• artifex@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    150
    ·
    13 hours ago

    On the one hand, I understand the inherent limitations of pseudonymous social media and why a corporation and even end users might benefit from authoritative user identification.

    On the other hand, oh hell no.

      • cuteness@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        5 hours ago

        They don’t even require an email when signing up. At the same time they speed run to biometrics.

        What a shit show they’ve become.

      • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        41
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Your bank doesn’t even need to know who you are.

        On a related note, Bank of America, if you’re reading this, my name is floop @lemmy.dbzer0.com, and I would like to withdraw all the money from my account. Nonsequential bills please!

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      12 hours ago

      I mean, there’s someone here who has (not even exaggerating) 15+ accounts that they just rotate thru.

      It’s a hassle to block them all because I still see new ones, but I’ll take that over “proving myself” as a unique person with something like this.

    • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      I don’t think psudonyms are an issue, but verifying that a user is an actual person vs an AI chatbot is absolutely something that every popular social media platform will need to tackle at some point.

      • SpatchyIsOnline@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Hmm funny how Sam Altman is one of the few people responsible for creating that problem and now he’s selling the solution to it

        • cecilkorik@piefed.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          12 hours ago

          It’s actually low-key brilliant. Start a gold rush, when you realize the gold isn’t actually there, pivot to selling shovels and keep hyping the gold rush. Fools and their money are soon parted, and there seem to be an endless supply of them.

        • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 hours ago

          The bot problem has been around since before Sam Altman was old enough to legally drink. For example in the early days the founders of Reddit were running bots to make the site look wayyy busier than it actually was in order to attract new users.

          He’s a convenient bogey-man, and a huge asshole, but he’s the not the source of this problem.

      • passepartout@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 hours ago

        Will they though? Facebook has already created undisclosed bot accounts themselves before. A Platform where real users and such bots are indistinguishable (for the user) sounds like a social media corpos and authoritarian governments wet dream to me. Also reminds me of the attempts to disguise ads as natural content.

        • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Sure but they only want the bots they approve of. That way they can charge for the privilege of allowing someone’s preferred bots onto the platform.