🚫 Crypto Cult Science.
“Money corrupts; bitcoin corrupts absolutely. Disregarding all of bitcoin’s shortcomings, a financial instrument that brings out the worst in people—greed—won’t change the world for the better.” ―https://www.arscyni.cc/file/crypto_cult_science.html

Hocus Pocus - Focus. Thanks for the reminder, one of the best songs ever.

And soon women will wear those kind of glasses too to scan men for facial recognition and see if they’re flagged for secretly recording, convictions, … A huge discussion starts about privacy and data.

That’s actually a very good point. Glasses such as these could indeed be used preventively as shitty behavior dash cams.

There is generally no such consent required in public in most countries

Not when one is a part of a crowd, but when the focus is directly on someone, consent should be asked.

Even if the LED is visible, is this enough to consider it consensual?

No. That would mean everyone in the world would have to be up-to-date with technological “advances”, and that everyone would have the assertiveness to explicitly deny someone’s attempt at filming / uphold their right to privacy. Not everyone is up-to-date, and definitely not everyone has the assertiveness, nor is there an equal balance of power between two parties. E.g., I know for sure that a lot of elder people walking in the forest would like to speak up to younger obnoxiously loud morons, but they don’t because they know many people are too weak/underdeveloped/self-centered to handle criticism well, and therefore they remain silent out of fear for being physically assaulted.

when the man’s team loses a sports game

I’ve never understood why so many people are so goddamn obsessed with sports teams*. Even highly educated otherwise bright people. I enjoy playing soccer, or many other sports, but I don’t care in the slightest which team wins or loses in these big competitions. Though, as a former LoL player I watched tournaments too and had a preference for underdogs, and competed myself in a CS 1.6 clan, but at the end of the day sportsmanship and witnessing satisfying gameplay is what mattered the most, regardless of which team.

*The folly of pride

“Winning necessarily comes down to luck or the defeat of an inferior. Both are nothing to be proud of. Therefore, we should not compete for the sake of being better than others, but only to improve ourselves and help others do the same.” ―https://www.arscyni.cc/file/pride.html

The Epstein cage.

Humans grew from fish thousands upon thousands of years ago. Now we can walk and talk, but we remain with the same primeval intelligence which results in stupid games little men play because we still can’t tell right from wrong.

Worse than the mosquito sound?

The guy missed the opportunity to moonwalk while dragging the robot out
Witty comments like these belong to the few reasons I still log onto the Web from time to time.

I’m against the systemd monopoly; the lack of choice on most major distros while other init systems are perfectly fine for the majority of users; as a consequence against the perhaps unintentional incorrect narrative that systemd is the only reasonable/modern option.

systemd has flaws, but I’m not anti.

Perfect example. This person has systemd so much on the brain I actually tagged them as weirdly against systemd some time ago. lol

“This person plays volleyball, he must hate basketball so much.”

What’s systemd? (I use OpenRC btw.)

Goddayum sweet shot.
Thanks for adding the source as well!

Not dying fast enough. A list of good reasons to quit social media: https://www.arscyni.cc/file/quit_facebook.html.

Panem et circenses.

has OP ever not had a noisy neighbor? or like been in public outside?

It’s not because people can be turds in real life that it has to be so online as well. Moreover, in real life accountability can be imposed because one knows who they are. Online, not as much.

Anyway, I started this thread to seek for potential solutions. Saying “it’s impossible” does a disservice to human ingenuity, or more people than I imagine are smurfing as trolls.

This is an argument to an incomplete quotation that misrepresents the hypothetical; reading articles doesn’t require ID, writing comments underneath them does.

Plus, what about when the site’s database inevitably gets compromised, and now my personal info is public?

Well, if you’re not bullying other people in the comments I’d say you’d be fine. What if your hospital’s database gets hacked and all your private health issues are public? Will you stop seeking healthcare in hospitals? The whole world is based on trust. Moreover, I’m pretty sure there are ways to do zero-knowledge encrypted ID card verification that doesn’t require a database. Similarly to Amazon reviews, a comment could simply show “verified ID”, but, retain no other information.

they’d get less page views and lose revenue

No. The site never allowed comments before, they do after. ID is only necessary for commenting, not reading. So, losing revenue doesn’t make sense. Also, not all websites exist to make revenue.

For starters we need someone to set what is a good or a bad actor, what is misinformation and what is Truth.

Common sense really isn’t that difficult, nor is being a decent person without being ingratiating.

1. Good actors go into dialogue*, they address the idea: “Hey. I don’t agree with your argument X because Y. What do you think about compromise Z?”
   Bad actors rant, they attack the person, and deliberately use fallacies: “Only idiots believe X. Two plus two equals fish so only Z is true. If anything else, the world explodes.”

2. Disinformation is when a bad actor maliciously spreads information they know is false to further their or someone’s agenda. Misinformation is when an unsuspecting benign reader absorbs that information and spreads it. The latter happens more than the former.
   What is true or false can be discerned with the scientific method: experiments, statistical analysis, et cetera, and most importantly reproducibility of said results because mistakes obviously do occur.
   What are valid or invalid arguments can be discerned with logic—mathematical reasoning basically. Unfortunately most people suck at or dislike math because the archaic education system does it a disservice by subtracting from it all the fascination.
   To answer your question, because I think your phrasing implies the verity of most information is “arbitrary”, subjective, it’s not. “Drop a feather and it’s gonna fall.” Truth. “Dogs are plants.” False. The majority of politics isn’t much different, but due to the amount of misinformation/misunderstanding, it creates the illusion as if it is. Politics is about policy making on things based in physical reality which can be objectively studied. That is, in an ideal society, where politicians aren’t corrupted by greed and don’t succumb to lobbying from the ultrarich parasites on top. Find out who has the most money and one will see who has the most manipulative power.

*Comparing debate, discussion and dialogue: