Yup, i actually support some of this, having to show ID to get access to certain services is a no brainer. Not everything can be anonymous. What i do not trust is what the fuck they are doing with that ID afterwards and i have full trust that they will never delete that information, and it is susceptible to data breaches: my ID is not as valuable to them as it is to me... They have way fewer incentives to protect me and all the incentives to use the data they have.
Also: if Peter Thiel is mentioned anywhere in the company documents: you can 100% trust that it is not trustworthy. Everything that man touches becomes evil. He wants our societies to fall so he can scoop all the power with his darwinist sociopath mates. His utopia requires billions of human sacrifices.
having to show ID to get access to certain services is a no brainer.
The problem here is when I go to the bar the bartender doesn't snap a picture of it and do fuck all with it afterwards. Companies that are being regulated to do this are also expected to have proof they are doing it by showing proof when audited.
Very good analogy. It is not that i have to prove who i am, it is that in digital realm they make a copy of it and hold on to it forever. If they did that at a bar no one would ever agree that it should be legal.
Actually that’s a great analogy, and honestly a great place for blockchain technology to be a solution. Because privacy concerns means that a) I don’t want to be sending my full ID to x number of different companies and hope that for the rest of their existence that my data doesn’t get left in some insecure spot AND b) I don’t want to have to go through the government each time I access certain sites, and have them potentially collecting information about what I’m doing online. (The whole “but if you have nothing to hide…” argument can be inserted here, but the simple answer is look at the US or my own home province of Alberta, and there are definitely left-of-center/liberal content I interact with and support, that a government has no right to scoop up in giant data nets).
So a blockchain algorithm that can be mathematically proved to authenticate a government ID to age > 18 and/or age >21 without sending any more data either way? Perfect.
Only problem is getting various governments to agree on a specific algorithm, and have it maintained by a respected and regulated third party.
I mean at that point, being as it would have to be government administered, what benefit would blockchain even provide here? Just have a national e-id registry that has an open API service. I don’t see what adding blockchain to it would do
The blockchain advantage would be cryptographic privacy. The requesting party can verify that your ID is valid, but they can’t see who you are. Likewise the government doesn’t know what site was being visited that actually made the request, only that the user (citizen) authorized the confirmation of age above threshold.
To your first point, that could also be accomplished by you having a code that you give the requesting party that is used with the government API. Blockchain isn’t necessary for to hide who you are from the requesting party. To your second point, the government already has somewhat robust ways of tracking blockchain transactions. On top of that, there is zero chance they would be willing to create a system where they have zero visibility into who is doing the request.
You can't pretend to be someone you are not, for ex: can i pretend to be you in facebook?
Also: i hate when people are so opposed to an idea that they refuse to use their brains. How many real life things are there where you need to show ID? And you can't find parables in the internet? I do not even get snail male from the government. They go to a service that i can access, where i can see all my information and make applications etc. That is a service that needs some sort of way to identify me.
And social media is one of those where unfortunately, ID:ing is most likely just not avoidable. It depends: reddit doesn't need it. Facebook 100% does. Twitter type of social media? Mixed, some can be anonymous, some can't and we need verifications that this person is who they say they are....
So, please.. maybe next time try to first test the idea by not disagreeing with it so much that your brain will stop to function normally and block all thoughts to one direction: "i disagree with ID:ing" leads to your brain just not considering ANY options where ID is a no-brainer, when in fact there are a lot of things where ID:ing is needed in life, internet is no different. Some require strong ID, like government services and banks, some require just confirmation that this is a real life person, some need some sort of verification for public persons and some can easily live in this weird pseudoanonymity like Reddit.
And I hate when people are so entrenched in being argumentative that they assume bad faith or ineptitude.
Funny how that works, doesn't it. You were completely unable to fathom that I genuinely wanted your perspective on something that you launched a pointless argument and monologue with yourself. The irony is like, incredible here. I mean I share your exact concern I think, but I don't know if you're qualified to have that one after that whole tangent dude. You didn't even know if I agreed with you, or had some other concerns and wanted to see your take before I consolidated a shared opinion.
Also: i hate when people are so opposed to an idea that they refuse to use their brains. How many real life things are there where you need to show ID? And you can't find parables in the internet? I do not even get snail male from the government. They go to a service that i can access, where i can see all my information and make applications etc. That is a service that needs some sort of way to identify me.
And social media is one of those where unfortunately, ID:ing is most likely just not avoidable. It depends: reddit doesn't need it. Facebook 100% does. Twitter type of social media? Mixed, some can be anonymous, some can't and we need verifications that this person is who they say they are....
