I'm not charitable enough to think they see requiring an ID to use the internet as a flaw. The holy grail of censors is for every sentence in print to have an easily found name and address associated with it. Not only do I not think they see it as a flaw, I think that requiring IDs to use the internet may be the real intent of these laws. These countries, other than Norway, are all notorious for internet censorship. And I think I just don't know much about Norway...
That's my feeling too. I think the ultimate end game is to pressure everyone to use a form of legal government ID that has your wallet name, address, etc., to use the internet at all. That way, when you post something subversive or critical or consenting-adult deviant, they know exactly who you are and where to find you: and you know they know that, so there's a chilling effect.
"Think of the children!" is the easiest and most common way to manipulate the gullible into accepting this.
This does sound like their endgame, whether or not the people currently doing this actually realize what they're aiming for. I hesitate to conclude that it's entirely planned, but these baby steps head toward some alarming eventualities.
Does remind me of when Facebook first came out, and the guy in charge couldn't seem to grasp that people online absolutely do want, and need, anonymity and pseudonym control. We cultivate our own facets of the online experience in much the same way that we mask around certain groups in real life, because we cannot just be open about everything with everyone. I mean, just having a bunch of friends/family across the political spectrum and the religious spectrum means being careful with which ideas you express to whom, and having some friends/family with particular trigger topics means not being open about certain things around those people specifically.
As I was just discussing with a friend the other day, AO3 lets you know how many people are subscribed to your content, but not which people, because that would be an invasion of privacy. And if we had to let the public know which things we'd been reading, then we absolutely would shy away from anything of any controversial nature. "Am I curious enough about that Hydra Trash Party fic that I'm willing to let my grandma know I read that kind of stuff? Hell no."
And I certainly trust my friends/family to deal better with that data than a Nanny State or Surveillance State ever could.
There's a reason I lock a few specific fics -- because I trust fellow fans to be able to navigate the context (and to grasp "don't like? don't read"), whereas random passersby who don't even have accounts are much more likely to turn things into Problems when they don't have to be.
As an additional point ... anonymity online is a variation on anonymity people enjoy in other social contexts: fans sending Kirk/Spock fic to printed fanzines weren't living in fear of discovery by their grandmothers, either.
But there's been a proliferation of hostile interference to kids and teenagers, of censorship and techno-stalking tools for parents, and lately this onslaught of laws that highlight how comfortable politicans are promoting measures that plenty of kids object to and feel unfairly singled-out by.
People stop being dependent by learning to rely on themselves. There's no other way. Government attempts to control what children learn and how old they are when they learn it (if successful) just stunt children's growth. They're also forcing unwanted additional surveillance on all adults, but contrary to their claims, they're doing this at children's expense.
Comment on Social Media Bans and AO3
MalcontentCatboy Sat 14 Dec 2024 04:22AM UTC
Comment Actions
Vulgarweed Sat 14 Dec 2024 06:55AM UTC
Comment Actions
Zaniida Sat 14 Dec 2024 10:04AM UTC
Last Edited Sat 14 Dec 2024 10:07AM UTC
Comment Actions
aquila_black Fri 20 Dec 2024 08:19PM UTC
Comment Actions
MysteriousMihai Sat 14 Dec 2024 08:20PM UTC
Comment Actions
MalcontentCatboy Sat 14 Dec 2024 08:35PM UTC
Comment Actions