xianc78 @xianc78@gameliberty.club

@jeffcliff Christianity and Islam are not cults, regardless about how you feel about them. What makes a cult different from a religion (besides its size) is that cults have secretive practices while religions tend to have their practices out in the open.

@Mr_NutterButter @beardalaxy I was offered alcohol once during New Years, as a kid, but I declined.

I only ever drank alcohol once on my 21st birthday and that might be the only time.

@beardalaxy Unless you have physical access to the scanners or servers, there is no way to prove that the data is erased after verification. Of course the government could make storing that data illegal, but they could also be storing the data themselves through mandated backdoors.

>to be honest, if we're either going to go the route of sanitizing the entire internet or needing to provide ID to see stuff that isn't sanitized, i'd rather have the latter. especially if we can reverse some of the sanitization that's already happened. but yeah it would have to go through some really good encryption or just be checked and then erased.

I would also have the latter, but I don't want the Internet to be the next HAM radio where you have to jump through a bunch of state mandated hoops just to use the damn thing or at least a certain layer of it.

Honestly, the real ID thing reminds me of Ender's Game. The book was written before the Internet went public, but the book featured an Internet like network called "the nets" and unlike the Internet we have, most of it is invite-only and heavily moderated, and I remember that users would have to buy passports from the government in order to use it. However, the ironic thing is is that there is a subplot where two kids use pseudonyms to publish essays on the nets to influence people in order to set up a world government, which wouldn't happen in real-life as the government could just link the passports to the usernames and tell everyone "these are a bunch of kids, don't listen to them."

@beardalaxy It's tradition for some parents to let kids drink alcohol on New Year's Eve. I always thought it was some illegal thing, but apparently not.

I watched Bryan Lunduke's video where he defends real ID on the Internet. One thing in the video that I don't see talked about is that he offers an alternative solution that is just *SLIGHTLY* better.

Basically, you could have cards with serial numbers that you can purchase at a 7/11 or something. Kind of like an Amazon or eBay gift card, and you can enter that serial number when signing up for a website to prove your over 18 or that you are not a bot. It sounds better but I see potential problems with it:

1. There are too many random variables that make it less than anonymous. Does the cashier scan your ID or does he just look at it? Can you buy the card with cash or only with debit/credit? Are there facial recognition cameras in the store? The company/organization providing the cards might even require all retailers to not accept cash and to have the customer's driver's license scanned and have all that data report back to them.
2. Cards obviously cost money to produce and ship so one can make the argument that it is cheaper and more efficient to just have users provide ID on whatever website they are trying to access.
3. Opponents to such proposal could point out that an adult could buy a bunch of cards and give/sell them to minors just like we see with alcohol/tobacco.

Obviously, I would rather not have any of this verification crap at all and just stick to the honor system we have now. I don't even think this store-bought card system would be considered because there clearly are people who want to end anonymity online and age verification provides the perfect stepping stone.

https://inv.nadeko.net/watch?v=9w187osUBIQ

@slipgate I feel like a full blackpill scenario would have sneakernets and underground cafes with PirateBoxes as the only means to exchange un-sanitized information. Kind of like how North Korea apparently has an underground sneakernet full of people smuggling K-Pop and anime.

A future where the darknet is the only place to find non-sanitized content on the Internet is extremely blackpilling to me, even if it turns out to be the only option.

I know Tor and I2P aren't what the mainstream paints them as, and that they are easy to use, but the idea of having to use something that is often associated with 1337 hax0rs just to access content that was common place on 4chan or even the darker corners of Reddit 10 years ago without showing an ID, just seems so wrong to me.

Also, many people don't realize how easy it is to de-anonymize users even if they are using Tor. Sites can use JavaScript or even CSS to de-anonymize users. Metadata can give clues of who people are. That's why the Tor browser discourages fullscreen use. You just know that governments are going to be setting up more honeypots where they try to catch even the most slight slips of OPSEC, if a future like this happens.

Not to mention that these darknets are still ultimately band-aid solutions because they still rely on the physical structure of the regular Internet and governments and ISPs can (and in the former case, have) block them via DSP. Supposedly, the Tor bridges hide the fact that you are even using Tor by making the traffic look like VoIP, but I feel like they can find a way to determine if you are using it, eventually.

Bryan Lunduke is a huge hypocrite. A huge part of his journalism relies on anonymous whistle blowers from the tech industry and yet he's claiming that we need real IDs online.