But that's just it though - if bad actors gain control, you lose the ability to reject OAuth creds (which is what OpenID is). Things like social engineering or phishing of credentials, which happens at scale today.
They need a way to handle situations when bad actors take over, because other solutions handle this with centralized authorities who step in and rectify the issue.
I haven't dived into the specs, but how does solid solve bad actors getting access to your pod?
Usually today your data is fragmented across platforms (so damage is reduced) which have centralized authorities who can step in and fix bad actor issues.
If ethereum ever achieved adoption even close to a fraction of what stock trading has, then you'd have the same problems and overhead.
As it stands, the apples to apples comparison has any centralized, trusted network being more efficient than [attempted] trustless, proof of work like ethereum.
> wuhan lab theory... calling for increased land/property taxes
I feel like these are probably on two different levels, but given that you called it a theory and not a conspiracy, I think you'll also probably disagree.
It used to be Reddit would let users block trolls, and then the user would never have to deal with seeing the troll posts ever again, even if they continued to reply.
The new way - blocking someone and restricting that person's ability to reply - is an aggressive UX.
That article is about a tech-illiterate governor using his station to threaten prosecution of the press... for discussing a 10-yr old bug that's already well known publicly.
If anything, that's more to the discussion of giving social security numbers to inept IT departments.
Eh, if only people were never bad actors and only used drones for that.
I was at a soap box derby a couple weeks back and they had to pause the entire event for fifteen minutes because someone was flying a drone down by the course area.
A couple hundred people were waiting on one person to remove their drone. Even after the announcers were asking the person to remove the drone they continued to keep it there.
Nepotism too. Anecdotally, I know someone who is skilled and became a top creator on one of those early audio-focused platforms, but she ran into a couple toxic members of the community who knew the FB PMs, and managed to get her and others they didn't like removed through moderation.
It's a test of the word and motivation of not just a billionaire, but one of the world's wealthiest individuals - one who has publicly insulted and offended many people already.
I think it's more deranged to see such a test as abnormal.
(Also grotesque does not necessarily mean offensive, and you can limit the scope of the content's exposure)
So because a couple people you worked happened to be wealthy and you didn't like them, we should throw out protecting IP with copyright law everywhere?
Short of anyone here working at Nintendo, we have no insight into what the bar is for release, the LOE to fix graphical bugs, or any of the challenges they face between platforms.
They need a way to handle situations when bad actors take over, because other solutions handle this with centralized authorities who step in and rectify the issue.