I get it. And also, I know that Apple and Google would abuse that, and destroy lives and businesses as casually as I eat my breakfast. Then 1000's of disposable companies would pop up with valid id, and abuse some system (like terrible DMCA) and make it worse.
If you think people self-censoring themselves on social media is now a problem (the "unlive" novlang is always such a dystopic hint to me), you have seen nothing.
Businesses should not be forced to serve abusive users. They should have the choice to refuse to serve somebody permanently. You do not have the right to use somebody else’s service without their permission. If they want you off their platform, they should be able to do so.
The whole point of having trusted issuers is that there aren’t any “disposable companies” who hand out many identities in an uncontrolled manner. If there were, they would quickly become untrusted, making the IDs worthless.
Why is it the responsibility of the customer and the government to enable a business model someone wants that doesn't work well otherwise? Like I agree with some of your sentiment but where does this end? Anyone can come up with any untenable business model and then the government should intervene to make it work the way they want, at the citizens expense? I doubt that's your point and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but what's the difference here? "I should be able to control people on the internet better" doesn't feel like a thing we should all collectively bend over to enable.
> Anyone can come up with any untenable business model and then the government should intervene to make it work the way they want, at the citizens expense?
> I should be able to control people on the internet better
This is so twisted out of all proportion I find it difficult to believe you are being genuine.
A government giving an ID to somebody is not propping up “an untenable business model”.
Saying “I don’t want you to access my service” is not “controlling people on the Internet”.
If you are a monopoly like youtube or the apple store, with a "winner take all" market, and your conditions are abusive, I hope you can see this is a problem.
E.G: youtube has a disproportionate share of the attention market, therefore can control what people think, and they are heavily influenced by big companies that will tell users what they can say or not on the platforms.
Your account on youtube is linked to your phone, emails, photos, calendar... So do something that one of those companies don't want you to do because it's not profitable for them,
And of course, they change the rules of the time.
That's why I don't have a google account. But most people are not capable of such insights, they don't have the knowledge to realize how much they can be screwed.
> If you are a monopoly like youtube or the apple store
What happened to this being a case of the government propping up an untenable business model?
You don’t have a solid view point, you’re just saying whatever springs to mind that disagrees with what I say. This isn’t a genuine conversation, you’re just arguing for entertainment. I’m out.
