Those are two different things. Being identifiable online is not the same as giving some company your personal information.

I 100% oppose forcing people to share personal data with private companies. This is not what we're talking about here.

This is, in fact, exactly what we're talking about here. The assumption that de-anonymization has some foolproof implementation that only does a single identifying thing (like a limited signal that only says someone is "old enough") is missing a lot of context. Even Von der Leyen's "privacy respecting" age verification app has been shown to have major flaws in that regard. The assumption that it will simply end there also contradicts the evidence.

Privacy is a right of fundamental importance to virtually all notions of liberty. Like it or not, data rights are human rights. A society without privacy becomes a society without freedom. The discussions around abolishing privacy are actually always discussions about other problems which are better served by addressing them directly and honestly rather than promoting the idea that the answer is sacrificing essential rights. Our best approach is to address these ills with an honest assessment of their actual, specific causes (like social media algorithms, lack of accountability, and the many reckless, harmful and exploitative practices which have become industry standards, etc) and act from there.

This is, in fact, exactly what we’re talking about here.

No, we're not. We're talking about publishing content online. That's the exact opposite of keeping things private. EU laws are clear here. Your data is protected and age verification does not overwrite those rights. We're not talking about removing e2e encryption, https, VPNs and making selfhosting illegal. We're talking about proving that things that are published (i.e. made public) on the internet are actually published by a citizen.

It's baffling that people confuse anonymity with privacy. My Signal account is tied to my phone number yet my conversation are private. You somehow think that protecting this privacy means we have to protect russian bots creating Twitter accounts and spamming the platform with anti-EU propaganda pretending to be 25 year old single mother from Warsaw.

The assumption that it will simply end there also contradicts the evidence.

And we have the slippery slope argument. Because that's the only argument people have here. "We need anonymity on social media because they will install cameras in our bedrooms next". I'm not buying that. So far EU has a very good track record when it comes to protecting its citizens from corporations. The fastest way to lose this protection is to let russia backed fascists from AfD, Vox, Kofederacja and Fidesz destabilize and take over EU. Online anonymity is not protecting us from them, it's the main tool they are using. And this is not some fantasy, we've already seen this in UK. Russia backed politicians did brexit and now UK is the most anty-privacy country in Europe. Seeing how toxic the topic of anonymity is I wonder how my russian assets are taking part in this discussion...

We're not talking about removing e2e encryption, https, VPNs and making selfhosting illegal.

While it might not be happening in your neck of the woods, there are efforts to crack down on encryption as well, in France for instance. The EU is not immune to encroachment and abuse of the individual's rights, no place is.

It's baffling that people confuse anonymity with privacy. My Signal account is tied to my phone number yet my conversation are private.

While you're correct that anonymity is not the same as privacy, encryption alone is not a viable answer. As "Signalgate" in the US demonstrated, encryption is merely an attempt to secure a channel of communication. It isn't sufficient on its own to protect anything, it isn't even guaranteed to be secure a surprising amount of the time.

Overall, you seem to have a strong sense of faith that your country and the EU as a whole will be this unshakable pillar in the face of all of everything happening all around. Even if you trust your government or the EU, you would also have to trust the numerous platforms, service providers, data brokers, and digital security apparatus to all work honestly and in conjunction toward your (and everyone else's) best interests. That's quite a lot of trust and faith to spread around.

As far as all the various fascists and other bad actors you're (rightly) concerned about, that is a good point to talk about. One thing to emphasize is that the major platforms hosting them have historically had a legal obligation to moderate their content, which they have been grossly negligent at. There is a whole discussion there, but the point is that there is a reasonable expectation that platforms do their utmost to handle these situations responsibly. Due to things like engagement metrics, this obligation often contradicts with the bottom line of the business (as brought out in the "Facebook Papers" leak) since controversial content typically elicits high engagement.

I (and others) don't believe the answer lies in individuals forfeiting rights simply because the platforms won't do what they are rightly obligated to do. Shifting the responsibility away from the platforms themselves not only makes it less likely they will improve their practices, but it makes any measures any individual or government may take to sanitize that caustic digital environment that much harder and less effective.

100% disagree.

Overall, you seem to have a strong sense of faith that your country and the EU as a whole will be this unshakable pillar in the face of all of everything happening all around. Even if you trust your government or the EU, you would also have to trust the numerous platforms, service providers, data brokers, and digital security apparatus to all work honestly and in conjunction toward your (and everyone else’s) best interests.

