I gave up on those family members in my head. Ugh... permalink fedilink source parent [–] nautilus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 3 months ago bro thought he really cooked with this one permalink fedilink source parent [–] Bloefz@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago (1 child) No but you don't give everyone chemotherapy just because some people have cancer permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] non_burglar@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago Thank you. I agree with this. permalink fedilink source parent [–] chinaski@lemmy.ml 26 points 3 months ago So youre the type of person who gives up some freedoms in the name of security and comfort. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Sharkticon@lemmy.zip 14 points 3 months ago Malicious misinformation gets spread by plenty of elected officials and journalists every day. You don't have to be anonymous to do that. Hell pretty much the entire US government does it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Diva@lemmy.ml 10 points 3 months ago no, its not permalink fedilink source parent [–] PseudoSpock@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 months ago No. permalink fedilink source parent [–] kbobabob@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 months ago The spread of malicious misinformation and propaganda has already led to millions of deaths. Ah, I see you turned the TV on. Fox News I'm guessing. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Hapankaali@lemmy.world -46 points 3 months ago (6 children) Me neither, probably. But it's still a good idea in principle. The spread of malicious misinformation and propaganda has already led to millions of deaths. If we have to give up some anonymous shitposting to curb these excesses, it's worth it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] GalacticSushi@piefed.blahaj.zone 32 points 3 months ago* (2 children) The spread of malicious misinformation and propaganda has already led to millions of deaths. Malicious misinformation and propaganda is constantly spread without any sort of anonymity, so I can't see how this is relevant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bloefz@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago Exactly, nation states and political parties are the worst in this regard. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Hapankaali@lemmy.world -23 points 3 months ago (3 children) Chemotherapy does not cure all forms of cancer, therefore chemotherapy is not relevant to cancer treatment. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] markz@suppo.fi 21 points 3 months ago (1 child) Home searches would catch some criminals, therefore a blanket search warrant is relevant to stopping crime. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] nogooduser@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago (1 child) That’s a little too close to reality for comfort. 😟 We have several governments saying that being able to read some people’s encrypted messages would catch some criminals, therefore we need to be able to read everyone’s encrypted messages. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Martineski@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 months ago Literally 2 days ago I was arguing with family about privacy online and I was the only person in car that gave a fuck about it. The 3 other family members were totally ok with being spied on online from start to finish and have this information used against because they had "nothing to hide" and that caring about it would not change anything in their personal lives anyway and that we don't live in a country that actively cracks down on people against certain things. No example or angle I brought up would change their mind. This was the moment I gave up on those family members in my head. Ugh... permalink fedilink source parent [–] nautilus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 3 months ago bro thought he really cooked with this one permalink fedilink source parent [–] Bloefz@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago (1 child) No but you don't give everyone chemotherapy just because some people have cancer permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] non_burglar@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago Thank you. I agree with this. permalink fedilink source parent [–] chinaski@lemmy.ml 26 points 3 months ago So youre the type of person who gives up some freedoms in the name of security and comfort. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Sharkticon@lemmy.zip 14 points 3 months ago Malicious misinformation gets spread by plenty of elected officials and journalists every day. You don't have to be anonymous to do that. Hell pretty much the entire US government does it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Diva@lemmy.ml 10 points 3 months ago no, its not permalink fedilink source parent [–] PseudoSpock@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 months ago No. permalink fedilink source parent [–] kbobabob@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 months ago The spread of malicious misinformation and propaganda has already led to millions of deaths. Ah, I see you turned the TV on. Fox News I'm guessing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] GalacticSushi@piefed.blahaj.zone 32 points 3 months ago* (2 children) The spread of malicious misinformation and propaganda has already led to millions of deaths. Malicious misinformation and propaganda is constantly spread without any sort of anonymity, so I can't see how this is relevant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bloefz@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago Exactly, nation states and political parties are the worst in this regard. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Hapankaali@lemmy.world -23 points 3 months ago (3 children) Chemotherapy does not cure all forms of cancer, therefore chemotherapy is not relevant to cancer treatment. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] markz@suppo.fi 21 points 3 months ago (1 child) Home searches would catch some criminals, therefore a blanket search warrant is relevant to stopping crime. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] nogooduser@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago (1 child) That’s a little too close to reality for comfort. 😟 We have several governments saying that being able to read some people’s encrypted messages would catch some criminals, therefore we need to be able to read everyone’s encrypted messages. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Martineski@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 months ago Literally 2 days ago I was arguing with family about privacy online and I was the only person in car that gave a fuck about it. The 3 other family members were totally ok with being spied on online from start to finish and have this information used against because they had "nothing to hide" and that caring about it would not change anything in their personal lives anyway and that we don't live in a country that actively cracks down on people against certain things. No example or angle I brought up would change their mind. This was the moment I gave up on those family members in my head. Ugh... permalink fedilink source parent [–] nautilus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 3 months ago bro thought he really cooked with this one permalink fedilink source parent [–] Bloefz@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago (1 child) No but you don't give everyone chemotherapy just because some people have cancer permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] non_burglar@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago Thank you. I agree with this. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Bloefz@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago Exactly, nation states and political parties are the worst in this regard. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Hapankaali@lemmy.world -23 points 3 months ago (3 children) Chemotherapy does not cure all forms of cancer, therefore chemotherapy is not relevant to cancer treatment. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] markz@suppo.fi 21 points 3 months ago (1 child) Home searches would catch some criminals, therefore a blanket search warrant is relevant to stopping crime. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] nogooduser@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago (1 child) That’s a little too close to reality for comfort. 😟 We have several governments saying that being able to read some people’s encrypted messages would catch some criminals, therefore we need to be able to read everyone’s encrypted messages. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Martineski@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 months ago Literally 2 days ago I was arguing with family about privacy online and I was the only person in car that gave a fuck about it. The 3 other family members were totally ok with being spied on online from start to finish and have this information used against because they had "nothing to hide" and that caring about it would not change anything in their personal lives anyway and that we don't live in a country that actively cracks down on people against certain things. No example or angle I brought up would change their mind. This was the moment I gave up on those family members in my head. Ugh... permalink fedilink source parent [–] nautilus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 3 months ago bro thought he really cooked with this one permalink fedilink source parent [–] Bloefz@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago (1 child) No but you don't give everyone chemotherapy just because some people have cancer permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] non_burglar@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago Thank you. I agree with this. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] markz@suppo.fi 21 points 3 months ago (1 child) Home searches would catch some criminals, therefore a blanket search warrant is relevant to stopping crime. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] nogooduser@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago (1 child) That’s a little too close to reality for comfort. 😟 We have several governments saying that being able to read some people’s encrypted messages would catch some criminals, therefore we need to be able to read everyone’s encrypted messages. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Martineski@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 months ago Literally 2 days ago I was arguing with family about privacy online and I was the only person in car that gave a fuck about it. The 3 other family members were totally ok with being spied on online from start to finish and have this information used against because they had "nothing to hide" and that caring about it would not change anything in their personal lives anyway and that we don't live in a country that actively cracks down on people against certain things. No example or angle I brought up would change their mind. This was the moment I gave up on those family members in my head. Ugh... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] nogooduser@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago (1 child) That’s a little too close to reality for comfort. 😟 We have several governments saying that being able to read some people’s encrypted messages would catch some criminals, therefore we need to be able to read everyone’s encrypted messages. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Martineski@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 months ago Literally 2 days ago I was arguing with family about privacy online and I was the only person in car that gave a fuck about it. The 3 other family members were totally ok with being spied on online from start to finish and have this information used against because they had "nothing to hide" and that caring about it would not change anything in their personal lives anyway and that we don't live in a country that actively cracks down on people against certain things. No example or angle I brought up would change their mind. This was the moment I gave up on those family members in my head. Ugh... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Martineski@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 months ago Literally 2 days ago I was arguing with family about privacy online and I was the only person in car that gave a fuck about it. The 3 other family members were totally ok with being spied on online from start to finish and have this information used against because they had "nothing to hide" and that caring about it would not change anything in their personal lives anyway and that we don't live in a country that actively cracks down on people against certain things. No example or angle I brought up would change their mind. This was the moment I gave up on those family members in my head. Ugh... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] nautilus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 3 months ago bro thought he really cooked with this one permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Bloefz@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago (1 child) No but you don't give everyone chemotherapy just because some people have cancer permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] non_burglar@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago Thank you. I agree with this. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] non_burglar@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago Thank you. I agree with this. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] chinaski@lemmy.ml 26 points 3 months ago So youre the type of person who gives up some freedoms in the name of security and comfort. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Sharkticon@lemmy.zip 14 points 3 months ago Malicious misinformation gets spread by plenty of elected officials and journalists every day. You don't have to be anonymous to do that. Hell pretty much the entire US government does it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] kbobabob@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 months ago The spread of malicious misinformation and propaganda has already led to millions of deaths. Ah, I see you turned the TV on. Fox News I'm guessing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] EvergreenGuru@lemmy.world 26 points 3 months ago* (1 child) The whole point of anonymity is that people can say whatever they want publicly without it affecting their real life. So you can be against whatever war or business practices without the government or your boss bothering you. Now they want to stifle dissent by putting your face to every opinion you have online. They want to card you for being against the war. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Hapankaali@lemmy.world -16 points 3 months ago (3 children) The proposal isn't to ban pseudonyms. Greece isn't in any war that I am aware of. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] PseudoSpock@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 months ago (1 child) Since you like the idea so much, you go first. What’s your real name, “friend”? Put your money where your mouth is. Let’s see how safe you feel giving out that information. C’mon, old buddy old pal. What’s the harm, right? Out with it. Triple dog dare ya, bud. We’re waiting. Oh, and until you tell us, maybe can it otherwise. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Hapankaali@lemmy.world -4 points 3 months ago (2 children) It seems you don't understand the idea, which wouldn't be that people would be forced to disclose their identity on social media. Instead, social media would be required to check that users are who they say they are. Imagine Coca-Cola puts out an ad saying Pepsi instantly makes your balls explode, or that the Daily Mail publishes an op-ed from a Labour insider who is actually an LLM prompted by a GRU operative. It is this type of "free speech" that currently runs rampant on social media, and would be curtailed under this type of proposal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ms_lane@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago Have you messaged the admins of every lemmy instance lemmy.world is federated with to tell them your Name, Date of Birth, Street Address, etc? If not, why not? That's what you want for others? permalink fedilink source parent [–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 months ago It seems you don't understand the idea, which wouldn't be that people would be forced to disclose their identity on social media. Instead, social media would be required to check that users are who they say they are. that makes no sense whatsoever. you are saying your name is "Hapankaali". do you have any documents proving that you are actually "Hapankaali"? if you don't, how are you planning to prove you are who you claim to be? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Bloefz@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago Pseudonyms aren't anonymous by their very definition. permalink fedilink source parent [–] EvergreenGuru@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago If it was expanded to the EU, I assume it’d be the Ukraine war. Europe seems to be leaning towards a war with Russia or keeps hinting it might happen. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Hapankaali@lemmy.world -16 points 3 months ago (3 children) The proposal isn't to ban pseudonyms. Greece isn't in any war that I am aware of. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] PseudoSpock@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 months ago (1 child) Since you like the idea so much, you go first. What’s your real name, “friend”? Put your money where your mouth is. Let’s see how safe you feel giving out that information. C’mon, old buddy old pal. What’s the harm, right? Out with it. Triple dog dare ya, bud. We’re waiting. Oh, and until you tell us, maybe can it otherwise. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Hapankaali@lemmy.world -4 points 3 months ago (2 children) It seems you don't understand the idea, which wouldn't be that people would be forced to disclose their identity on social media. Instead, social media would be required to check that users are who they say they are. Imagine Coca-Cola puts out an ad saying Pepsi instantly makes your balls explode, or that the Daily Mail publishes an op-ed from a Labour insider who is actually an LLM prompted by a GRU operative. It is this type of "free speech" that currently runs rampant on social media, and would be curtailed under this type of proposal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ms_lane@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago Have you messaged the admins of every lemmy instance lemmy.world is federated with to tell them your Name, Date of Birth, Street Address, etc? If not, why not? That's what you want for others? permalink fedilink source parent [–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 months ago It seems you don't understand the idea, which wouldn't be that people would be forced to disclose their identity on social media. Instead, social media would be required to check that users are who they say they are. that makes no sense whatsoever. you are saying your name is "Hapankaali". do you have any documents proving that you are actually "Hapankaali"? if you don't, how are you planning to prove you are who you claim to be? