ChrHONKicals of Clownworld

humon

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Location
Canada
It's not really "so many people", it's really just Kathy hating on Biden, and me offering occasional commentary as a foreign observer. Everyone else here seems to be silent on politics.


Never seen AFAB before... does that stand for All Furries Are Bastards? Hehe


It's actually an interesting question, what if Kyle was black. Would the media have still spun it the way they did if he was a black guy who had to shoot three white guys in self defence (at a BLM rally of all places)? They probably would have just memory-holed it... unless he was one of those light-skinned black guys who can pass as white. It's not like they aren't afraid to smear blacks when they break narrative, but it would be a tougher sell if every photo they wanted to show their audiences had a melanin-hued defendant. I think the rule in those cases is you just don't identify the accused at all, if he isn't white.


Edit: Also I had no idea Kyle was latino. Are you sure? He's got the second most German name in the whole trial (with 1st place going to the guy he shot in the arm -- no more nazi salutes for you, Mr. Siegheil).
 

SKelly78

Virgin
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
All the riots that happened, and the only one they dwell on is the one on January 6th is all you really need to know. It’s all politics. Thankfully the jury for Kyle was fair. The people on msnbc and Ann would have hung him themselves if they could have, without a trial. Though I think a lot of this was about him defending himself. It was an attack on the right to self defense more so then anything else.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Location
United States
> Echoes of Eisenhower's speech in my head. Unfortunately situations like the cold war will force a nation's hand.

"Overgrown" doesn't necessarily mean the military should be small. It should be the right size to do what it should. I think it's a good thing, generally, that America has one of the most capable militaries in the world and more ships and planes than anyone else, but the military is used as the "world police". Now that China is doing the same thing, though, perhaps it's not as irrelevant an activity.


> The law is a tricky thing. In order for it to work as intended, the vast majority of people have to obey it voluntarily. It's why civil disobedience is an effective strategy against unjust laws. And it's also why some places in the world are crime-ridden shitholes.

I think "fewer laws = less crime" but I interpret this as concerning the procedures of investigation and litigation. If your family member goes missing, you shouldn't wait a week before the police do anything. People arrested for a crime shouldn't have to wait years for a court date. Decriminalizing victimless crimes could reduce the strain on the legal system though.


> My instinct was to just abolish political parties entirely, but I realized that wouldn't actually solve anything. Members of parliament would make informal alliances, and factionalism would return.

Exactly. There's not a good solution to this, if we're talking about a solution that will actually solve the problem. A run-off vote system that would encourage voters to vote for a different party without feeling like they're wasting their vote would increase the viability of multiple parties. However, expecting the government to make the voting system more competitive is like expecting an ornery dog to walk itself.


> One of those vague statements that sounds good but becomes a headache when you try to actually implement it. Who's checking the checkers? And then who's checking them? Any system humans invent, humans will figure out how to game it. Widespread virtue ethics seems to be the only defence against that inevitable corruption.

"Checks and balances" means something specific in American politics and I'm not sure if Canada has a similar concept with a different name. Perhaps "separation of powers". The checks and balances are built into the system in the form of things such as the president not being able to declare war without approval from congress, bills needing to pass both the house and senate before being passed or vetoed by the president, SCOTUS being the party responsible for interpreting the constitution and determining if a law is constitutional or not.

Nothing is perfect, but it's telling of the relative effectiveness of this system when people who want to game the system have to resort to attempting to change the structure of the government, talking about abolishing the constitution, creating new de-facto branches, enlisting external entities, changing the demographics of the country, etc.

Who will enforce the virtue ethics? The corrupt and greedy aspects of human nature - which are basically immutable - were why a separation of powers was created. The church's relationship with the monarchy didn't stop the monarchs who wanted to be shitty from doing so. Arguably the clergy joined in the corruption.


> Religion as we understand it now is only the letter, devoid of spirit. Then we throw this empty husk away and the result is that some people take this as a cue to just start doing shitty things openly. Hail Satan. Because morality is not as natural and universal as we might wish. It actually takes some social institutions to maintain it.

10326


> Rome did not become great by being peaceful (teehee).

Rome dd not *ruin Europe by being peaceful

FIFY


> I object to the meme here. When I think of the world if America was a neutral power, I imagine every country in Europe speaking German. Unfortunately neutrality doesn't always work as a doctrine, because of the old saying that evil wins when good men do nothing. British sensibilities evolved to value neutrality, because that is the luxury of living on an island.

America was neutral in WWII until Japan fucked up and bombed their island.