No, I don't have to trust the data brokers because of encryption. You're still mixing anonymity with privacy. Signal doesn't have my conversations. Even if I'm forced to verify my age on Signal they will not get any more data from me than they already have. They already have my phone number. Age verification doesn't mean I now have to trust Signal more. Same with all the other platforms. I don't use gmail, I don't use stock Android and I don't log in when browsing youtube. They will not get more data from me because of age verification. YT already required age checks for some videos. I just don't watch those. The only difference is publishing content online. You can post content on facebook, instagram and twitter anonymously now. You won't be able to. I'm not anonymous on lemmy already, I'm fine with that. I think about what I post and I think everyone should do the same.

As far as all the various fascists and other bad actors you’re (rightly) concerned about, that is a good point to talk about. One thing to emphasize is that the major platforms hosting them have historically had a legal obligation to moderate their content, which they have been grossly negligent at.

I don't want the platforms to moderate content. Censorship is bad. We constantly see stories about platform removing or demonetizing content that's completely legal but uncomfortable for the corporations. I would rather see independent justice system take care of that like they do with press. In a fair system courts can punish someone for publishing illegal content but they can't stop them from publishing it. I know it's not really possible right now (it would overload the courts) but we should start with some mix and limit content moderation over time. Anything that's legal should be permitted. People that publish illegal content should be responsible for it. Removing anonymity will make that possible. Even lemmy had issue with child pornography published here by some assholes. Removing anonymity would make hosting server easier and safer. All we would lose is toxic assholes and calls to assassinate people.

No, I don't have to trust the data brokers because of encryption.

Encryption alone actually isn't preventing as much data collection as you indicate. I would suggest looking that up.

You're also pretty confident in the specifics of your own situation, like not using gmail, etc. While I would caution you that you may not be as secure as you appear to believe, I'd say that you do demonstrate that you have some awareness that there is a problem with the nature of how data can be handled in such contexts. That's definitely a good start. But I also think it would be good to consider that even if what you're personally doing is as effective as you believe, not everyone is going to take the measures you're taking. Even if it makes you more secure, what about everyone else? How do they fit in?

100% disagree.

You seem to be shutting out a lot of the info you're being given. That's understandable, strong opinions are often difficult to see past. But I'm noticing that we're not meeting on some central facts, we're kind of having two different conversations.

There is a lot to talk about here, a lot to address in what you've said. Productive discussion often requires being able to meet on facts, however.

You seem to be shutting out a lot of the info you’re being given. That’s understandable, strong opinions are often difficult to see past. But I’m noticing that we’re not meeting on some central facts, we’re kind of having two different conversations.

I actually think we're talking about the same thing and you're trying to make good points. And I think I'm addressing what you're saying on factual level. I just disagree with you.

Even if it makes you more secure, what about everyone else? How do they fit in?

Majority of people don't care about their anonymity. They link credit cards to their google, apple and facebook accounts. They post personally identifiable data and pictures all the time. Google requires phone numbers to create account now so using Gmail and being anonymous are mutually exclusive. A lot of people arguing for anonymity only care about one single aspect of it: being able to comment online without consequences.

And I don't think what I'm doing is 100% effective. Vast majority of people on the internet are not 100% anonymous. For example you have AI powered tools now that are very good at de-anonymizing users based just on their writing style. I'm sure AI can take my comments from lemmy and link them to my old post on Reddit. You know what's my solution for this? I never called for the assassination of anyone on Reddit. That's the most effective thing you can do: don't act like you're anonymous even when you think you are. At the same time I'm keeping my data as private as possible by avoiding corporate platforms as much as I can, using VPN and blocking ads and trackers. Anonymity != privacy.

“Do you want “toxic speech” to become a crime and punished by a court of law?”

Bullying and disinformation, absolutely.

“How exactly would id verification help against that.”

From the paper What Deters Crime? Comparing the Effectiveness of Legal, Social, and Internal Sanctions Across Countries, citing a meta-analysis:

“On the whole, this meta-analysis favored rejecting the null hypothesis that legal sanctions have no deterrent effect on crime.” ―Meta Analysis of Crime and Deterrence: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature, by Thomas Rupp (2008)

The paper concludes as follows:

Our findings suggest that across societies and cultures, internalized moral standards exert the most powerful restraints on dishonest behavior (see also Campbell, 1964). Policy efforts aimed at promoting moral internalization may be more effective than efforts aimed at increasing the frequency or probability of legal sentences. However, the process by which internalization occurs remains poorly understood, and marks an important direction for future research aimed at reducing crime and enhancing social welfare.

