You must log in or # to comment.
As usual with Greek lawmaking, this is more a tactic to scare people and to use as a sledgehammer when the state wants to, rather than some grand scheme to force the population en masse to de-anonymize themselves. You have got to understand that Greece is undergoing democratic backsliding and was never a very strong rule or law state to begin with. Laws in Greece tend to be super strict but loosely enforced, which basically means the establishment, the police, the courts, can use them to throw the book at whomever they deem too dangerous. The Greek state is structurally incapable of being an actual totalitarian apparatus, but can be an effective authoritarian one when it needs to.
A round of applause for the birthplace of democracy
So, lemmy would be illegal under this vision?
an EU-wide approach may be more practical to implement
If you want to do this, do it to yourself. Keep me out of it.
So, lemmy would be illegal under this vision?
presumably hosted in Greece, yes…Hosted in Bumfuckistan, I can’t see how.
Bumfuckistan is rather famously full of give no fucks poltics. Very freeing place.
Greece would essentially have to wall themselves off from every country that doesn’t…
So if an instance was hosted in Greece, and this actually happens…
Yeah, it would effect that instance.
It seems like you just quoted a tiny bit of the sentence so it would seem like a possibility tho…
Critics highlight the technical complexity of the issue and suggest that an EU-wide approach may be more practical to implement. Meanwhile, the EU governments which consider such a measure will also need to address potential freedom of speech concerns – as digital rights campaigners have warned for years.
Greece would essentially have to wall themselves off from every country that doesn’t
This is why the EU usually moves in packs, be it on Ukraine, emissions or anything else. Basically, it will take a few more countries to join in to see a real effect.
I quoted it because I have a problem with it and it wasn’t the main thing. Who in their right mind would even suggest this?
Because as a complete thought it clearly means:
For X to work we’d have to d Y, which has even less chances of happening.
And you picked out “we’d have to do Y” and presented that like it’s a plan anyone is proposing and not an example of how impossible it would be…
But I don’t think any of that is going to help
Lemmy would not be illegal. Instead, Lemmy would be required to verify that each account belongs to a real person. Essentially, it’s a way to make bots and astroturfing illegal.
I wouldn’t be here if it asked for my id.
Me neither, probably. But it’s still a good idea in principle. The spread of malicious misinformation and propaganda has already led to millions of deaths. If we have to give up some anonymous shitposting to curb these excesses, it’s worth it.
The spread of malicious misinformation and propaganda has already led to millions of deaths.
Ah, I see you turned the TV on. Fox News I’m guessing.
The spread of malicious misinformation and propaganda has already led to millions of deaths.
Malicious misinformation and propaganda is constantly spread without any sort of anonymity, so I can’t see how this is relevant.
Exactly, nation states and political parties are the worst in this regard.
Chemotherapy does not cure all forms of cancer, therefore chemotherapy is not relevant to cancer treatment.
No but you don’t give everyone chemotherapy just because some people have cancer
Thank you. I agree with this.
Home searches would catch some criminals, therefore a blanket search warrant is relevant to stopping crime.
That’s a little too close to reality for comfort. 😟
We have several governments saying that being able to read some people’s encrypted messages would catch some criminals, therefore we need to be able to read everyone’s encrypted messages.
bro thought he really cooked with this one
So youre the type of person who gives up some freedoms in the name of security and comfort.
Malicious misinformation gets spread by plenty of elected officials and journalists every day. You don’t have to be anonymous to do that. Hell pretty much the entire US government does it.
no, its not
No.
The whole point of anonymity is that people can say whatever they want publicly without it affecting their real life.
So you can be against whatever war or business practices without the government or your boss bothering you. Now they want to stifle dissent by putting your face to every opinion you have online. They want to card you for being against the war.
The proposal isn’t to ban pseudonyms.
Greece isn’t in any war that I am aware of.
Since you like the idea so much, you go first. What’s your real name, “friend”? Put your money where your mouth is. Let’s see how safe you feel giving out that information. C’mon, old buddy old pal. What’s the harm, right? Out with it. Triple dog dare ya, bud. We’re waiting. Oh, and until you tell us, maybe can it otherwise.
It seems you don’t understand the idea, which wouldn’t be that people would be forced to disclose their identity on social media. Instead, social media would be required to check that users are who they say they are.
Imagine Coca-Cola puts out an ad saying Pepsi instantly makes your balls explode, or that the Daily Mail publishes an op-ed from a Labour insider who is actually an LLM prompted by a GRU operative. It is this type of “free speech” that currently runs rampant on social media, and would be curtailed under this type of proposal.
It seems you don’t understand the idea, which wouldn’t be that people would be forced to disclose their identity on social media. Instead, social media would be required to check that users are who they say they are.
that makes no sense whatsoever. you are saying your name is “Hapankaali”. do you have any documents proving that you are actually “Hapankaali”? if you don’t, how are you planning to prove you are who you claim to be?
Have you messaged the admins of every lemmy instance lemmy.world is federated with to tell them your Name, Date of Birth, Street Address, etc?
If not, why not? That’s what you want for others?
Pseudonyms aren’t anonymous by their very definition.
If it was expanded to the EU, I assume it’d be the Ukraine war. Europe seems to be leaning towards a war with Russia or keeps hinting it might happen.
It’s impossible to verify humanity without verifying identity. Just like all attemps to verify age this will result in vast databases of all our personal data that will be abused, sold, leaked, and hacked.
and because of at the very least leaking, even verifying identity is not sufficient to verify humanity
So lemmy would in fact be illegal, because it wouldn’t be lemmy if anonymity wasn’t possible.
