Agree that passkeys are the direction we seem to be headed, much to my chagrin.

I agree with the technical advantages. Where passkeys make me uneasy is when considering their disadvantages, which I see primarily as:

• Lack of user support for disaster recovery - let's say you have a single smartphone with your passkeys and it falls off a bridge. You'd like to replace it but you can't access any of your accounts because your passkey is tied to your phone. Now you're basically locked out of the internet until you're able to set up a new phone and sufficiently validate your identity with your identity provider and get a new passkey.
• Consolidating access to one's digital life to a small subset of identity providers. Most users will probably allow Apple/Google/etc to become the single gatekeeper to their digital identity. I know this isn't a requirement of the technology, but I've interacted with users for long enough to see where this is headed. What's the recourse for when someone uses social engineering to reset your passkey and an attacker is then able to fully assume your identity across a wide array of sites?
• What does liability look like if your identity provider is coerced into sharing your passkey? In the past this would only provide access to a single account, but with passkeys it could open the door to a collection of your personal info.

There's no silver bullet for the authentication problem, and I don't think the passkey is an exception. What the passkey does provide is relief from credential stuffing, and I'm certain that consumer-facing websites see that as a massive advantage so I expect that eventually passwords will be relegated to the tomes of history, though it will likely be quite a slow process.

What is your suggestion for a superior solution to the problems passwords solve?

Isn't that the tough bit about American Exceptionalism? Americans can't ALL be exceptional (by definition) and the messaging about how a rising tide lifts all boats simply doesn't translate to most people.

Tbf, Americans tend to be more than happy to work together (in short bursts) during moments of national crisis, but when everything is moving along normally policy debates become unnecessarily contentious.

What an absolute failure of the legal system to understand the issue at hand and appropriately assign liability.

Here's an article with more context, but tl;dr the "hackers" used credential stuffing, meaning that they used username and password combos that were breached from other sites. The users were reusing weak password combinations and 23andme only had visibility into legitimate login attempts with accurate username and password combos.

Arguably 23andme should not have built out their internal data sharing service quite so broadly, but presumably many users are looking to find long lost relatives, so I understand the rationale for it.

Thus continues the long, sorrowful, swan song of the password.

I completely agree with you. My theory is that there are a whole lot of Americans for whom the public education system failed horribly in their attempt to teach civics.

Oh, and I'm sure racism and sexism are also playing a meaningful role.

I love the design aesthetic Hyundai has been following over the last few years and this concept is no exception.

I disagree. Providing a summary of an article to attempt to please Lemmy's fickle users should absolutely not be a prerequisite to share articles here.

Also, as another user pointed out, this information wasn't even available in OP's link. You clicked through to another article from 2022. Is every post here intended to be a research project? This is how we discourage content from being shared. If you want this info feel free to do your own research and post it in the comments as you've done here, without the snarky remarks.

Lastly, as I seemingly cannot help myself, what in the absolute world are you on about with, "the ICE model starts at just under 40k$." What ICE model was discussed in either article?

Yes, this is not uncommon in US politics.

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about it:

In U.S. politics, the period between (presidential and congressional) elections in November and the inauguration of officials early in the following year is commonly called the "lame-duck period".

A president elected to a second term is sometimes seen as a lame duck from early in the second term, since term limits prevent them from contesting re-election four years later. However, not personally having to face the electorate again makes a second-term president more powerful than they were in their first term as they are thus freer to take politically unpopular actions. However, this comes with caveats; as the de facto leader of their political party, the president's actions affect how the party performs in the midterm elections two years into the second term, and, to some extent, the success of that party's nominee in the next presidential election four years in the future. For these reasons, it can be argued that a president in their second term is not a lame duck at all.

So while you're right that the assertion the author is making is misguided, it's a fallacy that is made often enough that some might conflate it with reality.

I mean shit, Dick Cheney is left of Trump. What does that say?

Good seems pretty subjective tbh but if you're interested in "research", f95zone is probably your best resource.

They DID try. They got under 30k people even willing to provide a signature, much less a vote, and they failed.

Not to mention they're probably paying double for it - once through their taxes for the public school the kids aren't attending plus the tuition for the private school.

Ah the ol' security by obscurity plan. Classic.

Sounds weird from inside the echo chamber though

¿Porque no los dos?

Why couldn't it be both?

Respectfully, you were the one who pointed out the impact of the Network Effect.

The adoption of a product by an additional user can be broken into two effects: an increase in the value to all other users (total effect) and also the enhancement of other non-users' motivation for using the product (marginal effect).

Thus, users don't need to understand the credentials of the platform if the network effect is strong enough, but as users leave the network, the value (credentials) of the platform as a whole decreases.

Another way to think about it is that the amount Twitter "matters" is directly related to how much we collectively agree it matters. While not directly transferable, I'd suggest that Keynes' Animal Spirits concept can help us to understand why this might be the case - prevailing attitudes towards a platform can have a profound impact on their value.

Counterpoint: Twitter will continue to maintain a critical mass of users until enough people move somewhere else to make it irrelevant. Continuing to use it only serves to further credentialize the platform, making it even less likely that users will find a new home someplace else.

It's not much but they try a whole lot more than most.

Thank you. I'm going to restate your explanation to be sure I've got it:

• authorities want platforms to comply with legal requests
• when Signal gets a subpoena, they open the key locker and show that it's empty. They provide the metadata they can (sign up date and last seen date, full stop) and tell authorities they can't do better.
• when Telegram gets a subpoena, they open the key locker and show all the keys, then slam it shut in the face of the investigator, telling them to get bent.
• conclusion: it's easier to never have the keys in the first place than to tease the government with them

I'm no authority on it but from what I've read it seems to have more to do with the social features of telegram where lots of content is being shared, both legal and illegal. Signal doesn't have channels that support hundreds of thousands of people at once, nor media hosting to match.