From time to time I think about what may have happened if an alternate scenario took place. Winston Churchill remarked after the war that he thought England may have fought on the wrong side. I don't know what he actually thought when saying that, but leaving the Soviets ended up being a problem. There weren't enough resources to take out both the Nazis and Soviets, and the Soviets ended up killing way more people. The Nazis were a more immediate threat to Western Europe, and the Soviets were also fighting them, so I can see how siding with the Soviets would seem like the most efficient way to rid themselves of the most urgent and tangible threat.

It may have been possible if France and England joined the Axis, the Germans might stop trying to invade France under proper circumstances. They may have been able to work out a deal with Germany so they would stop invading in exchange for some land and help fighting the Soviets.

10322

Fascism and Communism are both awful. Both are utopian bullshit, both killed a fuck ton of people for really unnecessary reasons, both are culturally contrived, etc. so it's not as though if the Axis won WWII that the world would be instantly wonderful and nice. Hitler would likely have not made himself An Hero, but as with other dictatorships, Nazi Germany would have burned itself out within 40-50 years, or started a later war that cause alliances to re-situate themselves. It's possible that the Nazis would have chilled out if Rudolf Hess succeeded Hitler because he was next in line and IRL attempted to negotiate peace with the UK. Eastern and Western politics might be completely different in terms of what left and right look like and where the Overton window ends up. However, I will give Fascism some credit that their metaphysics are way more interesting than the Soviets. I absolutely do not want to live in a Fascist country but holy fuck their mythology fucking smacks.

10325

However, by geography and numbers alone, it's dubious whether the Axis - even with America and Western Europe - could actually defeat the Soviets. Even if they convinced Japan to focus on fighting the Soviets instead of China, and got Mussolini to focus and stop banging whores and torturing Yugoslavians, the fact the Soviet army could withdraw into their country so anyone who wanted to fight them would have to do so in basically-Siberia. Germany got BTFO by the weather trying to attack them in the "nice" side of their country -- granted, they tried to attack in winter like retards, but if they waited for spring and summer it would still be hundreds of miles of swamp, which isn't necessarily all that much better.

Possibly the only way to defeat the Soviets would have been to nuke them instead of Japan, which simply wouldn't be as impactful. The nukes available at the time weren't really that big, and just the remote part of Russia by itself is many times bigger than Japan. Unless the entire Soviet army sat in just two above-ground bases, didn't evacuate, and we had planes with fuel range to reach them on a suicide mission, it's possible that attempting to nuke the Soviets with what was available in WWII would be useless.

I doubt assassinating Stalin would have had any effect. It may have weakened morale and left them scrambling to install a slightly less effective leader, but Stalin undoubtedly had a plan and I think the decision would have been roughly the same whether he died as he did or was assassinated. Stalin became a quasi-religious figure after his death, and that could have been more intense if he were assassinated.


> Now the UN is what it is, and our Prime Minister is who he is, but it still seems vaguely like we're playing the balance between USA and globalism, or something like that.

Canada (at least their leadership) seems like the globalists' favorite child bathing in the praise they get from condescending toward the "uncivilized" America.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Location
United States
> I’m a little surprised there’s so many people here hating on Biden. There’s times when I thought I was the only right winger on here

> It's not really "so many people", it's really just Kathy hating on Biden, and me offering occasional commentary as a foreign observer. Everyone else here seems to be silent on politics.


So far it's 4-5 - including myself, Humon, yourself, Nailkaiser who occasionally contributes, and rarely Zeta who is more of a centrist/actual-liberal - which is "a lot" by my standards.

When the site was having problems, I looked at other smut boards to join, but the others had very active politics sections and all very woke. Possibly the site owner's strong free speech (and, at this point, anti-pedo since pedos are now apparently "oppressed" by "Fascism") stance turns off anyone who would be offended by such an idea.

Also, this thread is just the containment area my schizophrenic rants instead of terrorizing the site with a different thread every time something wack happens.
 

SKelly78

Virgin
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Lol. It’s fine. You make more sense then most liberals. If they could understand the simple concept that you need to govern with logic and not emotion, things would be much better.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Location
United States
> Also I had no idea Kyle was latino. Are you sure? He's got the second most German name in the whole trial (with 1st place going to the guy he shot in the arm -- no more nazi salutes for you, Mr. Siegheil).


"Replace him with a hispanic man he’d be seen if he was an illegal and be called a thug and rapist Replace it with an Arab and Muslim he’d be seen as a terrorist. Kyle Rittenhouse benefited from his name and skin color."