Anonymity would still be possible, in the same sense that anonymous op-eds in newspapers are possible.
…you know you’re using an anonymous account right now, right?
Google, Youtube and Facebook all forced real usernames for a time and it made no difference to the quality of conversation or how toxic it was. Indeed many people on Twitter/X use their real names and say some truly awful things.
Its not about anonymity, the real answer to getting less toxicity is good moderators that care about the subject matter. Its why Reddit is a mixed bag depending on the sub you are in, all depends on the moderators. If you want to fix social medias toxic name calling and everything else you should be forcing Facebook et el to have enough moderators to actually do the job well with interest in the various sub topics.
We fucking don’t care about how toxic it is. If you find a social network toxic just leave it or ban people you find toxic. Nobody force you to stay.
Moderation means no impartiality, no free speech and less liberty.
BUT social networks can be useful for many people like winsleblowers for example, and they NEED to stay anonymous. If some people are agree to sacrifice their anonymity others really need it.
Google, Youtube and Facebook all forced real usernames for a time
They did? Haven’t created a Google accouts in years.
At one point after Google bought YouTube, I signed into YT and was horrified to find that my username was replaced with my real name. I hadn’t been asked or alerted to a change, it was rolled out silently. I changed it back immediately, because holy shit that’s invasive. But yes, Google/YouTube forced real names (at least at that point in time.)
Sounds like this Greek proposal is more about curbing bot accounts though. Every account should be tied to a real person, etc.
Removed by mod
This is my old account that was banned by the over zelous turdz at programming.dev. I would just like that to be known. Also the capitalist have a global network. They are poking and proding to see what they can get away with… The best solution is understand how you leak data and how to stop them from extracting that data. Finding and creating platforms to go around the corpos and their tyranny. If people keep banning each other they will win. That is all I got to say about that.
Welcome to TOR and I2P, ανώνυμοι. Also, you might try wireless mesh networks.
I’m kinda hoping a more mainstream darknet will appear. Basically like the role VPN providers have now but more .onion like. It’s basically what common people use for stuff that’s slightly at odds with the law but not too terrible. Like pirate bay. Soon adult sites and social media will fall in this category too if you desire anonymity.
Tor and I2P are too dark for the regular person to go to for their social media just because they want anonymity. There’s too much really nasty stuff there. The kind of crime that actually harms real people, not some rich shareholders.
The problem of how to create anonymity even when the law forbids it, while still pushing back against the real crimes is a difficult one.
Basically I want my 2002 internet back but how?
Tor and I2P are too dark for the regular person to go to for their social media just because they want anonymity. There’s too much really nasty stuff there. The kind of crime that actually harms real people, not some rich shareholders.
Uhm, no? You still have to actively search for and visit those sites, you don’t just open tor browser and randomly land on dread
No but it’s the association that makes you suspicious, gets exit nodes banned and just gives it a bad reputation. That damages more mainstream initiatives because nobody wants to be known as promotor of the silk road and csam network.
The services you’re mentioning became as large and ‘dark’ as they are due to actually being secure services, any secure enough service will become like that eventually. Any service not like that is usually not secure enough unfortunately.
Yeah that’s why I think there should be a balance.
Like the commercial VPN scene. Torrent a few movies and you’re totally safe. But harm kids or sell weapons and you will eventually get your door knocked down.
That’s why VPNs have an ok reputation and they are publicly advertising. And tor has this dark shadow over it.
Tor is the only one that has that type of association because it’s the biggest, so it always gets mentioned in the media.
Most people don’t even know that there are other darknets like i2p.
On top of that, current Tor actually has pretty good latency and connection speeds when not on a bridge. Last time I tried it out, I was getting 80Mbps up/down. Several users here even regularly or exclusively access lemmy with Tor.
I think i2p should actually make an effort to promote higher base bandwidth sharing out of box because it scales easily since its completely decentralized and everyone is a node, unlike Tor. It could easily become more user friendly if nodes weren’t starting off at like 128kbps speeds.
Plus like the other reply mentioned, you have to go out of your way to find the criminal stuff on darknets. Most users would probably be accessing clearnet stuff anyway, and .onion addresses on clearnet sites that have dedicated onion addresses like duckduckgo or some social media platforms.
How, exactly, would they do that?
I’m sure they can force the big ones, like Facebook, but how on earth are you going to force all websites world wide for this?
The point is to make places like this illegal, such that we all have to use Facebook and other monitored services.
Also, good luck defining social media.
but how on earth are you going to force all websites world wide for this?
They won’t, but if you regulate the FAAGs, you regulate about 90% of social media use.
The beginning of mass surveillance…
Beginning? Where have you been the last decade? Lol
Beginning? Where have you been the last decade? Lol I thought it had just begun…
again fellow humans. its why I 100% put all my real life information in my profile. its important to lay it all out there and be truthful as sincere beings of earth.
Back in the early 2000s, when the web was still somewhat safe, I used to post comments on a news site using my real name … my reasoning being that if I was posting my opinion on something I should have the balls to use my rn.
Within about a year it started becoming more dangerous tho. I wasn’t stalked but the responses became more personal and degrading, and the misogynists began showing up in force.
I get why Greece would want to do this, but as of right now it would be better if they made some hard rules for Meta et al to follow - with massive fines attached for being lax.