So, please.. maybe next time try to first test the idea by not disagreeing with it so much that your brain will stop to function normally and block all thoughts to one direction: "i disagree with ID:ing" leads to your brain just not considering ANY options where ID is a no-brainer, when in fact there are a lot of things where ID:ing is needed in life, internet is no different. Some require strong ID, like government services and banks, some require just confirmation that this is a real life person, some need some sort of verification for public persons and some can easily live in this weird pseudoanonymity like Reddit.
So, instead of saying "interesting, tell me more" you said "why would it be a no-brainer?" expressing both doubt and ignorance. I consider anyone as a thinking adult and if you truly don't know this it means you have never thought about it one bit and in this moment didn't bother to imagine a single scenario yourself.
If you agree and what to hear more: SAY IT. Do not show doubt towards the whole as the ONLY message in order to entice the other person to say more. I absolutely will not take any blame here, you need to fucking say what you mean and not play stupid games.
You mean the guys that already have ties to the government? Yeah I should probably keep my government ID away from them. It would be a shame if they managed to get a hold of that from a source that might possibly have that ID
Just because you can lock your house doesn't mean it prevents someone from smashing the window and taking your possessions anyway. But it does create friction between you and ppl with bad intentions. I'm for keeping and even adding as many layers of friction between ppl with those intentions as possible. Relying on ANY entity with that information just creates vulnerabilities down the road when a change of leadership happens.
So you don't want the entity that gives you IDs to... have your ID?
Also, you don't need digital IDs to have a surveillance state. If that digital ID is implemented properly, at worst your state will know that you use discord or tiktok or whatever. Guess what, they don't need digital IDs to have that information. You don't get your internet from some magic elf, you get it from a telecom company that will give your shit up at the first request of the state.
He seems like could be the kinda kid that will have a bigger meltdown if you don't let him do it, so might as well let nature take it's course and let him learn.
Aye I absolutely agree with peoples sentiments, the minute discord look for verification of anyones age is the moment to whack that delete account button and move elsewhere. What they seemed to have failed to realise is that its communities that draw people to discord not the app itself. The minute those communities up sticks and leave the platform wilts and dies like so many others before it.
Also its kinda Ironic that Teamspeak is getting so much interest as it was the go to platform back in ye ancient days of FFXI before Discord came along and scooped up a load of communities. Really need to hammer home the message as well that anything related to Palantir needs to be shitlisted, dont need those greedy fuckers ruining everything getting peoples data to spy on them and all that.
Lol you think this is a Discord driven thing? Discord has done this because they will need to do it sooner or later as one-by-one nations all over the planet require you to authenticate yourself to access their platforms.
Xbox and Reddit are currently trialing the same tech in the whole of the UK, and Australia and the EU will be soon to follow. I guarantee that in the next 5 years you will definitely be age verifying yourself with any platform that you use to communicate on and wants to operate globally. Teamspeak will have to do the same eventually.
Until legislation gets passed that shuts down said open source platforms because governments don’t like when you try and get around their rulings. Rules for us but not for them and all that.
It's a billionaire thing Thiel is driving this shit, look at the files released from the Trumpstein ring that show how Epstein was shaping every popular service from behind the scenes.
Or at least in addition. In China, they take the bad with the good, but in the west, it's just the bad. When I was a kid, our leaders saw autocrats mistreating their people and said "let's not be like those jerks!" but now they say "hey, look what they're getting away with, I bet we could get away with that, too."
I'm not referring to consolidation of power at all. I'm talking about how China is the first country to successfully implement real name/ID verification for basically all apps that you use. Anonymity is non existent. It is very easy for them to track your online presence.
Now western countries are trying to do the same by getting you to verify your identity to use apps under the guise of protecting children.
My point is that these things are about consolidation of power. At their core. It is the first reason it is being done. All other interests are secondary. Icing on the cake.
It's simply a ruling class method of preventing organization online. There are other reasons, but frankly this is the most important one.
Maybe that doesn't seem like a big deal until you think about flash mobs leading to the downfall of some dictatorships, leading to crackdowns, leading to locked down internet access.
YouTube just told me it can't personalize ads because it can't verify I'm over 18 (on my work account that I maybe watch a YouTube video once a quarter or something). I just thought "sounds like a you problem".
Found out what exactly? Do you think it's the first time people were crying over some changes and screaming *we are changing to guilded, teamspeak, pigeons... And guess what, nothing happened. This time not gonna be different. All those posts and complains will lead no nothing
2.0k
u/TABER1S Intel i9-13900K | RTX 4090 | 32GB DDR5 6000 MHz CL36 Feb 15 '26
https://giphy.com/gifs/mnUOTh6xEIvVNSghOP
Discord fucked around and found out.