"Kyle Rittenhouse is Hispanic, he’s listed in official records as Hispanic, and he has a Hispanic grandparent. Nice try, though."


It doesn't make a difference for me, but I was lampooning the leftoid/media's pattern of classifying Latinos as White depending on how they want to spin the situation. They like Mexican illegals because they'll likely vote Democrat, but they don't like Cubans because they vote red and are dissenters against Communism.

Ted Cruz is Cuban, and the first Latino in his office, and leftoids call him White.

The most ridiculous examples are those where the headline specifically calls the dude White, but the mugshot is obviously a Mestizo guy, or he has a name like "Enrico Fernandez". Neutral headlines, or headlines where both people are minorities, can't be used to generate outrage the way they can if the person they want to make the villain is "White".

To the far-right, everyone they don't like is non-White. To the far-left, anyone they don't like is White.
 

humon

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Location
Canada
As I understand it, Napoleon and Hitler both attacked Russia in the summer (in spring, the borderland region is a massive swamp, so I've read), but the Russians are very good at using delaying tactics and scorched earth tactics to slow down their enemies, knowing they only have to wait until winter sets in. In any case, it's not necessary to raze Moscow to rubble, when containment worked just fine as a cold war strategy (although it's a bit different now in the internet age, when propaganda can come from anywhere in the world).


Yes, Hispanic is a sort of wild card, because it's more of a sub-culture than a race. When Hispanics are on your side, treat them as brown, and when they're against you, treat them as white. It's the same with Muslims. Still, I have a hard time considering a white guy with a German surname to be Hispanic (even though I guess his eyes look kind of Mexican). But is he Hispanic because he listens to crappy dance music with Spanish lyrics, and calls people ese? Or is it just that his mom is a light-skinned latina or something?


If they could understand the simple concept that you need to govern with logic and not emotion, things would be much better.
It's not quite as simple as that. Many on the left think they are being very rational, but they're starting from a set of facts and assumptions that are skewed and cherry-picked (and sometimes even completely inverted) by whatever information source they're using (either direct corporate propaganda, or social media groupthink). Groupthink is like a flaming dumpster fire where anyone who adds fuel is rewarded with cheers and pats on the head, and anyone who tries to put out the fire is attacked (literally, in Kyle's case). In that environment, most people, fearing punishment, will just keep quiet and try not to get involved, while a minority of cynics and dupes and zealots will eagerly add fuel to the fire in search of the validation they crave, or to perpetuate the grift they're running, or to bring about the utopian vision they're chasing.

At first, the silent majority thinks: whatever, we all know this is bullshit but I need my job, so I'll just keep my head down and have fewer opinions. But then the next generation comes along, not knowing how things used to be, and they think the propaganda/groupthink consensus is the actual popular consensus. And so they join in as true believers, not wanting to be the odd ones out. That's how religions are formed. If you think one thing and everyone in your community is saying the opposite, then the natural reaction is to convince yourself that you must be wrong.

The concept that people on the left need to understand, which is not simple at all, is that when you add fuel to the fire, it only gets bigger and hotter, until it eventually consumes everybody. They need to understand that the new religion they are trying to conform to is one that will ultimately either destroy or enslave them. And this also applies on the far-right, which is in just as much danger of letting their own fire burn out of control as they react to everything the left does.

Religious people would call this metaphorical fire, 'Satan'. But groupthink will suffice as a secular name for it.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Location
United States
This is a carbon map created by the CAMS monitoring device

10327

Germany: "Ve needs ze Amerikans do zhoin zee Parees Agreement do reduze zeir Karbon vootprind"

California: "Like, people are dying? of climate change? and fucking Fascist Drumpf? stopped us from joining the Paris Agreement. Like, don't they care? about, like, the environment?"

Also Germany and California:
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Location
United States
Self-defense is when violence

...at least according to leftoids. If I have learned anything from the Rittenhouse case, it's that leftoids absolutely fucking do not understand how self-defense works. There's no other possible explanation.

Because I woke up this morning to screencapped tweets (memes incoming) from leftoids claiming that a guy in Waukesha, WI who drove his vehicle through a Christmas parade should be let off on a self-defense defense because it "worked" for Rittenhouse.

I don't know how facetious they're being, but facetiousness or sarcasm is only clever if it makes sense and I lack the brainworm simulation engine necessary to find the logical pathway necessary to detect how this is snarking and not just nonsense. It's almost as if these tweets are written by Twitter bots. They might as well be.


