Languish.org

I came across this article online recently: Security software CEO warns: We could be facing the 'death of anonymity online' (https://www.thecooldown.com/green-business/age-verification-online-security-concerns/)

The specific article itself doesn't matter that much, but the general trend towards age verification for adult stuff is real. Similarly, there's the ongoing back and forth in the EU about Chat Control.

I'm curious if any of you have any thoughts or insight on possible less-or-no-anonymity-on-the-net scenarios and potential impacts.

It seems to me that the primary framing of the public discourse is around the following:

• It will allow us to keep children from accessing porn (and other stuff deemed harmful).
• It'll make loads of adults feel weird about accessing porn becuase it'll be linked to their actual identities somehow.
• It'll allow governments way too much insight into political speech and that's going to lead to bad places.
• Something about free speech.

But what are the other possible ramifications?

What's the possible impact on social media if anonymity is curtailed? Will it render large parts of the social media economy reliant on bot farms and the like inoperative? How much of an impact will it have on foreign (or domestic) online influence operations?

How big of a threat is it to the bottom lines of social media companies like Meta, Twitter, etc (and therefore, how much should we expect to see them oppose it)? Or is it not a threat?

To what degree will malicious (or simply profit seeking) actors be able to get personal data on individual people if there's no anonymity? And is it actually that different from what is available to Google, Meta, Microsoft et. al. now?

I'm curious if any of you have any insight or have read any compelling analysis on the topic?

I don't like the idea of destroying anonymity on the whole internet, but I do like the idea of having walled gardens of authenticated users corresponding to real people.  Unfortunately every social media platform that has pushed for authenticating users benefits from blurring real and fake users either for advertising or boosting volume/engagement.

I think these pushes are resulting from the deteriorating quality of these supposed walled gardens that purposefully exploit the authenticated users for their own benefit, making the internet as a whole feel worse and more dangerous.

Quote from: Jacob on May 04, 2026, 04:01:09 PM

• It'll allow governments way too much insight into political speech and that's going to lead to bad places.

I think it is naive to believe that (malicious?) governments are not already able to do this. Edward Snowdon was thirteen years ago and we know that data engineering and recently AI made gigantic progress since then in the private sector.

The path to the managed democracy of Super Earth, all in name of protecting 'the children'.

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 04, 2026, 04:34:37 PMThe path to the managed democracy of Super Earth, all in name of protecting 'the children'.

Very good argument for removing anonymous posts from social media.

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 04, 2026, 04:39:38 PM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 04, 2026, 04:34:37 PMThe path to the managed democracy of Super Earth, all in name of protecting 'the children'.

Very good argument for removing anonymous posts from social media.

didn't take you for an authoritarian. Seems I was mistaken.
Seems you're also unaware that a 'managed democracy' isn't a democracy at all. And that the argument 'think of the children' is often used to ram through measures that would otherwise never make it to the books.

Without anonymity the government will, inevitably, regulate what opinions are allowed. And it will be able to do so effectively. Your speech will get managed.

I will probably just stop talking on the internet should this happen.

Look I know the government probably has some record that "valmy" on Languish.org is me but they don't know they know it. And nobody is going to just screenshot stuff I say here to bust me.

But if I have to be my real name on places that would change how I act. Because some shit isn't anybody's business.

It's terrifying for a number of reasons, but one specific to trans people (and other minorities/at-risk groups) is that it would be *very* easy to make lists of us and track us if things keep going the way they are.  :(

Quote from: Sophie Scholl on May 04, 2026, 06:21:16 PMIt's terrifying for a number of reasons, but one specific to trans people (and other minorities/at-risk groups) is that it would be *very* easy to make lists of us and track us if things keep going the way they are.  :(

Yeah - I am very torn I think there are groups who have been able to find communities online and that has been enabled by anonymity. I don't think anonymity is the heart of the issue. I think part of the reason it keeps coming up as a solution is that it reflects the issues of being prominent on the internet - so whether that is Musk or any politician they will get hundreds and thousands of often unhinged anonymous comments from people. At the really bad end (and there's been several prosecutions over this in the UK) threats of violence. The obvious solution to that is to end anonymity because people with their real names known would not make those types of comments - but I'm not sure the issue that idea solves is part of the big problem wth the internet, I think it is, however, the problem people in power and influence are most exposed to.

