Short-term, "we gotta fight this!" feels like the obvious reaction and tactic for the big app stores.
Long-term...I suspect a better move would be to push the whole "identify/verify/authorize" job off onto the governments writing the mandates. After all, those gov'ts are the ones with all the records of who's who, what their ages are, who their parents are, and what the laws are. Whoever's making the allow/forbid decisions is going to be stuck with a massive administrative burden, be making legal decisions thousands of times per hour, ...and suffer a bad reputation. Or worse, when they make headline-worthy mistakes. If the gov't wants to grab a supposed Chalice of Power, the smartest corporate response may be to hand the whole thing over, and "quietly remember that they're the boss" as they take a deep drink.
salawat•1d ago
Malicious compliance is not the answer here. The system should not be made. Period. It's a primitive kept out of current existence due to it's critical role in providing a foundation for a tyranny. Think about this. The question being asked is to deliver a technical implementation with high reliability to elicit and enforce a signal cross population. It's the wannabe tyrant's wet dream; even cloaked in the sheep's wool of "Think of the Children". We don't either ethically or morally have the right of it to craft these chains. Once done for this test case, it'll be propagated everywhere else.
We don't need it. We shouldn't want it.
bell-cot•1d ago
It's quite a stretch to say that giving a legitimate gov't what it demands is "malicious compliance". How often might you openly break the law, out of principled concern for the public good?
"System should not be made" is more credible. But saying that huge for-profit corporations should have fiat licenses to say "no" to laws and regulations from legitimate governments is not. That's just trying to shift responsibility to some convenient victim or bystander, when you don't like what a policeman did.
bell-cot•1d ago
Long-term...I suspect a better move would be to push the whole "identify/verify/authorize" job off onto the governments writing the mandates. After all, those gov'ts are the ones with all the records of who's who, what their ages are, who their parents are, and what the laws are. Whoever's making the allow/forbid decisions is going to be stuck with a massive administrative burden, be making legal decisions thousands of times per hour, ...and suffer a bad reputation. Or worse, when they make headline-worthy mistakes. If the gov't wants to grab a supposed Chalice of Power, the smartest corporate response may be to hand the whole thing over, and "quietly remember that they're the boss" as they take a deep drink.
salawat•1d ago
We don't need it. We shouldn't want it.
bell-cot•1d ago
"System should not be made" is more credible. But saying that huge for-profit corporations should have fiat licenses to say "no" to laws and regulations from legitimate governments is not. That's just trying to shift responsibility to some convenient victim or bystander, when you don't like what a policeman did.