back
93 comments
Mitsotakis (The Prime Minister) and his Political Party (New Democracy - the name is probably the irony of the story -) were spying their political opponents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Greek_surveillance_scanda... using Predator Spying software.

No surprise here

Nobody went to jail - he didn't even quit when the scandal broke. That is Greece in 2026.

There are more ofc:

- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/06/greek-pm-vows-...

- https://www.euractiv.com/news/top-greek-court-under-fire-aft...

- http://pamfleti.net/english/bota/skandali-me-fondet-e-be-se-...

He spied members of Parliament in 2022 and recently exposed a part of their corruption to the media. The ultimate goal is to turn the people against them and prepare for a reduction in their number and role.

In a corrupt government, as they are almost all globally, the less state the better.

Well, in the US we had organizations that aren’t supposed to spy on citizens actually spy on Congress members! Nixon was impeached for much less… but I guess once we passed into the new millennium all bets were off starting with Carnivore but eventually into spying on Congress members…
I've often wanted real name policies for writing and anonymity for reading. And I don't think bans are the way to go, I think one should just shift the norms on this so that it becomes easy to verify an identity and therefore easy to see which ones are anonymous. The problem right now is that real identity and anonymous blend together, so anonymous can pretend to be real, which might seem even more so in the age of AI.

I wonder if there are different levels to this: 1) real identity/name 2) humanness 3) completely anonymous.

(definitely open to other suggested levels)

For example, if someone is posting on the internet with a real name, I want them to actually be that person. If they're posting with a username, I mostly just want them to be a human. I don't know how much I'd be open to it being hard to know whether it was a human or bot.

With regards to reading stats, public or private, I'd still like to know whether human vs bot. I think YouTube and Twitter/X and IG and all these platforms have been gamed by lots of bots pretending to be unique humans and those stats get wildly out of touch with how many humans actually interact (which I think matters for true popularity and advertising and basic understanding of social interactions).

I think the challenge is if it's real identity, often it doesn't split between real identity and simple proof of humanity. Maybe it's not that easy from a tech standpoint, and maybe it's because companies would want to track every move and people want privacy, but maybe it'd be easier if more people wanted it.

So I wonder how to balance this.

I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

A lot of the local newspapers have abandoned third party comments systems and gone for only allowing comments under full verified name (often using the national id system). The result is that only the trolls and and generic perspectives anyone could have reasoned their way to possibly existing in less than 5 minutes remain. The ones willing to provide entertainment in the form of vigorously refuting the more extreme viewpoints are gone, because who wants to needlessly antagonize the likely crazy, and the interesting tangents are also mostly gone.

If you want to use social media to chill out with your friends, real name mandates for writing can work, at least as long as the content is not too publicly accessible. But if you want to have more interesting conversations than the ones you can have in the local park where you need to watch out for not publicly denouncing the sport favoured by your peers and neighbours in favour of something locally exotic, real name by default will more or less wipe them out.

As for proof of humanness it sounds interesting, but I think it's insufficient. Much like I dislike promotions of interests which are not my own as much when they are done by a human handing out fliers vs a poster showing the same advertisement, I don't think that the sender of the message being a paid or otherwise recruited human is going to make the desirable difference on social media either, even if they're known to be human.

What's really needed is a signal that the content is the persons genuine personal input, and comes without an ulterior agenda. And if such a signal can exist I'd very much like to be able to use it when navigating the physical world as well.

This is grand coming from the current Greek government. It is an open secret in Greece that the ruling party has been funding and running an army of anonymous internet trolls called Omada Alithias (loose translation: Truth Strike Team) for more than 10 years.

Incidentally (?), on April 26 there was the first conviction for one their trolls, writing on X as GheorghyZhukov. The real identity of the troll was established on trial, and he was convicted for slander and defamation. So maybe the feel that they may soon lose control of the online narrative, so they hope to create a chilling effect for online criticism via banning anonymity?

How close are we to a third party with sufficient compute being able to mass-de-anonymize social media? What happens if they republish social media feeds with identity probabilities? Do we reach a point where the internet is anonymous to casual users but not to large corporations or governments? Presumably someone is already selling identity-labelling as a service?

Amusingly, (locally generated) LLM text becomes an anonymity mask in those scenarios.

I use real name here and posted about pending litigation once. An insurance settlement was offered a week later. Socials are scraped to build profiles for these scenarios. People engaged in fraud tend to blab about it and many business are interested in having such evidence accessible. It can be useful to exploit that system to your advantage when the truth is on your side.
I was thinking about this the other day, using LLM text to thwart stylometric analysis. At some point, I'd read about using machine translations to do the same thing (translating a text to, for example. Chinese then back to English). This seems to only work if the translation method isn't quite perfect so get an "Engrish" effect or the like. But you could probably feed your manifesto or whatever to one of the various modern chatbots and have it rewrite it in the style of Poe or Pynchon or maybe a generic business email. (Obviously, setting aside the issue of if the chatbot is keeping all this stuff in a database somewhere).
Just as close we were 10 years ago.