As I said, is it the best solution? Science hasn't a clear answer either. What does seem to be agreed upon is that:
- “The perceived likelihood that one will be caught is far more effective as a deterrent than the severity of the punishment.” ―Wikipedia - Deterrence: Likelihood vs. severity [Also stated in the aforementioned meta-analysis.]
- That having the moral compass to realize something is wrong, will decrease someone succumbing to such wrongdoings.

My hypothesis is that complete anonymity, so a low probability of getting caught, increases toxic behavior because people suffer no bad consequences whatsoever and therefore never learn. Ever hung around a spoiled kid? They're the worst. The same happens online. Naturally, proper journalists and whistleblowers are a different thing, absolute anonymity is crucial for them. But how to square both these realities remains to be discovered.

This argument is one degree of separation away from a "nothing to hide" fallacy. And as you accurately pointed out, it's founded on a very unrealistic assurance of an entirely virtuous power.

Free speech is important. This fact can not be overstated. Surveillance backed by the threat of persecution chills not just "bad speech", but any speech deemed undesirable by groups or individuals in power. This is a fundamental concept to understand when forming theories and opinions that also directly relate to subjects like democracy and authoritarianism. To miss this crucial fact is to formulate a skewed premise that favors the primary mechanism by which free speech, and by extension the many rights and liberties which require free speech, are historically suppressed.

The notion that democratic systems and values are compatible with a surveillance state is flawed. The two systems operate in directly contradictory ways. Surveillance states historically always tend toward forms of authoritarianism. 1984 was a work of fiction, but it was a warning driven and informed by very real demonstrated dangers inherent in the enabling and acceptance of a surveillance state. The validity of its message is shown clearly and repeatedly in real world examples of population surveillance in practice.

Trading liberties, including and especially privacy, for some concept of order, is a dangerous approach which ignores and contradicts historical evidence. To ignore this is to embark on the path to Oceania.

“This argument is one degree of separation away from a "nothing to hide" fallacy. And as you accurately pointed out, it’s founded on a very unrealistic assurance of an entirely virtuous power.”

I know, and I am vehemently in opposition to the nothing to hide argument. In fact, the reason I recently distrohopped to Artix was because some Arch package maintainer casually uttered the following on the developer adding the birth date field: “I appreciate the work ahead of time, and the law is the law.” Which is either remarkably naive, ignorant of history, or malicious. Homosexuality is still a crime by some law somewhere. So, yeah, utter nonsense.

That being said, if the majority of the Web just becomes a place for advertising, gambling, and predominantly fruitless discord due to rampant disinformation, misinformation, trolling, bullying, et cetera, then I think removing anonymity in some way, e.g., for some websites or specific services, could be a solution. Because if the Web goes where it's going now, a cesspool of humanity's worst impulses, I wouldn't see a reason to keep using it and therefore wouldn't care whether there's badly implemented ID verification anyway. Obviously I'd prefer none of this is necessary, that people behave virtuously. But, they don't, so… I also think there's too many laws, and that laws mainly apply to the poor and the working class, and the rich—the perpetuators of most of the world's problems—mostly get off scot-free.

Ugh, it's all so complex. I don't have the answer. Do you? Is what I'm saying as utterly nonsensical as what that Arch maintainer said? If so, I'd be glad to adjust my position provided civilized and proper reasoning—not that you didn't before, @Disillusionist@piefed.world, but many do not.

I don't profess to have "the answer", and you're right that it's complicated. You're also right that the state of things is bad and getting worse.

I hear anti-privacy arguments as pivoting the call for transparency away from the companies providing the harmful, toxic, and exploitative services onto end-users. This effectively bypasses the discussion about corporate accountability, in effect enabling corporate abusers to largely reframe the problems they enable or facilitate as problems of the public at large. This means discussion and efforts become focused on how to apply regulation to the public rather than corporate providers.

It's a win-win for Big Tech, since they avoid serious talks about culpability for the harms they create, while simultaneously benefitting from the greater degree of data extraction made possible by the increased surveillance directed at consumers.

One recent article at It's Foss is about age verification and similar measures, and touched on a lot of this. Here are a couple quotes I found relevant:

Safety becomes the moral language through which a more identity‑locked, surveilled, and centralized internet is made to feel inevitable.

The saddest thing about this moment is how narrow the mainstream imagination of alternatives remains. The policy menu is filled with bans, curfews, and ID checks for the same extractive platforms. There is little serious talk of changing the infrastructure.

This is pretty much exactly my sentiment. If we're honestly looking for "answers" to these problems, we need to be willing to see them for what they are and where they actually lie. I'd say that goes for basically all kinds of problem solving, and I think that kind of common sense troubleshooting mindset is as necessary in this situation as any other. Just doing something to fix a problem rather than what's actually appropriate is often a recipe for more problems.