Very good article with well made arguments. Many started suspecting Jordan Peterson as being "paid opposition" when he started campaigning against anonymity on the internet, so I think folks get it.
It could be handled easily, but Twitter (I refuse to call it a letter of the alphabet) could include an "only people whose identities I have verified" feed option.
At some point, the system gets overly complex for the participation of the average person, and therein lies a challenging problem. The internet is the Wild West, and the Wild West simply is more dangerous.
I regularly recommend Shoshana Zuboff's "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism" for a thorough and informed assessment of the use and abuse of identity on the Internet. I am trying to purge my house of "smart" devices but the car is full of spybots.
I assume, after Edward Snowden, that I am only anonymous to myself and anyone who doesn't care to track a few comments. I also assume that "the lists" include everyone participating on Substack, and that the US Government (at least) has "A Little List" (acknowledgement to Gilbert and Sullivan, The Mikado.) We know that the Chinese Government uses their "Social Credit Score System" through digital tracking, facial recognition, and financial control.
The government local, state, and Federal are using managed attrition to create fake personas online to conduct information operations and infiltrate and report on groups and individuals that are a threat to the regime. Companies like Ntrepid, Far Ridgeline, Red Lattice, and Vertical Knowledge help them and others like the NYPD, Johnson & Johnson, etc... so why can’t the private individual have online anonymity?
> using a pseudonym instead of your real name was generally considered to be basic internet safety until social media companies started selling your data
Yes, exactly. Cui bono?
They can take my pseudonym from my pseudonym's cold dead hands.
> Where they tend to go wrong is that they believe that building a new “equitable” social hierarchy and institutional structure on top can resolve this conflict.
> Despite being around for quite a while, people tend to misunderstand what social media is.
REPLY: Dr. Shiva and others have approached the USPS (United States Postal Service) at the beginning of the computer age to be the platform for email. Dr. Shiva the creator of email (per Smithsonian) is especially qualified to discuss this with the USPS. He points out all the protections enshrined in the Constitution would apply to an email platform. Plus for very nominal fees the USPS would be well paid.
> It’s frustrating to see the calls for transparency only go in one direction. Sadly “Privacy for me, but not for thee”
REPLY: Yes a one way mirror is sad. If there was a one way mirror it should be the public's ability to see the workings of their government and the prohibition of public/private partnerships which gut FOIA, as the gov can always say "oh that's proprietary info" we can't share that with you. Example the gene therapy injectables. No one knew what was in them and in the beginning determining what was in them incurred a huge financial penalty.
> It would be a mistake to restrict all speech to those who can afford to take the risk of speaking in their name.
REPLY; Also being able to afford to speak may well mean what you say is part of the program not a crtique of it, or a serious take down.
> It should be our top priority to ensure that it’s possible to correct grave wrongs.
REPLY: It should also be a PRIORITY to prevent technologies that cannot be corrected. For example glyphsate (along with many other toxins) pollutes the ground water of the Californian Great Central Valley. Those who fouled this water such as Bayer/Monsanto cannot begin afford to clean it up.
Therefore going forward any new idea to create a technology that can't prove the ability to affordably reverse itself fails, shall not be implemented.
Pharma went to Congress saying they could not make a safe vaccine. Congress gave the wrong answer. Congress should have said. Thank you for your candor and honesty. You may go home now. The people will take it from here as a public enterprise. Fully transparent etc.
Am I crazy to think I am already on a list, all the jobs I apply for are part time retail jobs, all applications must be done online. I used my real name for quite some time during COVID and I posted a lot of dissent online, and protested in person as well.
Very good article with well made arguments. Many started suspecting Jordan Peterson as being "paid opposition" when he started campaigning against anonymity on the internet, so I think folks get it.
It could be handled easily, but Twitter (I refuse to call it a letter of the alphabet) could include an "only people whose identities I have verified" feed option.