I also think there are very real security risks around how it's done. It's an area where there are actually some very good private sector solutions that have developed really secure age verification tools that do not store a huge amount of personal information - but it's the wild west out there in terms of standards. I was struck by the UK Online Safety Act coming into force in the same week as a very major data breach in the US of a big online provider. The European Commission launched an age verification app to comply with various EU laws (in different stages of taking effect) a couple of weeks ago and urged rapid adoption. It took security experts less than two hours to hack it - and it was (even to a non-technical person like me) wildly insecure, for example lots of stuff just being held in plain text.

The flipside is there is a lot of content that should be age gated and would not be accessible to children in the real world. That includes porn, but is broader. I've said before that the Online Safety Act in the UK (and there is similar in Europe) is a bit of a grab-bag from very well meaning campaigns that I can only sympathise with - parents of children who killed themselves or died from an eating disorder and had been engaging in content that promoted self-harm, suicide and eating disorders. There are safeguarding issues in basically any area of the internet where children are (this is also a big part of the European drive to stop end to end encyrption which is causing a big fight with Meta and Apple especially).

But I think this has led to some incredibly ill-defined concepts in our laws like, in the UK, "lawful but harmful", in Europe quite broad powers to "authorities" which do not require a court order and I think some quite dangerous over-reach, particularly around encrypted messaging. I also think that the whole regulatory approach actually reinforces the big platforms - who I think are a major part of the problem - because whether it's age-gating or assessing potentially harmful content, that tends to reinforce their market and institutional power as gatekeepers. I don't think that's helpful as I think they are part of the problem. So to Jake's question around whether it harms them - I think it does the opposite. I think it embeds them as part of the core infrastructure of the internet.

Now having said all of that anonymity on the internet is largely a fiction at this point unless you put a lot of effort into it just by virtue of the way online advertising works. Your profile is being broadcast to thousands of counterparties in the ecosystem every time you're browsing online. It's not just cookies any more with cross-device, cross-browser tracking and general ID graphing of who is who and who is in a household. And there is an argument that a more age-gated internet might help reduce the issues around that - but again it entrenches the platforms.

My own view all told is probably very controversial :ph34r: I fully accept Sophie's point and I don't know that anonymity is the heart of the problem. But I think from a European perspective, China probably had the right model of developing and ensuring that the internet that is built in that country complies with its laws. Those laws in China are obviously authoritarian and not what I would want to replicate. But I think that approach has "worked" in allowing the development of an internet that is in line with local laws and to that extent arguably more "pro-social". I think in Europe we have the worst of all worlds. We have been open to the global internet which means we live on the American internet with all its pathologies and it does not always comply with our laws on speech or other issues. We have also imposed quite a high regulatory burden which is expensive to comply with and a really high bar to entry for European competitors. Which means we are relying on TikTok, Google, Meta etc to comply meaningfully with our regulations (which I'd argue is questionable at best) but also those same regulations present a barrier to creating and scaling European TikToks etc. I think a Great Atlantic Firewall, say, would have been the right approach and maybe it's not too late - removing anonymity may be part of it, it goes against the great cosmopolitan dream of the internet but I kind of think building localised internets that comply with our local legal requirements would be worth doing (because once you've blocked Meta or Google - they're not impossible to replace - see China, Russia etc) :ph34r:

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 04, 2026, 05:28:56 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 04, 2026, 04:39:38 PM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 04, 2026, 04:34:37 PMThe path to the managed democracy of Super Earth, all in name of protecting 'the children'.

Very good argument for removing anonymous posts from social media.

didn't take you for an authoritarian. Seems I was mistaken.
Seems you're also unaware that a 'managed democracy' isn't a democracy at all. And that the argument 'think of the children' is often used to ram through measures that would otherwise never make it to the books.

Without anonymity the government will, inevitably, regulate what opinions are allowed. And it will be able to do so effectively. Your speech will get managed.

You are missing the point.  Social media has already done considerable damage to democracy.

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 04, 2026, 07:47:16 PMYou are missing the point.  Social media has already done considerable damage to democracy.