Why are the leftoids defending this? If they were losing their minds about 2 deaths and 1 injury in Kenosha, then they should be more agitated if there are 5 deaths and 40 injuries. If they're fervently against school shootings, they should be fervently against the fact that children were run over in this incident. However that's not the case.

Ignoring all other details, can establish that the human impact of a given incident is not the problem for leftoids.

Next, it might be a mistake to assume that leftoids are defending this event because the perp used a car and not a gun. However, if we think back to earlier BLM protests, people who were getting attacked in their cars by protestors faced leftoid outrage when they had to run over protestors to escape.

Car vs. gun obviously is also not what the leftoids find problematic.

Being that it was a Christmas parade, I get very strong "Truck of Peace" vibes.

Who drove the vehicle?

I don't care. Driving a car into peaceful people - children included - either as an act of negligence or aggression, is wrong, and demographics should not be a modifier.

Leftists apparently care that the driver was a Black man, and that is why they're defending him.


This article alleges him to be a Black nationalist. What is the basis of that?

He opposed the Kyle Rittenhouse and Derek Chauvin verdicts, not that those are related issues. I think it's a politically-motivated stance at its core, but it's a very mainstream one that people commonly adopt just because it seems like the acceptable thing to do. Supporting BLM is, again, a politically-motivated stance, but again it's similarly very mainstream. There is a post in the link above of a BLM-themed fruit sculpture featuring a Black Power fist, however, which is an acknowledged Black nationalist symbol.

However, just as I don't advocate for witch-hunting, doxxing, and attempting to punish White nationalists, It would be irrelevant if this man was a Black nationalist if he expressed himself through peaceful means. On both sides, it's their natural right to have opinions, to write, to organize, to defend themselves and their property, etc. however, it's others' natural right to be free from unprovoked violence.

What is more concerning is that the perp has an extensive criminal record that includes battery and domestic abuse. He is a registered sex offender, and a video was found of him admitting to pimping a minor (his babymama's daughter???). He is a Tier 2 sex offender, which means he was involved in a non-violent sex crime against a minor.

"In the 33-second viral video clip, he explained how he came to be dubbed a ‘pedophile’. The alleged video is believed to be from 2016, as he mentioned, 'Ten years ago, in 2006, I got a case from my oldest daughter’s mama. Yes, my baby mama.' He reportedly went on to elaborate that he had consensual sex with her in Nevada without knowing that she was 16 years old at the time. Later, the police intervened that accused Brooks of being a pimp for the minor girl. However, the video ended here abruptly without people knowing the whole story."

In short: leftoids who are comparing this unprovoked attack to Kyle Rittenhouse's self-defense are simply retarded. They don't understand self-defense. They have no respect for natural rights. They're ideologues, and they're idiots.
 
Last edited:

humon

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Location
Canada
Somehow Tim Pool got Alex Jones and Joe Rogan on his stream last week and I hadn't even noticed (prob'ly cause I haven't watched much of Tim for a long while, his video titles are always so depressing and clickbaity).


The meme Joe shares out about Alex's statements and "You are here" is perfect.

 
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Location
United States
Seth Rogan is a cuck

10380

I'm in full agreement, firstly, that LA is a "crime riddled 3rd world shithole" and I'm amazed that every member of the LAPD hasn't simply walked away from it and let it implode. Keep the celebrities in. Build a wall around it and airdrop crates of cocaine and full-auto weapons, shoot down any aircraft attempting to leave, and the problem might resolve itself in 5-10 years.

> It's lovely here.
> It's called living in a big city.
> 15 or so times my car was broken into.

LOL cuck

What's lovely about living in what is essentially life in GTA as a randomly-spawning NPC who can only scream, cower, and call the police? It would be one thing if the whole map were PvP but the mods don't even let you have a decent weapon to stop yourself from being ganked by hackers. pUt SkiLL pOiNtS iNtO uNaRmEd CoMbAt, they say. mAx OuT yOuR sTr sTaT, they say.

Why do people who say that shit always have these fucking kinds of avatars every time:

image_2021-11-25_181106.pngimage_2021-11-25_181217.pngimage_2021-11-25_193153.png

If my car gets broken into once every 10 years or so, I won't over-react and immediately declare war on civilization. The world's not perfect and occasionally something like that is going to happen. However, 15 times in 20 years? Face it -- you live in a shithole and you're a cuck if you don't either move or start robbing back.

> I don't personally view my car as an extension of myself

There's a lot of nuance between being one of those douchebags whose only personality trait is owning a certain kind of car, or a cuck whose only personality trait is how proud they are of being cucked.

