[Levitz]

It is now trivial to check how many posts many people in social media make with their own accounts, and astroturfing campaigns still happen.

Why would social media companies fight against this? They, much like the public actually like the engagement. That is the whole problem.

Look at X, where you can now see where people are posting from, do people honestly engage with the feature? No, they don't bother to check if they agree with the content and they use it as an excuse to dismiss in bad faith if they don't like the content.

This is not a control problem, social media networks are not at a loss of options in how to engage with this, they don't want to, the point can be made that states might want to fix this and are unable to, but if that was actually the case there's half a dozen better ways to do that, among them, banning the services.

The idea that the entirety of the population ought to throw privacy away so people can still browse Instagram is repugnant to me.

[fyredge]

I think we're speaking past each other. I'm talking about the way a single user can create multiple accounts on a single platform to create the illusion of consensus. If you repeatedly see a single user creating many posts / comments on a single topic, it quickly satiates your attention.

With an approved ID, it will be trivial to enforce 1 ID 1 account on 1 platform. This is not possible now.

To my knowledge, no country has tried it before up until recently. The issue of government distrust is valid, but that shifts the problem to one of government accountability, not accessibility. Demand the rule of law to be upheld, hold those in power accountable and be vigilant of their trespasses, do not abdicate what little power you hold. That is what is required for civil society to function properly.