I think it is more the nigh total marketization and focus on wringing every possible short-term cent out of social media that has led to the damage to both it and democracy. The internet, too. They were both once possible bastions of freedom and democracy and a way to move the world into a more open and progressive future. Alas, that is no longer the case.  :(

Quote from: Sophie Scholl on May 04, 2026, 07:57:09 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 04, 2026, 07:47:16 PMYou are missing the point.  Social media has already done considerable damage to democracy.

I think it is more the nigh total marketization and focus on wringing every possible short-term cent out of social media that has led to the damage to both it and democracy. The internet, too. They were both once possible bastions of freedom and democracy and a way to move the world into a more open and progressive future. Alas, that is no longer the case.  :(

Agreed, once someone figured out how to monetize the internet, it was game over.  Governments completely abdicated their responsibility and this is what we got. 

The cries of freedom of speech in protest to attempts to regulate miss the point.

On the subject of anonymity/age restriction:

https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/us-may-force-operating-systems-to-have-mandatory-age-verification-share-info-with-third-parties/

QuoteUS may force operating systems to have mandatory age verification, share info with third parties

As reported by Gaming on Linux, a new bill brought before the US House would require operating systems like Windows, Linux, and MacOS to verify users' age for installation and, seemingly, regular use. The "Parents Decide Act" has been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and is cosponsored by New Jersey Democrat Josh Gottheimer and New York Republican Elise Stefanik.

The bill would "require any user of the operating system" to enter their date of birth to both "set up an account on the operating system and use the operating system."

OS providers would also have to "develop a system to allow an app developer to access any information as is necessary, collected by the operating system to carry out this section and any regulation promulgated under this section, to verify the date of birth of a user of an app of the app developer." In other words, any program on your PC would have access to the date you entered, which I don't like at all.

The method of age verification is probably the most critical information here in terms of privacy and data security, but that's being left to the Energy and Commerce Committee to decide after the bill has been passed⁠

It's not exactly clear if the law would simply require us to enter a date—just like how we all say we were born on 1/1/1900 when we want to look at an M-rated game—or if an actual verification step will be required. Some of the language in the bill heavily implies the latter, and, worryingly, that detail is seemingly one of a few that would only be figured out after the bill is passed—if it is passed.

"Not later than 180 days" after enacting the Parents Decide Act, the committee would determine the following:

• "How an operating system provider can verify the date of birth of a parent or legal guardian"—or, unmentioned in this entry but implied later, an adult user acting on their own behalf.
• "Data protection standards related to how an operating system provider shall ensure a date of birth collected by the operating system provider from a user, or the parent or legal guardian of the user ... is collected in a secure manner to maintain the privacy of the user or the parent or legal guardian of the user; and is not stolen or breached."
• "Ensure an app developer can access information collected by the operating system provider to carry out this section ..., to verify the date of birth of a user of an app of the app developer."

Now I'm just a simple country games journalist, but this certainly sounds like a vaguely-worded privacy nightmare that would require OSes to not only store sensitive personal information, but share it with whoever⁠—and you'll forgive me for not trusting some hastily drawn-up data protection scheme when these things always seem to fail, whether it's Discord immediately compromising IDs used in its own age verification, or some bush league people finder in Florida losing everyone's Social Security number.

That's not to mention that this bill seems to just assume that all operating systems are of corporate origin⁠—how is an open-source fork of Linux supposed to securely process personal information at installation, startup, and, seemingly, every time it interacts with a third-party application?

The simple answer would seem to be that it's not, and this bill would blithely wipe out an entire mode of personal computing in order to project the appearance that Congress cares about children's wellbeing. A further wrinkle pointed out by PCG US editor-in-chief Tyler Wilde: Would this also require internet access just to use a computer?

OS-level age verification is the latest development in the generalized first world drive to wipe out what little remains of digital privacy in a panicked response to parents letting their children fry their brains on the internet. The government of California has already passed a similar law, and it's driving open source software developers to the brink.

Article about the law in California: https://www.pcgamer.com/software/operating-systems/a-new-california-law-says-all-operating-systems-including-linux-need-to-have-some-form-of-age-verification-at-account-setup/

QuoteA new California law says all operating systems, including Linux, need to have some form of age verification at account setup

The government of California is implementing a law that requires operating system providers to implement some form of age verification into their account setup procedures.