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Bloefz@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago Pseudonyms aren't anonymous by their very definition. permalink fedilink source parent [–] EvergreenGuru@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago If it was expanded to the EU, I assume it’d be the Ukraine war. Europe seems to be leaning towards a war with Russia or keeps hinting it might happen. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PseudoSpock@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 months ago (1 child) Since you like the idea so much, you go first. What’s your real name, “friend”? Put your money where your mouth is. Let’s see how safe you feel giving out that information. C’mon, old buddy old pal. What’s the harm, right? Out with it. Triple dog dare ya, bud. We’re waiting. Oh, and until you tell us, maybe can it otherwise. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Hapankaali@lemmy.world -4 points 3 months ago (2 children) It seems you don't understand the idea, which wouldn't be that people would be forced to disclose their identity on social media. Instead, social media would be required to check that users are who they say they are. Imagine Coca-Cola puts out an ad saying Pepsi instantly makes your balls explode, or that the Daily Mail publishes an op-ed from a Labour insider who is actually an LLM prompted by a GRU operative. It is this type of "free speech" that currently runs rampant on social media, and would be curtailed under this type of proposal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ms_lane@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago Have you messaged the admins of every lemmy instance lemmy.world is federated with to tell them your Name, Date of Birth, Street Address, etc? If not, why not? That's what you want for others? permalink fedilink source parent [–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 months ago It seems you don't understand the idea, which wouldn't be that people would be forced to disclose their identity on social media. Instead, social media would be required to check that users are who they say they are. that makes no sense whatsoever. you are saying your name is "Hapankaali". do you have any documents proving that you are actually "Hapankaali"? if you don't, how are you planning to prove you are who you claim to be? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Hapankaali@lemmy.world -4 points 3 months ago (2 children) It seems you don't understand the idea, which wouldn't be that people would be forced to disclose their identity on social media. Instead, social media would be required to check that users are who they say they are. Imagine Coca-Cola puts out an ad saying Pepsi instantly makes your balls explode, or that the Daily Mail publishes an op-ed from a Labour insider who is actually an LLM prompted by a GRU operative. It is this type of "free speech" that currently runs rampant on social media, and would be curtailed under this type of proposal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ms_lane@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago Have you messaged the admins of every lemmy instance lemmy.world is federated with to tell them your Name, Date of Birth, Street Address, etc? If not, why not? That's what you want for others? permalink fedilink source parent [–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 months ago It seems you don't understand the idea, which wouldn't be that people would be forced to disclose their identity on social media. Instead, social media would be required to check that users are who they say they are. that makes no sense whatsoever. you are saying your name is "Hapankaali". do you have any documents proving that you are actually "Hapankaali"? if you don't, how are you planning to prove you are who you claim to be? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ms_lane@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago Have you messaged the admins of every lemmy instance lemmy.world is federated with to tell them your Name, Date of Birth, Street Address, etc? If not, why not? That's what you want for others? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 months ago It seems you don't understand the idea, which wouldn't be that people would be forced to disclose their identity on social media. Instead, social media would be required to check that users are who they say they are. that makes no sense whatsoever. you are saying your name is "Hapankaali". do you have any documents proving that you are actually "Hapankaali"? if you don't, how are you planning to prove you are who you claim to be? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Bloefz@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago Pseudonyms aren't anonymous by their very definition. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] EvergreenGuru@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago If it was expanded to the EU, I assume it’d be the Ukraine war. Europe seems to be leaning towards a war with Russia or keeps hinting it might happen. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Janx@piefed.social 14 points 3 months ago (1 child) It's impossible to verify humanity without verifying identity. Just like all attemps to verify age this will result in vast databases of all our personal data that will be abused, sold, leaked, and hacked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago and because of at the very least leaking, even verifying identity is not sufficient to verify humanity permalink fedilink source parent
[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago and because of at the very least leaking, even verifying identity is not sufficient to verify humanity permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Rothe@piefed.social 12 points 3 months ago (1 child) So lemmy would in fact be illegal, because it wouldn't be lemmy if anonymity wasn't possible. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Hapankaali@lemmy.world -8 points 3 months ago Anonymity would still be possible, in the same sense that anonymous op-eds in newspapers are possible. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Hapankaali@lemmy.world -8 points 3 months ago Anonymity would still be possible, in the same sense that anonymous op-eds in newspapers are possible. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] rwrwefwef@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago ...you know you're using an anonymous account right now, right? permalink fedilink source parent