@danlyke …sigh, yes, of course it is not possible to peer into an email-handle’s soul and infer tolerance of, if not compatibility with, communal prerogatives…

…so we’ll have to solve that….😂🤣🤓🤩😎…and then tomorrow afternoon…

@danlyke seeing that last sentence staring back at me it seemed increasingly passiv/aggro…so…ahem

It is unavoidably true that many individuals need anonymity for legitimate existential reasons, but the nonsense us 1%ers concern ourselves with has little existential consequence, no matter how much some claim it must.

But it does have some, and it’s critical to limit this as we are able. And the way justice is dispensed in our societies requires an identity incontrovertibly linked to an action, because intent matters. And this identity must exist outside of the arena of action which is subject to the activities of enforcement, otherwise, well, look around.

I hope that is not too obtuse. Framed appositively: Bad actors must appear as not bad actors to be bad actors. If you let them in before you check you already lost.

> These markks wanna hang.
> — Spark Master Tape

@bkryer …and if you started to correct this mis-quote, but decided better against it, then I think you’ve understood what I’m getting at.

@hopedoty ❤︎ ❦ 😀 ← still grinning.

@hopedoty “mood? MOOD? Preposterous Belligerence for ALL!!”

@hawaiiboy “hey…are they out there?…yeah?…raise the crane up, see if they post about it!…”

@danlyke
re: equity filtering, cool. perhaps also community self description as an adjunct to volume of and key matches in posts.

re: identity vs identifiers, the identity one creates inside a system, and the identifier one uses to get inside the system in the first place, are distinct.

Our personal identities, that first kind, are hyper-fractal soul flowers, in bloom, all the time. That our societies, as retro-grade as some elements doggedly remain, seem generally to approve and embrace people as people, no matter how unfamiliar, is pretty good stuff.

But I am bkryer, and I am bkryer everywhere because, well, everywhere I have ever been I have never not been me! I am happily responsible for my utterances and actions, off and online. This is not true of everyone, though, as far as I can tell.

@danlyke Cheers. Equity as an on/off encourages me to think beyond the idealization to what would actually exist if “equity” were achieved? Different feelings? Statistical constants indicating good health? It’s tricky, maybe more than rocking rhymes right on time. And ‘reliable identity’ even more so. As you point out, this is quite distinct from popular current usage of the term.

So, yeah, It’s my contention that before long demand for a uuid/ssn/drvlic/passport, yes, a multi-pass Lilu, will exceed the surface tension of a thousand customer loyalty cards and, like mobile phones, okay like iPhones, before it, suddenly will be everywhere all at once.

@Archimage xenomorph spirograph freak out and now we have to change the wall paper!

@danlyke

To make sure we are not just chasing chimeras I’ll say it like this.

Equity can’t be improved; you either have equity or you do not.
Diversity can’t be included; diversity IS inclusion.

What’s missing in these equations of harmony sold as business plans is reliable identity. And the reason it is missing is because they can’t sell it. And the reason they can’t sell it is because reliable identity must exist outside the system of value to which it invites or bars you.