Am I wrong for opposing the ID-first web?
Sometimes you get to known more of yourself and an issue by arguing the opposite site of what you believe in.
I believe in (A):
- a free (as in speech) and anonymous global web is a net (no pun intended) positive to the world
Taking the other side could mean (B):
- a free and anonymous global web is a net negative
Or ( C):
- a controlled and identifiable local web is a net positive
There are so many ways to cut it, and frankly we live in a mixture of ABC depending at which issue our part of the Internet we look at.
It’s easy to find argumentation that fits my POV A, in part because of confirmation bias, but is not so easy to find argumentation that plainly does the pro/cons of B or C and still argues for it - let me try.
a free and anonymous global web is a net negative
free
Free speech is detrimental to human cohesion, hyper freedom requires hyper fragmentation of the human tribe, everyone a unique snowflake that can’t be molded into a more functional (happier?) member of the group.
anonymous
Words have meaning because of the gain or loss of social capital that happens when we say them.
People that object to this tend to use pseudo-anonymous accounts as a pushback: these are accounts that have no link to a government identity but are well esteblished and known in the community creating their own identification and network - kind of proving the point rather than refuting it.
global
The internet is already not global today, the great firewall of China is decades old, Western countries have raised their own walls for a while due to commerce (digital rights) and politics (blocking Russian news sites after the Ukraine war for example).
Since more and more of the people and content are fake or controlled cyberops from foreign states or criminal groups, a more localised web is a more trustworthy place.
net negative
A common ground, real and trustworthy, idea sharing place at the speed of light. What can you put on the other side of the scale that is more valuable than that?
Conclusion
A parallel comes to mind, the era of “the news” coming to you at 8PM from all 3 channels that were available to you from a trusted anchorman face. With hindsight we all (should) know that a lot of news where left out of that kind of news rooms, that control and government narrative were plentiful and that, for the most part, people were happy with it.
That model was common ground, real, trustworthy, sharing of ideas at the speed of light (well, the speed sound at least).
We still look back at the investigative newspaper journalism, that was borne out of necessity to feed the starving for more, as the golden years of journalism, Journalism with capitals letters even.
I think people are longing for the pendulum to swing back, for a portal that they can leave open when the kids are around, that produces something vetted by the same values and people we know and trust, a place that is predictable.
Is this born out of fear? Perhaps, but mostly, I believe, by the sad realisation that we are not one global tribe and for that we can only be happy and satisfied within our own tribe.
I lived through the “no frontiers” years, I think it is time I prepare myself to say goodbye to those and leave the judgement to the next set of people that will inhabit these spaces, if they will still exist as such (both the people and the spaces).