I want my two dollars!!!

I think you should add SQRL support instead.
https://www.grc.com/sqrl/sqrl.htm

The thing about SQRL authentication seems to be that your entire account is owned only by this automatically managed key-pair. Lose that key-pair and you lose access to your account. There's nothing particularly new about public key authentication. See SSH. The reason it isn't widely used is predominantly because managing keys is non-trivial and far too complicated for the users that already have trouble with usernames and passwords. Also, if the private key doesn't require a passphrase for use then all of your accounts are a lost or stolen cell phone/laptop away. Sigh...

The basic idea for SQRL was only made public a few weeks ago. It came from Gibson and since then he and his community have been working on figuring out how to solve all the problems they could think of and work out a standard.

A bunch of people have been very impatient and started implementation straight away, I don't think any working client or server solution exists yet. Even if there is working software it would be subject to big changes as the standard gets hammered out.

The most important feature is that there is no third party involved that can be compromised. And the website you log into also can't leak your password since all they have is a public key they can use to verify that you have the password.
So if their database leaks, there wont be millions of users at risk. The only party that has a secret to leak is each individual user.

So the security is entirely up to the client software and its user.

The best, practical solution to password management is some combination of a standard API and integrated browser support for services like LastPass and 1Password.

There's no reason password management couldn't be a standard browser feature that delegates the implementation to third parties. e.g., I ought to be able to use LastPass on mobile Safari without them having to write some wrapper app.

google sold out to endSA. They are collecting data on every one using a genetics web algorithm.

They'll probably just tweak the comment rating system to automatically push those comments down.

To me, sorting the comments seems like censorship. It's a good way to suppress ideas you don't agree with. I think it's useful to show the top rated comments just for curiosities sake since we don't all live on YouTube, but I'm against ranking them. People will generally report spam better, and ultimately you can't trust a ranking system with free speech.

Those aren't Google's words. Those are other people's words. Google is hosting them. It might not be illegal to apply bias to them, but it could certainly be unethical and wrong.

It would be like an organization hosting a public debate, but telling people what they can and cannot say during it. It kind of defeats the purpose.

It would be unethical and wrong for you to delete or edit posts just because you don't agree with them, yes. Organizing data is fine. Google isn't organizing comments to make it easier to find the ones you're interested in. They're making a decision about which ones you're most likely to be interested in and making you go out of your way to access the rest. Or at least, that's what they claim to be doing. They could just as easily shape the comments for malevolent purposes (e.g., to silence debate or protest).

The whole idea behind search is trying to figure out what you're looking for (i.e., rank resources on the Web and attempt to index it against your query). Certainly it is equally unethical to abuse their power with search and give things higher or lower ranks relative to affiliations with Google. They have been accused of doing this, and it is absolutely considered an abuse of power.

Comments/forums are different. People aren't searching for comments. They're merely trying to read them. I don't even think there's a practical way to search comments unless Google exposes the comments through an API (which you could build a tool against). Obviously when we use A.cc's search page you too are trying to best identify what we're looking for and give it to us. Again, it would be unethical to apply bias there.

It doesn't matter what they have the right to do because it's their "property" / service / etc. This is a matter of ethics. The Internet is still a very young entity. It's a long way from being free of evil influences. People and organizations can and do abuse their control over it, and this should not be tolerated.

Loosely related: https://openmedia.org/censorship

Append:

I never proposed YouTube ordering comments randomly either. I think it stands to reason that ordering them chronologically (perhaps threaded-chronologically) is the best way for people to follow the discussion.

For the most part, who even has time to read comments on YouTube? If I find a video particularly provoking then I'll generally post a comment and skim the latest ones and if I see something that provokes a reaction from me then I'll reply too. That's about the extent of it. I think that's all you can ask for. You can learn a lot more from watching more videos than you could from reading through the comments of a video (all fucking week since there's 30000 of them). It's basically just an opportunity to leave your mark on the video, and possibly interact with a random stranger as you pass through. Not all that much unlike visiting a real world landmark or attraction and meeting a random stranger and sharing a moment with them. That's all it is.

I think that they're supposed to offer the choice, but that's not much different than Microsoft shipping IE with Windows. Most users are too oblivious to even imagine changing it! I'm not clear if it is something that is permanently stored, or temporarily stored in a cookie, or only applies to the current page either. One way or another, most of the time, you aren't even going to realize how comments are being ordered. It isn't going to stand out.