Assembly Bill No. 1043 was approved by California governor Gavin Newsom in October of last year, and becomes active on January 1, 2027 (via The Lunduke Journal). The bill states, among other factors, that "An operating system provider shall do all of the following:"

"(1) Provide an accessible interface at account setup that requires an account holder to indicate the birth date, age, or both, of the user of that device for the purpose of providing a signal regarding the user's age bracket to applications available in a covered application store.

"(2) Provide a developer who has requested a signal with respect to a particular user with a digital signal via a reasonably consistent real-time application programming interface that identifies, at a minimum, which of the following categories pertains to the user."

The categories are broken into four sections: users under 13 years of age, over 13 years of age under 16, at least 16 years of age and under 18, and "at least 18 years of age."

In essence, while the bill doesn't seem to require the most egregious forms of age verification (face scans or similar), it does require OS providers to collect age verification of some form at the account/user creation stage—and to be able to pass a segmented version of that information to outside developers upon request.

That's likely no big deal for Windows, which already requires you to enter your date of birth during the Microsoft Account setup procedure. However, the idea that all operating system providers need to comply (in California) has drawn a fair degree of ire from certain Linux communities.

"This is basically impossible for California to enforce" says CatoDomine on the Linuxmint subreddit. "Even if Linux Mint decides to add some kind of age verification, to comply with CA law, there's no reason anyone would choose that version."

"It's more likely they will put a disclaimer on their website: "not for use in California."

Looking at the wider picture, however, mandatory age verification appears to be a growing trend. The UK government's current implementation under the Online Safety Act has come under heavy fire for privacy concerns, while platforms like Discord have received similar critique for their face-scanning age verification efforts, not least because of associations with companies that may not be using the collected data for mere age-confirmation purposes.

And while this implementation is California-specific, it does speak to a wider desire from governments to enforce age verification on a legal level—even if in this case, it seems virtually impossible to effectively enact.

And it's bipartisan.
This is one reason why I don't think Democrats will ever stand up to the anti-democracy oligarchs. They're also all to willing to go along with authoritarianism if they get their paycheck.

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on May 05, 2026, 08:34:41 AMAnd it's bipartisan.
This is one reason why I don't think Democrats will ever stand up to the anti-democracy oligarchs. They're also all to willing to go along with authoritarianism if they get their paycheck.

Nope. Not unless we make them.

How is legislation meant to curb the power the technology oligarchs supporting the technology oligarchs

The first thing that has to be fixed is the knee-jerk reaction of going to freedom of speech whenever there is a legislative attempt to regulate the dark corners of the Internet.  Actually let me fix that it's no longer just the dark corners. It is the Internet.

The age verification bills are backed by Google, Meta and others:
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/13/california-advances-effort-to-check-kids-ages-online-amid-safety-concerns-00563005

And?

Imagine the reputational damage if they opposed it

Well for example, European regulations places a lot of obligations on the large platforms around "harmful content", unlawful content, age-gating. That entrenches their market dominance and deepens the walled gardens they've built, not least in their core business which is advertising. It also - and this is an issue you will hear on any European tech circles - makes it very, very difficult for European companies to even try and compete. Because those regulatory obligations can be burdensome (unclear if they're actually effective) and interact with monopoly or at least a dominant position in the market.

"Regulation" is meaningless it's just a buzzword. The real issues are how are we regulating, how is it enforced, what is the technical understanding of regulatory bodies etc.

This is a lesson Europe is learning - the Draghi report was very strong on this. Off the top of my head there are at least six really significant digital regulations working their way through the EU process (most broadly have an aligned ish UK equivalent) - they're a nightmare for European companies while the American (and Chinese) monopolies add another few hundred grand onto their compliance budget. I think some of the success of the GDPR led Europe to a slightly regulation happy phase digitally (heretically I actually think Californian privacy laws get the balance better) - and most of its subsequent digital regulations have been less imitated and I think less effective. But sort of passing regulations was the end in itself. This was sort of a point Thierry Breton who was the relevant Commissioner made about the the EU AI Act where he commented that people in Brussels were celebrating the world's first AI law, when the bigger issue was that there weren't any European companies that would be regulated by it. The EU AI Act has, incidentally, been suspended (less than two years after being passed) because it's not particularly effective, no one is copying its approach, it set the bar way too high and it's part of the Draghi recommendations. So again the effect was to entrench the already established market position of American and Chinese providers.

