Comment on Large-scale online deanonymization with LLMs
Goodman@discuss.tchncs.de 4 days agoThanks for explaining your thoughts. So to paraphrase you: you are saying that the market and by proxy, nations too, Are still adapting to the concept of the internet. One way to cope with the effects is to restricted access?
silverneedle@lemmy.ca 4 days ago
I am saying that the internet is as an international object antithetical to nations as its control panel sits not in one nation but all and that nations therefore seek to nerf it, only for it to return stronger and even more difficult to regulate as more and more people adapt to internationalized organizational patterns. As a corollary, there is a real cultural unification happening across borders as a secondary effect. I’ve read people terming it a “discordization” because people are starting to talk the way people talk in Discord chatrooms.
Yes, so you do have to restrict access and notably deanonymize users. California is trying to force OSes to implement age checking, which is of course a way to unmask people online. Protectionism cannot merely be understood as a set of possible tax policies, it is exactly the regaining of nation-centralized control in any sphere of life. States do not want people to be able to choose who to hang out with if the pool is the entire world, states do not have an interest in letting subjects learn about reality beyond a certain threshold where the scope of a person’s understanding exceeds the boundaries of countries.
What I am getting at exactly is the social structure that humans find themselves in. When relations/hierarchies are on the brink of flattening, that is everyone is linked to the next in a symmetrical fashion, like in a family or within small communities 5000 years ago, states, companies and even small businesses will feel compelled to work in such a way that preserves their asymmetrical stance in society. As it happens the internet is extremely good at producing flat social structures, anonymity, reach, openness and near-infinite scalability makes it possible. You may be able to neutralize one netizen or manipulate one online community, by the time that has happened five hundred heads of the hydra have regrown. Cost and expenses don’t work out.
Goodman@discuss.tchncs.de 4 days ago
You have a lot say on this. Its good that someone thinks about these thing. I’m sorry that I can’t really provide you with a good discussion. I don’t know enough about markets etc and I don’t want to spend too long online.
I agree that can’t really stamp out openness and anonymity online (which is beautiful in a way) but I think that will mostly be reserved to technically capable users in the cracks and niches of the web who can navigate the restrictions. This is a massive tragedy.
This brings us to the current state of the web with age restrictions popping up everywhere, deanonimization etc. I think that we are in agreement regarding where it is going. Where you think we should be heading. I’m sure you have opinios on that
silverneedle@lemmy.ca 3 days ago
I mean I have a lot to say. I don’t expect people to engage in discussions nor do I really want to create discussion as it eats a lot of time on my end as well.
You’re right, but we don’t know if the more technically capable users will create elegant solutions for the rest.
Opinions probably. I try not to judge things though or impose expectations.