Jokes apart, how would you prevent trolls and shills from trolling and shilling?
We already have a problem where real accounts get stolen because they have a history so it’s harder to be flagged as bots. And one person can open multiple accounts in multiple networks. Hell, Facebook forces people to have phone numbers and there’s still so many bots and shills there.
I don’t want this to sound like a straw man, I think there’s so many ways for bots to happen that it’s like playing wack a mole.
This is the one thing I hoped for out of crypto/blockchain.
You, commenter, don’t need to know that I’m “Brian Brianson, a citizen living at 123 Abenue Avenue”. But, it’s good to know that the person commenting is a real person who has been seen and verified by someone, as a simple true/false flag. If there were good ways of verifying basic conditions of people you interact with online, without exposing personal details, then it could curb botnet opinionation as well as be useful for a lot of things.
If there were good ways of verifying basic conditions of people you interact with online, without exposing personal details
The problem there is: seen and verified by who? What’s your “chain of trust” behind that blue checkmark or whatever signifies a “verified person”?
Even an “anonymous identity” if it runs long enough eventually gives away the person doing the writing under the pseudonym. They may refer to experiences indirectly, unconsciously even, and those narrow down the subset of who they could be, until eventually there can be only one person on the whole planet who fits all the available clues.
To an extent, the world needs to grow up and realize that anyone determined enough can hunt you down through your online footprint unless you’re being super careful with your identity creation, what you say, and how long you use that identity. They also need to realize that among the 8 billion+ of us, they just aren’t very interesting unless they seem gullible enough to authorize a transfer of funds…
I’m imagining something like being able to go to a lawyer, or journalist’s office - somewhere they’d have established notaries, and show them a driver’s license or other notable documentation. They wouldn’t be granted rights to record that information permanently, but would grant a cryptographic signature sourced from their office to express that their office has seen them.
This would rely on professional trust - that the people you show your info to will not record it; and, that if they for some reason have to, they won’t turn it over to warrants. By the same token, they’d be trusted that they’re not inventing people from thin air.
You’re right that someone engaging online long enough could be exposed. That would then rely on any effective “Right to be forgotten” laws to erase unnecessary data.
Maybe I’m crazy, but I don’t think we should kill large amounts of people just because they follow a different political ideology than us. 🙄 We have to be better than these extremists to truly show them a better way…
Not to back up any specific beliefs/statements from OP, but the Paradox of Tolerance does exist. The woefully intollerant should not be tolerated. It just depends on how you “don’t tolerate” them that determines how upsetting of a response someone has.
For example, just literally disenfranchising them might be enough … or at least could have been. Though after the intolerant gain enough power, there remains very, very few functional options. It’s literally all of the lessons that came out of WW2…
XXX. incorrect. this is the kind of thinking that has allowed our civilization to fester. we tolerate the people who actively bring suffering into the world. we resist progress to appease an ignorant faction of the population. we sacrifice our collective future on an altar of liberty, all the while deluding ourselves into thinking that allowing this continued suffering is somehow ‘taking the high road’. BULLSHIT. taking the high road is nipping our problems in the bud.
the damage we would do now to eradicate the illogical mental contagion that is religion pales in comparison to the gains of untold future generations living in a near utopia (which is completely possible when you remove idiots from control and let informed science guide humanity).
educate and build a compassionate society is obviously the correct answer, but we can’t do that because there is a portion of society that will never let that happen. remove the roadblocks. anything less is being complicit in prolonged suffering.
“We can build our utopia, we just have to kill everyone who doesn’t agree with us” doesn’t sound very right in my ears. It sounds like something where one should ask “are we the baddies?”
one of these days, maybe, you’ll come to realize that there is no objective morality. there is only the winners that decide how everyone else will live. we all get a choice in who those people are.
i choose to live in a world where rational thought dedicated to furthering humanity and ending suffering reigns supreme. the benefits of that world far outweigh the losses that one generation would have to suffer to achieve it. it’s just a simple trolley problem. if you can’t see that, then you are blinded by emotions.
Objectively false. People in completely different societies (indigenous, uncontacted, etc) have shown that they don’t kill people consequence-free or separated from morality.
Oh yes, I am sure that the Nazis back then said the same about cleansing the german nation, the benefits for the Volkskörper outweigh the losses that one generation would have to suffer.
History proves that naive view … very naive. Should the US never joined in the war? Should the Poles and French simply rolled over to the Nazis? You seem to be saying yes, which is simply pathetic beyond ignorance.
no, WE THE PEOPLE should have global networks that simply remove that kind of brain rot and delete the people that perpetuate it.
The first step in trustable networks is securely validated identity.
On the internet nobody knows if you’re a dog, a Russian Troll, or a corporate shill.
You can be all three at the same time!
Jokes apart, how would you prevent trolls and shills from trolling and shilling?
We already have a problem where real accounts get stolen because they have a history so it’s harder to be flagged as bots. And one person can open multiple accounts in multiple networks. Hell, Facebook forces people to have phone numbers and there’s still so many bots and shills there.
I don’t want this to sound like a straw man, I think there’s so many ways for bots to happen that it’s like playing wack a mole.