I could go on, but there's nothing else to expand on apart from "Seth Rogan is a cuck. Look how much of a cuck he is."
 

humon

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Location
Canada
I can't resist:

You can be mad, but I guess I don't personally view my wife as an extension of myself and I've never really felt violated any of the 15 or so times my wife was pounded by strangers. Once a guy accidentally left a cool buttplug in her ass, so if it keeps happening you might get a little treat.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Location
United States
When there's nothing more pressing to obsess about -- gendered masks


"But when designers and fashion brands started creating face masks, they began mirroring an industry still firmly devoted to men’s and women’s departments."

It's interesting to me that leftoids seem to see "for men" and "for women" as rules instead of guidelines. Otherwise, they would be too irrelevant devote such time and effort to. We don't live in a fundamentalist dystopia where you can get burnt at the stake for wearing "that which pertaineth" to the opposite sex.

"'They started to fall back on gendered tropes, i.e., floral and pastel masks being specifically marketed to women, while the ones marketed to men drew on the language of Savile Row, the military or pseudo-science,' marveled Andrew Groves, a professor of fashion design at the University of Westminster in London."

I almost don't have anything to say about this because it's such a non-issue. Could it possibly be that florals and pastels are just popular with the average female consumer, and the average male consumer wants to coordinate with business work clothes or activewear, or they want to subtly LARP as a Call of Duty character?

There's also...there's no a law saying that you can only buy items intended for your gender unless they explicitly claim to be unisex. If a woman likes the camo or tweed masks, or if a man wants a floral mask, they can buy whatever they want without any sociopolitical action needed. You can wear it and everyone else will simply have to deal with it.

"'We use this as a case study to show students how hard it is to change the realities of an industry that uses design to propagate ideals of gender roles and identities….It is incredible how even a small, seemingly unisex rectangle of fabric has become gendered and marketed differently for men or women.'"

*staples hand to forehead*

Oh the humanity...

"For example, Groves pointed to a herringbone face mask by Rowing Blazers, a camouflage model by Police, and a natty silk one in a necktie print from British shirtmaker Charles Tyrwhitt that doubles as a pocket square — all clearly marketed to men."

...perhaps because mostly men wear herringbone tweed, silk printed neckties and pocket squares?

"In Grove’s view, 'it takes a very skilled designer to be able to create fashion in such a way that it focuses on addressing people’s specific needs from their clothing rather than just performing their gender identity.'"

Can we consider that some people like to perform their gender identity?

Am I just desensitized as a life-long gender-transgressor and this is actually a big deal?

Are there that many people who don't like to perform a stereotypical gender identity but they're in some kind of "gender Matrix" where they think they're gravely required to do so?

10388
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Location
United States
WEF: A nightmare that wants you to believe it's a daydream


Is "Digital Identity" a sort of social credit system?

...perhaps not in the literal sense that China's system is. Reading through the PDF from the EU, things they want to integrate into the digital ID include diplomas, vaccination status, and licenses. It appears the digital IDs themselves would be regulated by the member states themselves, but conforming to a set of EU standards.

The WEF lists 5 reasons the digital ID is good

First reason: "To prepare for emerging regulation". LMAO...color me shocked.

What if "regulation" isn't intended to be the trigger word I interpret it to be?

"For example, a customer asking for credit will need to have their identity verified digitally, affecting how an organization interacts with customers across different channels. It will also impact how the organization conducts risk assessments on the applicant and its approval decision."

Their example is needing a digital ID to get a loan/credit card. Some things people use credit for like cars, appliances, or schooling can be feasibly obtained without credit with adjusted expectations and good financial hygiene. However, except for the wealthy, it's near impossible to pay cash for a home. Perhaps you can try to get one of those "thousand dollar homes" in Italian villages for a few $k on auction, but that's not going to happen in a place that actually has job opportunities.

Which brings me to the next point: "To be able to hire, manage and trust digital workforces"

You need a digital ID to work. It's not clear whether it's mandatory for all work or just an option for employers.

"Increased trust is needed for employee identity verification, however. Throughout the pandemic, there has been an almost 30% increase in employment certificate fraud. Verification is not only needed at the point of onboarding but also continuously throughout the employment period."

What the fuck is an employment certificate? Do Europeans need a license to work? What a hellhole...

> [verified] continuously throughout the employment period

Excuse me, what?

