aka_

The id check already exists, they’re just planning on forcing social media companies to go through it.

In an ideal world social media would be decentralized and free of commercial purposes, just a public square. The stuff these people offer wrapped in social media is highly addictive, that’s basically where all the internal R&D goes.

My point is, I really doubt banning social media is democratically viable. It would get revoked shortly. Best thing we can realistically do is put in place the usual barriers and limitations we have developed over the years for other similar products and services: age, disclaimers, taxation, fines, and so on.

The tool already exists and is used for serious stuff (dealing with the treasury department, police, banks, bond auctions), the only difference is you would be forcing mainstream social media platforms to get an OK from that government’s platform.

Sorry but if you can’t trust your country’s system as a legitimate large scale shield then there is no possible defense against multinational conglomerates and at that point you’re better off just going bunker prepper, I don’t really know what your point is. Democracy doesn’t stick in low trust societies.

And your point is? Creating an id check doesn’t increase the potential risk, the government already has all the data.

My question is, why do you want underage citizens to use social media platforms that a) have been proven to be damaging to their psychological health b) farm their data and store it far from our control c) don’t add anything to our economy.

Care to explain? Because it really fascinates me.

The “supported banks” figure is useless. The largest bank in continental Europe by market cap is Santander. And the two largest banks by number of customers are Spanish. None of them use Wero, but Bizum.

It’s my understanding they’re planning on a collaboration, but still.

Deleted by author

Yes, and not thanks to the internet.

You know the things that started happening everywhere in the democratic world from 2015 on or so though?

Turns out the internet as is doesn’t do much to advance democracy, but it’s great for destroying it.

As I said, having a government platform doing the encrypted id check means you would get the encrypted id check and verification, and the government would read your data (as it already does). Don’t try to sell fear.

And by the way, I’m registered as the owner and resident of my house that has an internet connection with an IP from which I’m writing, paid with my bank account, all of them well known to the government.

The only difference is you don’t know whether I’m an individual over 18 and a citizen of the EU or a sim on a multisim device in Vladivostok. And I think that’s not good.

Oh yes the laws of tyrannical Spain are the ones to be feared and of course take precedent over the risks posed by the FSB, Heritage Foundation et al, and the heartfelt kindness of FB and X.

Sure, sure…

I don’t know what country you’re from but in mine one has to produce one’s id to vote, access adult only establishments, go through customs or board a plane. I understand these as the usual procedures of a civilized society.

I don’t understand how verifying one’s identity and age when accessing a regulated site is any different. It fascinates me how rules that are business as usual in the physical world seem not to apply in the digital world for (??) reasons.

In the physical world if you have a business you have to pay taxes, apply for licenses, and are liable for offering illegal or harmful merchandise or services.

In the digital world you can fill a room with children and show them porn and political propaganda for (??) reasons. And not allowing it is “government interference”. So why are children not allowed in brothels or casinos in the physical world? “Government interference”?

It doesn’t work like that… it’s an open source government platform the one doing the id check.

Worry not, they’re getting promoted as we speak. That’s the whole point of it: interested malicious parties and useful idiots.

The US is, very precisely, the poster child on how libertarianism doesn’t advance democracy.

The right to bear arms advances no democratic values, because people who are individualistic or distrustful to the point they buy a gun to protect their property won’t fight for democracy, because democracy is a collective enterprise. Where are all those very very brave and very very armed Americans now that the executive is running rampant and shutting down their institutions and agreements? Yeah, I didn’t think so.

Likewise, the right to issue public anonymous opinions advances no democratic values, because if you need them to be anonymous in a free country, either they are malicious/fake and therefore you’re afraid of legal repercussions or you’re lazy/fearful and therefore you would fight no tyranny (same as those who bear arms).

I’m not arguing against the privacy of private communications, that’s an entirely different matter (that’s the point of private/public), but when one issues a public opinion one should be responsible and sensible enough to do it non anonymously. That doesn’t even mean I have to know your name, but we could create an open source encrypted platform that identifies public personas on the internet as a)individuals b)nationals of their countries in the EU. Simply add a check close to the handle and the official verification.

Our freedom to express a public opinion is precious and shouldn’t be weaponized against us by malign foreign actors. As I said before, nobody would go to a political rally by a random Russian in a balaclava. I don’t want to ban political rallies, I just want to expose farms of Russians in balaclavas.