Part of my disability for the last year was having intermittent literacy... I spent more time lurking in Chats than talking and that's how I've come to know that the problem is in the Mindset and will be transferred to the code... I use Steem because it's basic V1.0 Identity that NONE of the other projects have down yet. Identity on the chain is job 1.
Sorry... it's 2019 now ... I've been disabled for 5 years now... but getting better.
National Digital Identity,
the piece missing from the conversations of National Digital Currencies - and whether you'd be willing to work with me as an editor to assist publishing content in support of a "One Credential" concept. Voting, taxes, entitlements, banking, getting separate credentials from each bank/social media site has advantages, and in the digital world of TODAY there are lurking threats to not having any control over your pseudonymous digital personas.
These are my thoughts I was compelled
to write down in support of regulations on for-profit Social Networks, as they have money-generating incentives related to sharing personal information like banks or hospitals. The profit motive is driving sites enhancements to leverage phones/other multi-factor in order to get phone #'s and email addresses of site visitors, not to protect them. I'm not asking anyone to read this in-particular, consider these rough notes - if you've received this that only means I wouldn't mind hearing back your opinions either. Luckily I'm self-employed so I can't be James Damored for a thought experiment, then again things turned out well for him eventually - tax facebook, google, and twitter to pay for citizen identity.
Perceived anonymity & misbehavior are directly linked
it's a rare delinquent individual that would threaten to harm a grandmother on the streets, this would be assault and at least a misdemeanor, it's an everyday hustle on twitter. Problems of disassociation between individuals and their actions online in"digital public spaces" like Facebook/Twitter, compared to "digital private spaces" like forums or direct-messages with friends, compared to how one acts in the physical world stem ultimately from lingering perceived anonymity and communication secrecy offered by impersonal Social Networks and a failure of individuals to disintegrate the thinking that there is a difference between an individuals identity in the physical world and the digital, and that the two worlds are not bound together.
We are all stuck equally as individuals,
as a society, in a state of Identity Crisis, not of the social justice-type, however the cultural suppression felt from overactive social justice is not an unrelated issue. The internet, and so the world, is in a state of Qausinimity right now, there is no true anonymity to be just a dog on the internet without the knowledge of what your identity is regarding your State, more importantly, what your State regards as your pseudonymous digital identity – the issue of warrantless censorship is only one issue at the leaf end of the liability model Social Media platforms are burdened by from having users due to the legal mixing of an individual’s many social identities, where through pseudonyms they freely express ideas out of the scope of thought and groups form around interests, with an individual’s identity to their State.
The collective calls for Governments to create laws for flagging or limiting content on free platforms are inculcated out of misguided perceptions of who the audience rightly is from the creator of any content’s perspective when disagreeable content is confronted by “free speech” rights – in the case of Social Media there are two audiences for what users post: the intended and the unintended. The unintended audience is often greater than intended, and includes both Government entities, as well as the collectively unidentified world wide web – a zeitgeist out of which any entity could be assumed to be a dog, or a victim of abuse, someone suicidal & anxious, a machine, or a child. Still, for-profit Social Networks, where active users could be any of the above, should not be legislated to limit content, but rather to strengthen identity standards & platform integrity to foster consumer protections with public industry regulation, similar to those in Banking to protect individuals from identity theft.
Social Media sites, like any Bank,
must be regulated as an industry, to ensure not whether their category of created content should circulate, but to ensure that when true law-breaking acts occur on there are proper forensics available to law enforcement about individuals involved. While it is a necessity of a platform to censor it’s content to meet legal liabilities it has, where content is compelled dies the free expression of ideas. Corporations have been growing richer while individuals go unaccountable for the prolific distribution of illegal content their Social Networks have enabled that is produced by untraceable users sometimes with malicious intent. Technology solutions in Banking that prevent unknown users from accessing Bank accounts are audited annually to industry practices that are regulated into existence by law to mandate adherence, and to require strong Identity Proofing. Third party “archive sites” exist to back-up records of user-made posts, these volunteer efforts are not sufficient from the perspective of preventing a third party, or an incentivized Social Network, could tamper with user post history, which leads to the horrific, dystopian outcomes of neo-Mccarthyism when harnessed by a State.
A fan of Coke today? That could be made Pepsi tomorrow. Supported in the past a grass-roots candidate, that could be changed to a radical/extremist ticket tomorrow without knowledge or intent of an individual to have their expression altered – however, any individual would undoubtedly experience the full consequences of State Justice in a situation where Social Network site admin abuse were to take place. Without digital forensics, what prevents this other than a trust in good will? #Fakenews.
///A dog from the Internet