The Great Digital ID Shakedown of 2025
I’ve been watching something unsettling unfold over the past few months, and it’s finally reached the point where I need to talk about it. The ID verification demands are getting ridiculous.
YouTube wants it. Facebook wants it. LinkedIn is asking for it. Even platforms that used to pride themselves on being relatively hands-off are starting to implement these requirements. We’re watching the last remnants of anonymous—or even pseudonymous—internet interaction being stripped away, one platform at a time.
The pattern is becoming clear. First came the age verification laws in places like the UK and Texas last year. Then other jurisdictions followed suit. Now we’ve got platforms using these regulations as convenient cover to demand identity documents from everyone, regardless of whether you’re actually in one of those jurisdictions or not. It’s classic regulatory capture in action: use government mandates as an excuse to implement surveillance measures you’ve probably wanted to implement for years anyway.
What really gets under my skin is the casual way these platforms treat such sensitive information. Someone mentioned they lost access to a 15-year-old Facebook account because they refused to upload a video selfie. Think about that for a moment. Fifteen years of photos, messages, connections—all held hostage unless you perform facial recognition verification. The asymmetry of power here is staggering. These companies can lock you out of your digital life on a whim, but when they inevitably have a data breach (and they will—it’s not a matter of if, but when), what happens? They get a fine that represents a fraction of their quarterly profits, issue a corporate non-apology, and carry on as usual.
The whole thing reminds me of watching the slow erosion of privacy in other areas of life. Remember when having your location tracked everywhere you went seemed dystopian? Now most people walk around with smartwatches that monitor their heart rate, sleep patterns, and every step they take, willingly feeding all that data to corporations. We’ve been slowly boiled like the proverbial frog.
The frustrating part is that there are legitimate security concerns here. Fake accounts are a real problem. Bots and spam farms do exist. Criminal activity does happen on these platforms. But the solution being implemented is a nuclear option that assumes everyone is guilty until proven innocent. It’s the digital equivalent of requiring everyone to carry papers at all times, just in case someone, somewhere might be doing something wrong.
There’s something deeply ironic about this happening at the same time we’re seeing explosive growth in AI technologies. We’re told AI is going to revolutionize everything, make our lives easier, solve complex problems. Yet here we are, using technology not to enhance human freedom and connection, but to create increasingly sophisticated surveillance systems. The environmental footprint of training these AI models aside, we’re building the perfect panopticon and calling it progress.
Someone in the discussion I was reading suggested using AI to generate fake IDs, which honestly just highlights how absurd this all is. We’re in an arms race where the solution to invasive surveillance is… more sophisticated fakery? That’s not a solution, that’s just escalation. And you can bet that eventually, providing false documentation will become criminalized if it hasn’t already.
The alternative suggestions are more interesting though. There’s a whole ecosystem of federated, decentralized social platforms out there—the Fediverse and similar projects. They’re not as polished or as populated as the major platforms, but that’s kind of the point. They’re built on different principles, ones that prioritize user control and privacy. The people who make the effort to get on these platforms tend to be more engaged and less likely to be there just for the dopamine hit of endless scrolling.
I’ve also been thinking about what life was like before we handed everything over to five massive corporations. Before social media, before smartphones, people still managed to communicate, organize, share ideas, and build communities. They used phone trees, bulletin boards, actual face-to-face meetings in cafes where people talked to each other instead of staring at screens. Physical newspapers that you could read without being tracked. Letters that required stamps, not surveillance.
The thing is, I work in IT. I’m not anti-technology by any stretch. I’ve built systems, written code, deployed infrastructure. I understand the technical realities and the genuine challenges these platforms face. But I also understand that the current trajectory isn’t inevitable. These are choices being made by corporations and governments, and we can push back against them.
So what can we actually do? First, don’t hand over your ID if you can avoid it. Close accounts if necessary. It feels painful in the moment—all those connections, all that history—but maintaining your privacy is worth it. Second, contact your representatives. Make noise. Make it clear that this level of surveillance is unacceptable. In Australia, we’re not quite at the level of some other countries yet, but we’re heading in that direction, and once these systems are in place, they’re nearly impossible to roll back.
Third, explore alternatives. Look into privacy-respecting services, federated platforms, and decentralized systems. Support organizations fighting for digital rights. Use encrypted messaging. Host your own services if you have the technical knowledge. Even small acts of resistance matter.
The internet I fell in love with decades ago was messy, chaotic, and anonymous in all the best ways. It was a place where you could explore ideas, express yourself, and connect with others without having to present your papers at every digital checkpoint. That internet is disappearing, but it doesn’t have to vanish entirely. We just need to be willing to fight for it—and accept that convenience isn’t worth surrendering our fundamental right to privacy.
The great digital ID shakedown of 2025 is well underway. The question is: are we going to go along with it, or are we going to push back? I know which side I’m on.