Oh, this sounds fairly innocuous: "To build better experiences with customers"

"Organizations want to build direct relationships with their customers to entice them to share more data. Identity is important in helping organizations build these relationships because user centricity is key to a frictionless and positive user experience."

Oh, so they can give you ads...

"A customer should also have control over the amount of data they want to share with an organization."

The sharing settings are probably opt-out, not transparent, and nice and buried in whatever interface they give these shits.

Next, this is a no-brainer: "To support seamless travel"

The article specifically mentions air travel, but I suspect no one without a digital ID will be able to board a plane, train, bus, or rideshare. Some places already are like that, except with their own vaccine passport.

"It could also help accelerate touchless borders and increase travel by allowing verifiable identity data such as health status to be shared in advance of travel."

Eat my whole ass.

Finally: "To reduce the cost and risk of identity fraud"

Fair enough, but I think it's funny that this is the very last point. It feels like "We're gonna use it to SPY on you! To help your employers SPY on you! To keep the skeptics and noncompliant shut out from society! To regulate your body! To sell you things! Oh, also I guess it can be used to prevent identity fraud..."

It's like the most boring afterthought to these megalomaniacs, but at least they're somewhat honest about it.


Let's look at another...


"Despite the potential for online identities to unlock vast amounts of economic value, major concerns remain around privacy issues."

You don't say...

"Until recently, the main methods of managing digital identity have been the centralized identity model and the federated identity model.

In the centralized identity model, each service provider manages users’ identity. Users access the service using authentication information, such as user identifier and password, that varies by services. The centralized identity model is widely used today. However, from the user's perspective, there are various disadvantages such as the need to manage authentication information for each service, fragmentation of identity for each service, and giving control of identity to the service operator.

In the federated identity model, several identity providers establish agreements between each other and operate under a common trust framework, or 'federation'. Anyone who has an identity in an identity provider can access other identity providers. For example, logging into new services using a Google or Facebook account. However, most of the current federated identity services rely only on one service provider to serve as the trusted identity verifier."

"In self-sovereign identity, the user has his or her identity information digitally signed by a trusted third party. When the user provides the identity information, he or she also digitally signs the information before providing it to the user of the identity information. The public keys of the user and the third-party organization for verifying the digital signature are recorded in a distributed ledger, and the user of the identity information verifies the provided information using them. In this way, users can control their own identity information without relying on a specific central administrator."


I guess self-sovereign identity would use Blockchain. I do see the value in a form of digital ID for things like remote hiring and expanding online financial services -- that you would need to go in person with your drivers' license and utility bill, pay stub, etc. to do. My issue isn't with the digital ID itself, but with things such as the ownership and custodianship of such a system, and whether it's all-or-nothing and a de-facto requirement, or if it's one of multiple ways to verify identity. Blockchain is one of the most secure things at this point, and it's not owned by a government, NGO, or corporation.

"Key management is also an issue. In self-sovereign identity, identity information may be held in a wallet held by the user, which makes key management more important than ever. Therefore, a user-friendly solution is required so that users can properly manage their private keys. It is also expected that a certain number of users will lose their keys, so a key recovery mechanism is also essential. Although self-sovereign identity is a model where users manage their own identity information, there are cases where users such as children and the elderly cannot properly manage their identity information and keys on their own. For this reason, a mechanism to manage keys on behalf of the user is also important."

To go back to the first part, unless you use a VPN and TOR at all times, your internet provider has a history of everything you've visited or searched for. This is why you get an ad on your computer for something your friend looked up on their phone while they were on your WiFi, and if you get on your friend's WiFi, you might be getting ads for things they were looking up, and it's all very uncanny. Your ISP has all this shit - your whole internet history, even if you delete it from your computer, your porn, your wattpad, your social media posts, the embarrassing medical questions you search, everything you shopped for - and is likely selling it to just whoever. All this stuff taken together probably means some 3rd party knows more about you than you (consciously) know about yourself.

That's scary enough, now imagine all your browser history of all time associated with a verified digital identity that's accessible to the government or some other element of the ruling class.

Not cool, man.

"I don't care because I don't have anything to hide!"

Congratulations, you're boring.

But if you're on this site, you're a smut maker/reader. It's easy to be flippant because society and the ruling class are currently "sex-positive". However, who's to say in 25 years, we won't be living a Caliphate, or the neo-Puritans are in charge, or whatever, or the not-real-Communist dictator wants to use data associated with the digital ID to purge the "degenerates".

I advise thinking like this: "Don't build anything you wouldn't want your enemies to use against you."
 
Top Bottom