Regulation is not a buzz word.  And you do a lot of damage by suggesting that it so.  Not the first time and I really wish you would think more carefully about your broad generalizations.

You empower those who think regulation is evil. Much better to do what you did at the beginning of your post to critique the regulation and suggest ways in which it could be made more robust.

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on May 05, 2026, 09:28:15 AMThe age verification bills are backed by Google, Meta and others:
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/13/california-advances-effort-to-check-kids-ages-online-amid-safety-concerns-00563005

Yeah they can afford it and also in the US especially this area and privacy have had a lot of state laws. The tech companies would absolutely love a federal regulation or to just adopt California's standard.

But you know it's like McDonalds backing nutritional information in restaurants - it's a small line item for them. For a smaller, growing chain or ones that want to change their menu (eg for seasonality) it's a pretty big cost. I'd add that the evidence from that policy intervention is that it barely changes consumer behaviour so is not particularly effective in achieving its goal - like everything based on nudge theory it's probably based on bullshit.

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on May 05, 2026, 08:34:41 AMAnd it's bipartisan.
This is one reason why I don't think Democrats will ever stand up to the anti-democracy oligarchs. They're also all to willing to go along with authoritarianism if they get their paycheck.

Yup. They won't even stand up against the boondoggle of data centers proliferating across the country. Opposition to those are bipartisan and popular, but supporting them pays well. Heck, even Ron DeSantis is starting to speak out against them. If you can't get ahead of Ron on something, you're in trouble.

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2026, 09:32:19 AMAnd?

Imagine the reputational damage if they opposed it

They're the ones pushing for it in the first place. They came up with the copy-pasted bills that are being introduced all over the country. If they weren't pushing for it, there'd be nothing to oppose.

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on May 05, 2026, 09:59:08 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2026, 09:32:19 AMAnd?

Imagine the reputational damage if they opposed it

They're the ones pushing for it in the first place. They came up with the copy-pasted bills that are being introduced all over the country. If they weren't pushing for it, there'd be nothing to oppose.

Again, I ask my question, and?

The go to play of industries that are lightly or non-regulated is to propose regulation when they see there is no longer a way to avoid it.

The problem isn't regulation, it is the attitude toward regulation in the US (and here) which makes it possible for weak regulatory provisions to be put in place.

The reaction to this should not be - "oh no, free speech" the reaction should be "oh no, this didn't go far enough".

Big tech is always more than happy to have more information and more control over us.

To my eyes, it seems to be regulating users, though. Not big tech. It gifts big tech (and presumably the government) lots of information and helps big tech cover themselves in case of lawsuits. It does nothing to benefit the public, though, only cost them privacy, time, and giving up even more data to more "partners".

Quote from: Sophie Scholl on May 05, 2026, 10:26:25 AMTo my eyes, it seems to be regulating users, though. Not big tech. It gifts big tech (and presumably the government) lots of information and helps big tech cover themselves in case of lawsuits. It does nothing to benefit the public, though, only cost them privacy, time, and giving up even more data to more "partners".

 :yes:

In fact it's an attempt to avoid regulation. It's in response to the lawsuits that social media is harmful to minors and the companies haven't done anything about it. If the laws pass, Facebook etc. can wash their hands and say they're not at fault.

I'm reasonably sure that the government already has ways to do entity resolution to associate anonymous accounts with people, but enabling all vendors to do it by removing Internet anonymization would be really bad.  ChatGPT already has a very good read on my personality, strengths and weaknesses.  The idea that, for example, a sales agent can do an AI query on my personality before deciding on what buttons to push to make a sale feels dystopian.

We, as a society, need to end the monitezation of the user created (content) internet. 

Meanwhile, in Utah.

https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/utah-will-ban-vpn-use-to-circumvent-age-verification/

QuoteUtah Will Ban VPN Use to Circumvent Age Verification
Experts warn that the legislation could lead to websites banning all VPN addresses due to technical limitations.

Utah is set to become the first state to prohibit the use of VPNs to avoid age-verification barriers after legislation goes into effect on Wednesday.

Senate Bill 73 will hold websites liable for people who mask their location while in Utah and will effectively treat anyone who connects to a Utah VPN as someone physically in Utah for age-verification purposes.