This is the one thing I hoped for out of crypto/blockchain.
You, commenter, don’t need to know that I’m “Brian Brianson, a citizen living at 123 Abenue Avenue”. But, it’s good to know that the person commenting is a real person who has been seen and verified by someone, as a simple true/false flag. If there were good ways of verifying basic conditions of people you interact with online, without exposing personal details, then it could curb botnet opinionation as well as be useful for a lot of things.
The problem there is: seen and verified by who? What’s your “chain of trust” behind that blue checkmark or whatever signifies a “verified person”?
Even an “anonymous identity” if it runs long enough eventually gives away the person doing the writing under the pseudonym. They may refer to experiences indirectly, unconsciously even, and those narrow down the subset of who they could be, until eventually there can be only one person on the whole planet who fits all the available clues.
To an extent, the world needs to grow up and realize that anyone determined enough can hunt you down through your online footprint unless you’re being super careful with your identity creation, what you say, and how long you use that identity. They also need to realize that among the 8 billion+ of us, they just aren’t very interesting unless they seem gullible enough to authorize a transfer of funds…
I’m imagining something like being able to go to a lawyer, or journalist’s office - somewhere they’d have established notaries, and show them a driver’s license or other notable documentation. They wouldn’t be granted rights to record that information permanently, but would grant a cryptographic signature sourced from their office to express that their office has seen them.
This would rely on professional trust - that the people you show your info to will not record it; and, that if they for some reason have to, they won’t turn it over to warrants. By the same token, they’d be trusted that they’re not inventing people from thin air.
You’re right that someone engaging online long enough could be exposed. That would then rely on any effective “Right to be forgotten” laws to erase unnecessary data.
The squad has taken care of the hacker
Maybe I’m crazy, but I don’t think we should kill large amounts of people just because they follow a different political ideology than us. 🙄 We have to be better than these extremists to truly show them a better way…
… I think he meant delete accounts, not delete actual people, but I could be wrong lol
there’s only one way to fix idiots and sociopaths.
Give them a lollipop so they shut up?
I’ll shut up. Can I have a lollipop, please?
Not to back up any specific beliefs/statements from OP, but the Paradox of Tolerance does exist. The woefully intollerant should not be tolerated. It just depends on how you “don’t tolerate” them that determines how upsetting of a response someone has.
For example, just literally disenfranchising them might be enough … or at least could have been. Though after the intolerant gain enough power, there remains very, very few functional options. It’s literally all of the lessons that came out of WW2…
“first they came for the socialists…”
If so, I don’t think they would have 2 different verbs: “remove that kind of brain rot and delete the people that perpetuate it.”
XXX. incorrect. this is the kind of thinking that has allowed our civilization to fester. we tolerate the people who actively bring suffering into the world. we resist progress to appease an ignorant faction of the population. we sacrifice our collective future on an altar of liberty, all the while deluding ourselves into thinking that allowing this continued suffering is somehow ‘taking the high road’. BULLSHIT. taking the high road is nipping our problems in the bud.
the damage we would do now to eradicate the illogical mental contagion that is religion pales in comparison to the gains of untold future generations living in a near utopia (which is completely possible when you remove idiots from control and let informed science guide humanity).
Tolerate and slaughter aren’t the only options.
educate and build a compassionate society is obviously the correct answer, but we can’t do that because there is a portion of society that will never let that happen. remove the roadblocks. anything less is being complicit in prolonged suffering.
“We can build our utopia, we just have to kill everyone who doesn’t agree with us” doesn’t sound very right in my ears. It sounds like something where one should ask “are we the baddies?”
one of these days, maybe, you’ll come to realize that there is no objective morality. there is only the winners that decide how everyone else will live. we all get a choice in who those people are.
i choose to live in a world where rational thought dedicated to furthering humanity and ending suffering reigns supreme. the benefits of that world far outweigh the losses that one generation would have to suffer to achieve it. it’s just a simple trolley problem. if you can’t see that, then you are blinded by emotions.
Objectively false. People in completely different societies (indigenous, uncontacted, etc) have shown that they don’t kill people consequence-free or separated from morality.
Wrong. Completely wrong. Look up “honor killings”. Then learn that it is legal and condoned in some places.
Oh yes, I am sure that the Nazis back then said the same about cleansing the german nation, the benefits for the Volkskörper outweigh the losses that one generation would have to suffer.
and had i been alive back then, i would have been calling for the extermination of those nazis before they could do the damage they did.
we’re all humans and it’s always been a war. one day you might realize that you have to pick a side.
Learn nuance. They’re speaking to the Paradox of Tolerance, not calling for a blind genocide…
Murder is never a valid solution to the Paradox of Tolerance.
says the limp-wristed pacifist. when your head is under their boot, i will not pity you.
History proves that naive view … very naive. Should the US never joined in the war? Should the Poles and French simply rolled over to the Nazis? You seem to be saying yes, which is simply pathetic beyond ignorance.
Good thing the actual reason is the being Nazi thing, not just having a different opinion then!
Fuck Nazis and anyone who thinks they don’t deserve a slow and agonizing death