this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2026
666 points (99.1% liked)

News

37285 readers
2809 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 20 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

That makes no sense, when the age verification is being pushed to the OS and ISP levels.

Sure, you can connect to Lemmy, and not have to prove your identity to Lemmy, but Windows users will have to prove to microsoft, and also you'll have to prove it to Verizon, or Comcast, or whomever your ISP is.

So before you even turn on your computer, you've already proved your identity twice.

[–] cecilkorik@lemmy.ca 13 points 12 hours ago

I don't have to worry about my OS because it's open source. Yours should be too. They can't actually enforce age verification on an open source OS because my OS can lie, and I can use its source code to make it lie if I have to (which I won't, because many other people will do it for me). For that matter they'll find ways to make Windows lie too, but you still shouldn't be using it, it's shit.

I don't have to worry about my ISP either because I live in a still-civilized country, but yeah, if they really lock it down at that level that's going to be tough, you'll probably have to identify someone for that if that's the next place where they go to. There are countermeasures and workarounds though. VPN, mesh networking, borrowing somebody else's wifi or mobile data hotspot, finding open networks. Maybe we'll get to the point where we need point to point links, pirate satellites, datajacking ourselves into communication lines, who knows.

But we're not there yet. We'll continue to develop more countermeasures as these sorts of hostile police surveillance state measures encroach on our freedom as it becomes necessary. You don't have to let your identity be associated with anything beyond your ISP if you're only using your ISP to get to somewhere you do trust with a VPN. If they block VPNs, then we will find other ways around the blocks. Are you familiar with I2P? If you aren't, maybe you should get familiar with it. We already have plenty of ways of sneaking information into and out of even more totalitarian of states like China, Russia, at least until there's an absolute shutdown like in Iran. You should also consider not living in a totalitarian country, and doing what you can to stop yours from becoming more totalitarian, because it's only going to get harder the longer you let them do this. Give them your ID in exchange for internet access for now if you absolutely have to and can't find any other option, but you might not absolutely have to, yet. And if you do have to, do it with caution: start learning and planning what you're going to have to do after that and how you're going to get very active in your resistance to being monitored and observed.

You sound like you've got a little bit of learned helplessness, but people in shitty, scary countries have been dealing with this for a long, long time. Yes, it sucks, but it's not the end of freedom. You have to learn how to fight it.

[–] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 14 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Ugh. That's disgusting on a thousand levels. Even proposing such a bill should be considered a jailable violation of the constitution, as an example to the rest of the authoritarian bastards.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 8 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

I mean, I agree with you, but this isn't just a United States thing. China has had this since forever. They have something called a "social credit score".

So if you litter, and cameras catch you littering, your social credit goes down. And you best believe they track and monitor every single online interaction.

The UK the past year has been really slamming hard on online verification.

This is a global thing that is seeping into the united states, but it's by no means the only point of contention.

[–] cecilkorik@lemmy.ca 5 points 10 hours ago

From what I understand, social credit score is mostly an invented bogeyman to demonize China in the west, and while many frightening "consequences" of low social credit score were imagined, none ever materialized and it was rarely even actually tracked. Yes, they could, in theory, but we imagine a massive level of administrative competence and effectiveness that I think serves both western interests and Chinese ones without necessarily being reality. As far as I can tell (granted, not very far as I'm not in China and haven't been for a very long time) it actually had very little real impact in China itself and has already been mostly forgotten. China's got lots of problems, but social credit score isn't really part of any of them. They don't need to have social credit score to genocide Uighurs. They didn't need social credit score to massacre Tienanmen square. They don't need social credit score to prepare the South China Sea for war and try to subvert Taiwan. They've got bigger fish to fry, and they're frying them, and social credit score is a silly distraction that nobody there is taking seriously and neither should we.

[–] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 6 points 11 hours ago

Oh yeah, 1000%.

It really sucks seeing supposed democratic nations having this forced on them. I really hate how little people understand the implications in practice.

China's "cameras up everyone's nose" approach should be a sign of failure and a caution to the world, not permission for other governments to "catch up". :(