pull down to refresh
50 sats \ 4 replies \ @optimism OP 19h \ parent \ on: The age-gated internet is here privacy
I find this to be already the case. Identification is something for interaction between between individuals and governments; this ID is government issued, just like your SN userid is issued by SN. Federation is an anti-pattern (even on SN) except maybe with true ad-hoc "identities" like nostr keys. Everything that lifts off of federated identification by design is problematic, from banks, to websites, to p2p transactions.
A buddy told me that in the EU you (per 2026?) need to KYC a p2p cash transaction over a certain amount - like $3000 or so? That's insane. Governments have no business in transactions between 2 individuals.
Agreed in vision, though practically I wonder: how would a service provider get sufficient certainty that they aren't breaking these awful laws from a self-issued credential? "I identify as a 24yo horny killer whale"
You're right that, in practice, the net of compliance is already all around us — and tightening. But conceding that service providers must always pre-emptively align with the most paranoid interpretation of the law is what cements this trap. It’s the normalization of this posture — not just the regulation — that kills freedom.
Self-issued credentials aren't magic; they’re leverage. They allow people to present proofs without revealing identity. That means the question shifts from “Who are you?” to “Can you prove you meet this requirement?”
If a law mandates age verification, for example, then a ZKP-based attestation that you’re over 18 should suffice — without revealing your name, face, or full dossier. The current system chooses not to accept this, not because it’s insufficient, but because identity harvesting is the real goal.
reply
conceding that service providers must always pre-emptively align with the most paranoid interpretation of the law is what cements this trap. It’s the normalization of this posture - not just the regulation - that kills freedom.
Without commenting on desirability, because I'm confident we agree, doesn't this get fueled by governments litigating said corporations like there is no tomorrow? This is not just the UK but they're perhaps the most active in this globally, even more than the EU.
So I'm not saying they must, but I'm saying that most are in no position to disobey. Can't expect a publicly traded company to value principles over revenue. Remember Google never giving up on censorship? That held a year?
reply
You're absolutely right — and yes, we're on the same page.
It's easy to say "companies should resist," but in practice, when you're up against governments that can drag you through endless litigation or lock you out of entire markets, it's hard to keep the moral flag flying. Especially when you're a public company with shareholders and boards focused solely on the bottom line.
The Google example really drives it home. Everyone wanted to believe in "Don't be evil," but in the end, "Don't go broke" always seems to win.
So yeah — it's not that they must, it's that they often can't do otherwise. And that is exactly the problem.
reply
I'm still of the opinion that Bitcoin can fix this, if we want it to.
reply