As long as the internet remains easily accessible, you’re not going to.
Let’s say there’s a news website that didn’t allow any comments on their articles before, out of fear for bots, trolling, bullying, and other kinds of rotten behavior. At some point they implemented a way to comment that requires logging in with one’s identity card, information that remains publicly unreadable/unavailable through a myriad of safeguards.
Considering the amount of bots and other bad actors, wouldn’t this decrease the stench significantly?
Fastest way to get me to never use your site again. I’d rather deal with a few trolls and bots than have to give my ID to every site I want to interact with. That’s some ridiculously invasive stuff right there. Turning every website into their own private Big Brother is the opposite of progress.
Plus, what about when the site’s database inevitably gets compromised, and now my personal info is public?
This is an argument to an incomplete quotation that misrepresents the hypothetical; reading articles doesn’t require ID, writing comments underneath them does.
Plus, what about when the site’s database inevitably gets compromised, and now my personal info is public?
Well, if you’re not bullying other people in the comments I’d say you’d be fine. What if your hospital’s database gets hacked and all your private health issues are public? Will you stop seeking healthcare in hospitals? The whole world is based on trust.
Moreover, I’m pretty sure there are ways to do zero-knowledge encrypted ID card verification that doesn’t require a database. Similarly to Amazon reviews, a comment could simply show “verified ID”, but, retain no other information.
No. The site never allowed comments before, they do after. ID is only necessary for commenting, not reading. So, losing revenue doesn’t make sense. Also, not all websites exist to make revenue.
That would just cause the bad actors to move elsewhere, or not be there in the first place, since they initially weren’t allowed to comment. If every site implemented such measures and people just ignored the privacy and security issues, then you would have to trust that the site operators would act in good faith. Look at all the garbage on Facebook. FB keeps trolls and such around because they’re good for engagement, and bad actor advertisers because they pay a lot of money.
Facebook. FB keeps trolls and such around because they’re good for engagement, and bad actor advertisers because they pay a lot of money.
Sounds like pretty good arguments in favor of per-site identity verification. On Facebook I obviously wouldn’t, but there are some news websites where I definitely would.
Let’s say there’s a news website that didn’t allow any comments on their articles before, out of fear for bots, trolling, bullying, and other kinds of rotten behavior. At some point they implemented a way to comment that requires logging in with one’s identity card, information that remains publicly unreadable/unavailable through a myriad of safeguards.
Considering the amount of bots and other bad actors, wouldn’t this decrease the stench significantly?
Fastest way to get me to never use your site again. I’d rather deal with a few trolls and bots than have to give my ID to every site I want to interact with. That’s some ridiculously invasive stuff right there. Turning every website into their own private Big Brother is the opposite of progress.
Plus, what about when the site’s database inevitably gets compromised, and now my personal info is public?
This is an argument to an incomplete quotation that misrepresents the hypothetical; reading articles doesn’t require ID, writing comments underneath them does.
Well, if you’re not bullying other people in the comments I’d say you’d be fine. What if your hospital’s database gets hacked and all your private health issues are public? Will you stop seeking healthcare in hospitals? The whole world is based on trust. Moreover, I’m pretty sure there are ways to do zero-knowledge encrypted ID card verification that doesn’t require a database. Similarly to Amazon reviews, a comment could simply show “verified ID”, but, retain no other information.
they’d get less page views and lose revenue
the bots/trolls/bad actors make them more money than the casual user.
No. The site never allowed comments before, they do after. ID is only necessary for commenting, not reading. So, losing revenue doesn’t make sense. Also, not all websites exist to make revenue.
That would just cause the bad actors to move elsewhere, or not be there in the first place, since they initially weren’t allowed to comment. If every site implemented such measures and people just ignored the privacy and security issues, then you would have to trust that the site operators would act in good faith. Look at all the garbage on Facebook. FB keeps trolls and such around because they’re good for engagement, and bad actor advertisers because they pay a lot of money.
Sounds like pretty good arguments in favor of per-site identity verification. On Facebook I obviously wouldn’t, but there are some news websites where I definitely would.