At some point, the system gets overly complex for the participation of the average person, and therein lies a challenging problem. The internet is the Wild West, and the Wild West simply is more dangerous.
I regularly recommend Shoshana Zuboff's "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism" for a thorough and informed assessment of the use and abuse of identity on the Internet. I am trying to purge my house of "smart" devices but the car is full of spybots.
I assume, after Edward Snowden, that I am only anonymous to myself and anyone who doesn't care to track a few comments. I also assume that "the lists" include everyone participating on Substack, and that the US Government (at least) has "A Little List" (acknowledgement to Gilbert and Sullivan, The Mikado.) We know that the Chinese Government uses their "Social Credit Score System" through digital tracking, facial recognition, and financial control.
I agree. Anonymity, while a respects, still needs to be a choice everyone can make!
The government local, state, and Federal are using managed attrition to create fake personas online to conduct information operations and infiltrate and report on groups and individuals that are a threat to the regime. Companies like Ntrepid, Far Ridgeline, Red Lattice, and Vertical Knowledge help them and others like the NYPD, Johnson & Johnson, etc... so why can’t the private individual have online anonymity?
Well said.
> using a pseudonym instead of your real name was generally considered to be basic internet safety until social media companies started selling your data
Yes, exactly. Cui bono?
They can take my pseudonym from my pseudonym's cold dead hands.
Strong points for anonymity/pseudoanonymity, Gabe (if that’s your real name.) 😂
It would definitely benefit me if people assumed it was a pseudonym.
Thank you Gabriel,
> Where they tend to go wrong is that they believe that building a new “equitable” social hierarchy and institutional structure on top can resolve this conflict.
> Despite being around for quite a while, people tend to misunderstand what social media is.
REPLY: Dr. Shiva and others have approached the USPS (United States Postal Service) at the beginning of the computer age to be the platform for email. Dr. Shiva the creator of email (per Smithsonian) is especially qualified to discuss this with the USPS. He points out all the protections enshrined in the Constitution would apply to an email platform. Plus for very nominal fees the USPS would be well paid.
> It’s frustrating to see the calls for transparency only go in one direction. Sadly “Privacy for me, but not for thee”
REPLY: Yes a one way mirror is sad. If there was a one way mirror it should be the public's ability to see the workings of their government and the prohibition of public/private partnerships which gut FOIA, as the gov can always say "oh that's proprietary info" we can't share that with you. Example the gene therapy injectables. No one knew what was in them and in the beginning determining what was in them incurred a huge financial penalty.
> It would be a mistake to restrict all speech to those who can afford to take the risk of speaking in their name.
REPLY; Also being able to afford to speak may well mean what you say is part of the program not a crtique of it, or a serious take down.
> It should be our top priority to ensure that it’s possible to correct grave wrongs.
REPLY: It should also be a PRIORITY to prevent technologies that cannot be corrected. For example glyphsate (along with many other toxins) pollutes the ground water of the Californian Great Central Valley. Those who fouled this water such as Bayer/Monsanto cannot begin afford to clean it up.
Therefore going forward any new idea to create a technology that can't prove the ability to affordably reverse itself fails, shall not be implemented.
Pharma went to Congress saying they could not make a safe vaccine. Congress gave the wrong answer. Congress should have said. Thank you for your candor and honesty. You may go home now. The people will take it from here as a public enterprise. Fully transparent etc.
Good night pharma.
You stole my title
Papers please
https://tomg2021.substack.com/p/papers-please
That's a great post, I had no intention of stealing your thunder!
While I would argue nobody owns that particular reference, I appreciate many of the points you made.
Would you consider us square if I link/embed to your post in mine?
You're right, I don't own it, and you don't owe me anything, I was kinda kidding, but it would be awesome if you could link to it!
Am I crazy to think I am already on a list, all the jobs I apply for are part time retail jobs, all applications must be done online. I used my real name for quite some time during COVID and I posted a lot of dissent online, and protested in person as well.