CIA has always had this privelege.

Ancient Greece did not have agents crawling peoples stuff for profiling. The argument is broken.
Also, ancient Greece has slaves that let citizens participate in democracy full time. Which menas that decisions were more informed that we have nowadays.
It's not an argument, it's a soundbite aimed at convincing people who don't like thinking.
It didn't have bot swarms either.
I'd say that they should imitate not Lycurgus, but rather Pericles.
>The major problem behind anonymity is toxicity – anyone, especially on social media, can smear an individual and carry out character assassination without facing any consequences

It works on government too! Greece is the weakest country in the EU. Their chief export is currently stupid ideas, their chief import is poverty. They could improve themselves with some democratic choices but instead they choose to stay at the end of the line.

anonymity doesn't cause toxicity. at best - mildly encourages it
"Greece does not understand Democracy." - Publius.
Hamilton, is that you?
How would this impact platforms like Reddit or HN?
When it comes to forcing platforms outside of Greece to comply with this, those platforms will just close their service down to Greece.

If you want to talk about the concept itself of removing anonymity: on HN the impact would not be huge, a lot of us are not really anonymous with links to personal sites in our profiles. Reddit is a different beast entirely.

Πάντα πρωτοπόροι στη μλκ.
This sounds great on paper but only if democracy and checks and balances are in order...
The more government controls, the more checks and balances evolve into paychecks and hidden bank balances.

Government can do a lot of things to you when it controls a lot of things.

And what government is doing is harder to see when it's doing millions of things.

Wouldn't accept such a piece of paper even for toilet use. Anonymity strips egos and forces arguments stand on their own merit.
>This sounds great on paper but only if democracy

Why is it great that you should be completely deprived of the right to anonymous online communication just because a bunch of people voted on it? Democracy without rights is just mob rule.

Real name policies don't work either. Some of the world's biggest trolls don't just troll under their real name, they actually own some of the networks.
The recipient of bad news wants the bearer of bad news gone.
Remember. Even if they succeed in banning internet anonymity, you should still smear crooked politicians. Just do it anyway.
I don't think we ought to ban anonymity, but I think we should make it a requirement for social networks to display country of origin. Unfortunately that's impossible because of VPNs. Perhaps a system where you're identity is verified by a third party, all documents erased, but leaves you with a permanent token that allows you to authenticate as a citizen of some country.
The upcoming EU digital wallets in theory could do this kind of thing. They're focused on anonymity preserving age verification right now, but exposing any other government-verified attribute anonymously should be equally possible, including residency and/or citizenship if that's your bag.
Great idea. Next step: internet visas.

Want to read a forum in another country? Please submit your application, wait 3–5 business days, and dont forget to declare your browsing intent.

Culturally, is Greece really sensitive? Honest question.
I wonder how they plan to implement that on decentralized social networks such as Nostr. I assume targeting big centralized networks such as X and Facebook is good enough.
The whole point of networks like Nostr is to bypass things like this. Given how they've failed to kill torrents in spite of decades of trying, they probably won't be able to kill decentralized social networks either.
Why not go ahead and just ban all bad things?

I mean, Greece can:

Ban poverty, ban hunger, ban bad sleeping habits.

Ban corruption, ban people saying bad things.

Ban pseudonyms in history books too, wouldnt want anyone hiding behind a pen name.

Ban whistleblowing.

Ban dissent, just to be safe.

I foresee a lot of people's dead relative's being used to push Russian talking points in the future

Edit: not sure why the downvotes, this will absolutely spur a black market for identities that less than reputable actors will exploit; just like those shady free VPNs that will use your computer as an exit node for their residential proxy network

Feels like people will find a workaround and it’ll be another waste of taxpayer money
I feel reasonably sure that in that direction lies fascism or communism.

Those are the two political systems under which individuals are not meant to have any secrets from the government...

>We can't determine who is talking about those pesky Epstein files and shut them up!

Yeah, it's toxic behavior, I'm sure of it.

No need to dress it up as think of the children anymore!
This will be very interesting to observe. Social media is a cesspool and getting worse by the minute. Even hacker news is being inundated with bots. On controversial topics tons of new accounts appear arguing divisively both sides of the argument.

It’s clear that nefarious regimes have won on social media.

It would be interesting to understand the ratio of real human posts to manipulation on twitter for example - I’d imagine it has long ago tipped to majority bot.

Tackling this problem is existential for western democracies. This seems like a reasonable idea. There might be other options (like validated but anonymous) but we have to try something.

It’s worth noting too that many strong western democracies have laws around hate speech and libel that are being broken by anonymous people online - and the citizens of those countries are perfectly happy with those laws.

I know that it's not popular here but I appreciate the anonymity of 4chan. With no user ids no one is harvesting karma/reputation and so you get to read some of what to me are truly alien perspectives. I'm normally pretty positive about people (some would call me naive) but 4chan lets me see how there are some true monsters out there and that I could be interacting with them in real life. But yeah, I understand what Greece is trying to do - I just don't think it'll be possible to enforce it.