A-Infos (en) Italy, FAI, Umanita Nova #22-26 - Attack on Anonymity. The Internet: Educational Pretexts to Control Communication (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

John Perry Barlow (1947-2018), essayist and poet, author of many of the 
lyrics for the legendary "Grateful Dead," was one of the first 
"cyberactivists" and the author of the "Declaration of the Independence 
of Cyberspace" (Davos, February 8, 1996). Anyone reading it today for 
the first time might be truly surprised. Both because it describes a 
very different Internet from the one we know, and because-political 
naivety aside-the author of that document had already understood the 
potential of computer-mediated communication and its inevitable spread. 
The "Declaration" called on states and governments not to interfere in 
"Cyberspace," defined as a virtual world in which a sort of social 
utopia was being built without borders or discrimination, a new society 
based on shared rather than imposed rules.

In those years, user restrictions and controls were limited exclusively 
to protecting military resources and little else. One of the most common 
communication protocols used for file transfers was called "anonymous 
FTP" because the server didn't request any data from anyone connecting 
to upload or download a file.

Even in the context of interpersonal collective communication, which 
already existed even if it wasn't called "social media," no one noticed 
if you used a "nickname" instead of a first and last name.

One passage in the "Declaration" in particular seems to have been 
written yesterday evening: "You are terrified of your children, for they 
are natives of a world into which you will always be immigrants. Because 
you fear them, you entrust to your bureaucracies the parental 
responsibilities you are too cowardly to face."

After thirty years, the hypocritical obsession with protecting minors 
from the dangers of the Internet has grown exponentially, affecting 
every level and country in the world. It threatens to end anonymity, one 
of the founding principles of freedom of communication online.

As often happens when it comes to such issues, the United States 
occupies a pioneering position that will serve as a model for other 
countries. However, for now, only two states have passed laws that would 
prevent minors from accessing programs and content deemed inappropriate 
for their age.

Starting in 2027, computers sold in California will be required to 
require a date of birth in addition to a name and password when creating 
the first user account. This will allow applications installed on the 
computer to prevent or limit the use of certain programs. A similar law 
will go into effect in Colorado in 2028. Companies responsible for 
developing operating systems will be responsible for creating this 
system. Similar laws have been introduced in other states, and a law has 
been under discussion at the federal level for some time that, if 
passed, would apply across the United States.

What will shock some local politicians, if they read this news, is how 
the system will work: in California, age will be required, but the 
information provided will not be verified. In practice, a minimum amount 
of reasonableness has been applied (it's unlikely a twelve-year-old can 
afford a computer), meaning parents will decide which date of birth will 
be entered on the computers their sons and daughters use. Other 
proposals circulating instead call for some form of proof of age to be 
stored on the computer. These range from a standard driver's license to 
a credit card to a photo of the child's face.

As is clear even to those without specific IT skills, the two solutions 
available are quite different. The first relies on reasonableness and 
the accountability of those responsible for caring for minors; the 
second only leads to a series of side effects.

Last February, a well-known website publishing content labeled as 
pornographic blocked the majority of connections from the United Kingdom 
because it lacked the tools to verify the age of those connecting. In 
the British Isles, the recently passed "Online Safety Act" affected, as 
always happens in these cases, even sites completely free of content 
deemed obscene. To the rescue of those who frequent certain sites, a 
major smartphone company implemented a mandatory age check directly into 
its operating system in March. Owners of those phones can now connect to 
the banned site without any problems. This system has been activated not 
only in the UK, but also (for now) in South Korea and Singapore.

Her Majesty's Government believes that blocking minors under 16 from 
using the most popular social media platforms is a way to build "a new 
normal for future generations, spark a cultural shift, and lead the 
government's fight to provide every child with the best start in life."

As if that weren't enough, the possibility of blocking access to sites 
that broadcast live video and applications that allow video calls with 
strangers has been mooted. Finally, there's even talk of implementing a 
sort of "curfew" during which minors under 18 cannot use certain programs.

Those who oppose the implementation of this type of regulation raise two 
fundamental criticisms: the first is that the ban works (when it works 
at all) only by forcing everyone to identify themselves, thus paving the 
way for the definitive mass control of the Internet. The second warns of 
the real danger inherent in the proliferation of digital recordings of 
our personal data, which makes any breach of archives increasingly 
dangerous. In mid-June, a well-known group of "digital extortionists" 
claimed to have hacked a computer managed by the European Council and 
offered the 429,000 copied files for sale. Until now, those responsible 
for that archive have responded to those questioned about this attack 
with the traditional "no comment."

At least a third criticism should be added to the two aforementioned. A 
law that prohibits the use of one social media platform and not another 
means, in concrete terms, that it favors one company over another. And 
we're talking about multi-million dollar interests here.

One of the main sources of confusion, for those who believe problems in 
this area can be easily solved, is the variety of regulations that 
restrict access to certain internet resources. To cite just a few 
examples within the European Union, creating a social media account is 
prohibited for minors under 14 in Austria, Italy, and Spain; for minors 
under 15 in France and Greece; and for minors under 16 in Germany, 
Hungary, and Luxembourg. Internationally, the bans vary from country to 
country, with the minimum age ranging from 13 to 18. In Australia, where 
social media access will be restricted to those over 16 as of December 
2025, a recent government-commissioned study appears to have found that 
approximately 85% of minors have somehow circumvented the rule.

Debate over the development of an age-verification app has intensified 
over the past two years. A trial version of this program already exists, 
fully supported by European Union authorities. Despite numerous official 
announcements, the final release date remains uncertain. It should be 
noted, however, that it partially overlaps with the "digital document 
wallet" that all Europeans are expected to have by the end of 2026, 
barring an extension. The tangle of regulations regarding the digital 
sphere, both local and EU, is now limitless and is likely even AI-proof.

In Italy, several bills similar to the English one are stalled in 
Parliament, obviously aimed at protecting minors even more strictly than 
they already are. These proposals come from all political parties, but 
with a certain predominance of the "left," and here more than a couple 
of quotation marks would be needed.

Behind the much-vaunted focus on the protection of minors lies, without 
much success, another, much more ambitious goal: to control people and 
the ideas they express when they communicate with others online. There 
is only one way to achieve this: to identify individuals, or, in other 
words, to ban anonymity on the Internet.

Among the latest initiatives pushing in this direction is the 
announcement of yet another social network, currently still in its "test 
phase" and membership is by invitation only. Here's its brief 
presentation: "We're building W - a social media platform built in 
Europe, for the world. Governed by European law, with data hosted on 
European infrastructure, and designed for human-to-human conversations 
around the world."

The main feature of this social network is that you must be identified 
to participate in discussions, which can be done via a dedicated mobile 
app. Needless to say, this is different from the one we mentioned 
above... It should also be noted that the initiative is from a Swedish 
company and therefore falls within the scope of commercial activities, 
which are notoriously for-profit and have little to do with freedom of 
communication.

Because, all things considered, the main driver is always the profit 
system, which has no qualms about targeting minors for social media 
advertising, constantly inventing new ways to capture their attention. 
It has even fewer qualms about supporting laws that limit freedom of 
communication regardless of age.

Pepsy

https://umanitanova.org/attacco-allanonimato-internet-pretesti-educativi-per-controllare-la-comunicazione/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en