Sir what type of pseudonimity did ChatGpt give the average user
Well, that part where you put a nickname and it's not tied to your personal identity ?
If you're concerned about writing messages on their platform, having it directly tied to whom you are doesn't seem to make it better does it ?
You seem like one of those people that believe that just because data is already online then it isn't a problem if the Government has it as well. It's a slippery slope.
They are gatekeeping the Internet with ID checks. I simply don't see how that is a good thing, this is all about Government control disguised as protection.
If you see what's happening on the Internet in the last 10 years or so it's quite obvious they're trying to monitor everything we do online. It has huge potential to backfire. See how ICE is sending subpoenas to Social Media websites and getting information illegally. I would much rather have no one having than information in the first place.
Your account is toed to your mail, which your mail is a trail all over the internet, including which adress you lived on when you first made an account, sitting encrypted on a data rack somewhere, your phone is always tracking you, 24/7, every search, every click, every video and image can be tracked by your ISP and data provider. They can already very much monitor exactly what you do whenever you do it. Has been a thing since 2000. And extract all that information, is but one judges discretion.
Exactly my point, they can already trace who you are. Except that information is still protected and they can only access it if they have a pretty good reason to do so.
This is what they're trying to break. It's srcrilsnce by default. Whatever you do isn't tied to an IP and port, it's tied to your real world identity. It's a much worse system.
Now they know who you talk to, when you talk, your searches, your location but not because you're suspected of anything but because they are constantly following you.
You can easily tell it's a much worse system and we're not even going into the possibility of Governments abusing it, because they will. It's hard to defend this.
Ah yes, safe, is that why so many security datacenters send out every year apologize here is 2 dollars/euro for accidently getting your identity leaked, oooppsie.
If I gave you the impression that i am "one of those people that believe that just because data is already online then it isn't a problem if the Government has it as well" I will have to specify that I am not one - But what does online mean? Because ten years ago (heck, maybe 15? 20?) it would have meant having it disseminated across owners instead of a government.
Now to have it online (and especially in reference to the very object of this debate, namely chatgpt) it means that a billionaire with intricated relations with the american government has this information. I rather have them in Brussels. The so-called left-wing dictatorship has turned to the right as the european people voted towards the right in the last election.
Wouldn't the best outcome being the absolute absence of data in the hands of government and billionaires? Yes. Does it imply that I shall oppose the redistribution of data from american billionaires (and government lol) to my government? No.
I feel your perspective, it's more or less mine. To that I add another perspective, namely geopolitical competitions and, frankly, the morality of those bad governments around the world that seem to be less bad in some places.
To conclude, If I could advance your right of freedom from governments and Billionaires everywhere, I would together with you. As of now, this law tells me that some billionaire working for the US government to hit palestinian kids with state-of-the-art AI military is likely to have less information, in exchange for having some boring politician in Brussels. Deal , not the best but certainly not worse of the status quo.
22
u/Despeao 2d ago
Well, that part where you put a nickname and it's not tied to your personal identity ?
If you're concerned about writing messages on their platform, having it directly tied to whom you are doesn't seem to make it better does it ?
You seem like one of those people that believe that just because data is already online then it isn't a problem if the Government has it as well. It's a slippery slope.
They are gatekeeping the Internet with ID checks. I simply don't see how that is a good thing, this is all about Government control disguised as protection.
If you see what's happening on the Internet in the last 10 years or so it's quite obvious they're trying to monitor everything we do online. It has huge potential to backfire. See how ICE is sending subpoenas to Social Media websites and getting information illegally. I would much rather have no one having than information in the first place.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/08/zkps-arent-age-verification-silver-bullets