The legislation follows similar proposed bills from Wisconsin and Michigan and is seen as the first major US step toward regulating VPN use to avoid age verification.

However, privacy advocates warn that the legislation could lead to a blanket ban of all VPN addresses in a "technical whack-a-mole that likely no company can win". The Electronic Frontiers Federation wrote that "if a website cannot reliably detect a VPN user's true location and the law requires it to do so for all users in a particular state, then the legal risk could push the site to either ban all known VPN IPs, or to mandate age verification for every visitor globally."

In the past year, both Australia and the UK have enacted age-verification measures to restrict access to "harmful content." While Australia's legislation has been called an "unmitigated disaster" by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, it's been reported that children in the UK have been drawing on mustaches to get past age barriers.

Representatives for the EFF and the Utah Senate didn't respond immediately to CNET's request for more information.

"Thinking of the children" to push through poorly thought out (or worse malicious) legislation is so cliche even the Simpsons were making fun of it 40 years ago. Sad that it still works on so many.

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2026, 09:43:08 AMRegulation is not a buzz word.  And you do a lot of damage by suggesting that it so.  Not the first time and I really wish you would think more carefully about your broad generalizations.

You empower those who think regulation is evil. Much better to do what you did at the beginning of your post to critique the regulation and suggest ways in which it could be made more robust.

I think I do zero damage by having trenchent views and expressing them here :P

But on the buzzword point I think part of this is a difference in perspective. I'm in Europe and I work in tech and digital law. Regulation absolutely s a buzzword here. There are sweeping regulations that have been brought on tech companies in the last 10 years (all following the justifiable and impressive success of GDPR) - I think the desire to regulate and say we have regulated has taken priority over questions of what the purpose, effectiveness and trade off of those regulations are. This is the point that Breton (and Draghi) have made. There were big celebrations within EU official circles and it was a big point that VDL made that Europe was the first to regulate AI (not really true but I'll leave that to one side).

The purpose of the regulation was to pass a regulation to say we're first. I think part of it is just the European self-image of the EU as a regulatory super-power - I've literally seen this in presentations from European civil servants that America is capitalist and leads the world in developing new technology quickly without regarde to risk, China leads the world in implementing it in support of political and  very "national security" objectives and Europe leads the world in ethics and regulation. I'd add that factually I don't think that's true recently (lots of the world copied GDPR - no-one except the UK has copied the DSA, DMA, AI Act etc).

But also to Breton and Draghi's point why are we celebrating regulating the technologies of the future when we don't actually have any European champions to regulate? It is a chimera of tech sovereignty - and I'd question how meaningfully the Chinese and American tech companies we are relying on are meaningfully complying with those regulations. And as Draghi especially has flagged these regulations meaningfully increase the cost and difficulty for European competitors to emerge. Just within the last few years the EU has passed or started drafting the Data Act, the AI Act, the Cyber Resilience Act, the Digital Markets Act, the Digital Services Act, the EU Accessibility Act, the Digital Fairness Act - there's at least another one or two data and cyber security regulations that are coming but I can't remember. Relatively few businesses will be impacted by all of them - but even just assessing what does or doesn't apply is a lot of work and despite covering very, very similar concepts/issues they don't all fit together ("without regard to x Act/Regulation" does a lot of lifting in the drafting of these). But as I say, the regulation is the point. It is the end rather than the means (and this despite Draghi's recommendations).

Quote from: DGuller on May 05, 2026, 10:58:33 AMI'm reasonably sure that the government already has ways to do entity resolution to associate anonymous accounts with people, but enabling all vendors to do it by removing Internet anonymization would be really bad.  ChatGPT already has a very good read on my personality, strengths and weaknesses.  The idea that, for example, a sales agent can do an AI query on my personality before deciding on what buttons to push to make a sale feels dystopian.

Yeah. On the dystopian front I think the conversation around personalised advertising within AI is interesting for exactly those reasons and it is very much the next frontier in the online behavioural advertising world.

Quote from: Sophie Scholl on May 05, 2026, 10:26:25 AMTo my eyes, it seems to be regulating users, though. Not big tech. It gifts big tech (and presumably the government) lots of information and helps big tech cover themselves in case of lawsuits. It does nothing to benefit the public, though, only cost them privacy, time, and giving up even more data to more "partners".

I think this is how it entrenches their dominance because they way it's broadly been implemented is as "duties" on the big platforms. It is for them to determine and consider how much they really want to spend on fine grained judgements. It is strengthening their position as gatekeepers/walled gardens - which lets them capture more economic value, which lets them strengthen their dominance etc.

I'd add from a Euro-perspective tax helps but it's the reason OpenAI, Amazon, Meta, TikTok, Google etc all have their European headquarters in Dublin or Luxembourg because it means they interact with those regulators on the day-to-day. Even with the best will in the world and assuming there was no regulatory capture (and there 100% is) we're talking regulators of very small member states taking point dealing with some of the biggest, most technically advanced and well-funded companies in the world. In a way I also think the American model of regulation which you see through state AGs, but also the SEC, may be more effective - where regulation is effectively a form of law enforcement. They hire lots of lawyers who are basically prosecutors, they have warrant powers etc.

The UK regulator on data for example is the best funded in Europe, and I think broadly one of the most technologically sophisticated (the French are also excellent). I was at an event with the former Information Commissioner a few years ago and asked about this and she said the biggest shock was just how much they had to spend on litigation. Because European regulators are administrators - the investigation is led by a case worker with some rights to information, not a prosecutor and not quite as strong as warrant power (the UK regulators now actually have warrant power). There is a trend of European regulators going pretty gung-ho and then it getting overturned on appeal/as soon as judges get involved because they're kind of administrators who keep on fucking up procedurally rather than prosecutors building a case.

In part I think this also reflects the very, very broad remit of a lot of European tech law - so lots of focus is spent on, for example, public sector uses like hospitals and schools or providing guidance for charities or small businesses. All of which is really important but I think needs a slightly different skillset and mindset than the sharp-elbowed, aggressive approach needed with big tech.

Quote from: Sophie Scholl on May 05, 2026, 10:26:25 AMTo my eyes, it seems to be regulating users, though. Not big tech. It gifts big tech (and presumably the government) lots of information and helps big tech cover themselves in case of lawsuits. It does nothing to benefit the public, though, only cost them privacy, time, and giving up even more data to more "partners".

indeed.

Quote from: Jacob on May 04, 2026, 04:01:09 PMI came across this article online recently: Security software CEO warns: We could be facing the 'death of anonymity online' (https://www.thecooldown.com/green-business/age-verification-online-security-concerns/)

The specific article itself doesn't matter that much, but the general trend towards age verification for adult stuff is real. Similarly, there's the ongoing back and forth in the EU about Chat Control.

I'm curious if any of you have any thoughts or insight on possible less-or-no-anonymity-on-the-net scenarios and potential impacts.

It seems to me that the primary framing of the public discourse is around the following:

• It will allow us to keep children from accessing porn (and other stuff deemed harmful).
• It'll make loads of adults feel weird about accessing porn becuase it'll be linked to their actual identities somehow.
• It'll allow governments way too much insight into political speech and that's going to lead to bad places.
• Something about free speech.

But what are the other possible ramifications?

What's the possible impact on social media if anonymity is curtailed? Will it render large parts of the social media economy reliant on bot farms and the like inoperative? How much of an impact will it have on foreign (or domestic) online influence operations?

How big of a threat is it to the bottom lines of social media companies like Meta, Twitter, etc (and therefore, how much should we expect to see them oppose it)? Or is it not a threat?

To what degree will malicious (or simply profit seeking) actors be able to get personal data on individual people if there's no anonymity? And is it actually that different from what is available to Google, Meta, Microsoft et. al. now?

I'm curious if any of you have any insight or have read any compelling analysis on the topic?

This whole puritanical idea of keeping porn out of children hands is so stupid.

Our data keeps getting leaked by corporations and government who don't invest as much as they should in security, or use antiquated practices.

And we have seen the danger with authoritarian countries such as China, Russia and the US of allowing governments easy access to dissenter's speech.

ICE is requesting information on Reddit's Canadian users who criticized its agents.  The US govt easily censored free speech on social media platforms and traditional media for general users, it's now going after private users.

The Canadian government is going to do the same at some point, don't kid yourself. It's not about porn or pedophilia.  

Probably prudent to put a copy of TailsOS on a USB stick.