- cross-posted to:
- privacy@programming.dev
- europe@feddit.org
- cross-posted to:
- privacy@programming.dev
- europe@feddit.org
cross-posted from : https://lemmy.zip/post/59424100
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has called for an end to widespread anonymity on the internet, saying users should post under their real names.


I wonder why such discussions are always framed as an all or nothing propositions. Zero knowledge systems are a decades old invention. Just very briefly: based on some ID a site issues cryptographycally signed tokens claiming some fact, e.g. the requester being an actual real person, adulthood, etc. Such a token could be presented by an otherwise anonymous user to a 2nd site with their own signature as proof of said property in order to consume their service. Tokens could even be single use.
A requirement to prove someone is, in fact, a human is not unreasonable. Banning bots or bad actors could be a solution to a lot of the problems on social media etc…
There is naturally a major shortcoming of this scheme, authoritarians could not track people…
I like this idea, it’s very interesting. Yet I always end up wondering how it could go sideways.
A one time token (as in per message) seems onerous. A multi use token attesting “this is a human” could be sold to a bad actor using it to allow non-humans to masquerade as humans. We already see something like that on big social media where human accounts are sold to troll farms.
Good point. Have no elegant solution for that at the ready.