If you believe in this digital ID concept, go ahead and post your full legal name and a sha256 hash of some biometric data to this post.

It will also make you think twice about posting something that criticizes the government. Or an opinion that your boss, or your father-in-law may disagree with.

How would you make a post on a forum dedicated to helping people overcome their problems with alcoholism, drug addiction or sex addiction - without potentially outing yourself to everyone you know? How do you join a support group for people living with HIV, or those who have been sexually assaulted, or people with an eating disorder without airing incredibly personal laundry in public? How do you seek advice on coming out as gay? Or suspecting that your parents might not be your biological parents? Or that your children aren't your biological children?

These are trivial off the top of my head examples, usually reserved for the "if you've got nothing to hide..." arguments.

Some points:

Requiring an ID online in a country that requires no national ID? That's highly novel.

If there are no anonymous spaces how can people explore and discuss their mental health, sexuality, abuse and other issues they aren't keen on having permanently attached to their identity?

Anonymity doesn't cure or cause. People can be reactionary assholes with or without identity. Neither does it cause them to check every fact before resharing the cute meme - essentially no one does that.

The people behind Britain First (now banned by FB) didn't seem in the least bit bothered by being exposed as former BNP fascists spreading fake facts on FB. It did not cure them of their race hate, or stop the current US president retweeting them a few times.

Seems like it would work mostly as a method to retrospectively shame people, publicly.

That would make the (largely hypothetical) problem of deepfaked news far far worse. It's the same problem we see with TLS where a green lock just means people's brains turn off. "It must be tied to a real person's ID" is trivial for anybody determined to bypass (they can just steal, forge or make an ID) but when people view it they will see that it's been verified by the government's big brother identity system, so it must be legitimate. It's literally arming the bad guys with the tools to make their fakes look government endorsed.

Yes I understand security concerns thus you are forced to verify yourself via your retina and thumbprints.

Still absolutely trivial for a state level actor to bypass, aka: the exact people you really don't want creating fake news that looks government endorsed.

Yep, we'll have to make sure that the only place internets posting can take place is in person at the Department of Right Thinking until you have a high enough social score to be trusted.

Because that's what all this is really about.

Exactly. Look for China as an example where this is already happening today.

Actual government-endorsed would never be fake, of course.

Via what device? A government-produced one? Or will it be a free-for-all, with Google, Alexa, and countless off-the-books Chinese factories producing competing products that you'll be buying on Alexa - that will surely be unhackable, no sir!

That’s cool I appreciate everyone’s feedback. This is only one thought on how to fight deepfakes.

As those concerned about discussing things publicly that could prove harmful to you and your reputation then with this concept you could still post anonymously yet it wouldn't hold much weight when you post something that is harmful to society or to someone else. If your posting something bad about your boss keep on doing so yet anonymously and go to HR to TRY and solve your issue or if your getting nowhere then use your verified online identity.

As for government officials subverting it and framing the innocent that's a good point ... maybe it should be attached to blockchain technology and open sourced/not controlled by a govt body.

Again just some thoughts for ways to stop deepfakes from becoming a threat to national security, etc.