>>1848715
>what do you think are the motives in the mind of the people behind such changes?
It's obviously a lot of things, some of which can be sold as very good to the general populace and which I'll get into just in a bit, and I agree, in general, that it could be pretty good, but there's the pressing point that what pragmatically they would be interested the most is control, yes, and that corrupt motherfuckers would use and abuse this against you even though it could reasonably be good.
>why could it be good?
People don't know how to play nice with each other, so you need to come up with some solution to reduce the impact of the bad behaviors. Plain and simple. You could have a society with educated beings that know what is ethically right and wrong, but we can't have that for a multitude of reason. It's why cops exist, it's why we as a society have a set of agreed upon laws and rituals, and that's why they're trying to think up on potential solutions for the very pressing problem of "how do we know someone is real on the internet"?
FYI, this is a serious problem at this moment exclusively because of LLMs/AI. It's not as if there were never any psyops in the past that involved bots or pajeets, but the sheer scale and potential you have to use it to push anything by yourself with just a bit of compute is really a serious problem, speaking on a societal level. There's a recent example where some german academics made some simple LLM bots with the intent to convince people online of something, and they found that the LLMs are often more persuasive than normal users (paper here:
https://regmedia.co.uk/2025/04/29/supplied_can_ai_change_your_view.pdf) so it's not as if there's no legitimate precedent for wanting people to be identifiable on the internet. This should in theory assist us in creating a real internet that isn't infested by bots and which allows you to trust that even if you're interacting with a paid actor, at the very least you can assume it was expensive and cumbersome to get someone to do that, it would hold back large-scale operations, and as an user, I'd much prefer knowing I'm talking with real people and not bots in the near future. So it's not entirely a bad idea, a more naive person could easily see that there's some potential good to come out of this.
>the obvious issue
Corruption becomes a huge fucking problem. You're already aware (hopefully) that there's psyops everywhere for all kinds of things out of the wazoo. From commercial operations to genuine cultural impacts. Now, obviously, if implemented perfectly, this measure could help a bit for that, as I mentioned above, but how do you trust that the powers to be wouldn't issue some false IDs for their own bots? Or for the people they favor? Because if implemented with such capabilities, and I guarantee people in power aren't stupid enough to want to implement something like that without these capabilities, it would be a huge boost to the power of their psyops, more so considering that as mentioned above, LLMs are more convincing and sneakier than pajeets already.
Oh, and obviously, if you're assigning a "real human ID" to someone, it must be unique or else no one would trust the government to play fair (hopefully the general populace can see at least THAT), and if it's unique and assigned to an individual person, then they'll slowly require you to use that for everything, and that would make all interactions of a specific individual easily traceable, more than it already is nowadays, which obviously is a huge issue to people like us but not to retard normalfags.
So, obviously there's some good on imagining how we can have less bots and a trustier internet for everyone, but just like taxes, the principle is fine in a vacuum but bad actors will corrode it and abuse it against those that are weaker to their own gain.
>Why put all of this effort into fucking over everyone else in this complex manner when the more obvious solution is to line your pockets with taxpayer money and live it out as a rich person?
It's not as if they're all huge intellectuals with 160IQ and never make any mistakes, anyway, but stagnating and never increasing your own power is a quick way to lose your own power. If you don't increase your power constantly, someone else will, and then they will use their power to fuck you over because they're not stupid.