FWIW, I didn't read that comment as trollish at all. It's quite awkwardly written, and it could do with scare quotes around "undesirables" to make it clear that it refers to the view of authorities in their scenario rather than the view of the comment author, but which part of it is trollish?

My understanding of the comment was expressing a concern that some kind of universal identity system would undoubtedly become an agent of the state, which is fine most of the time but in various situations (including holocaust-like ones) means that it could be used as an instrument of oppression, since it would likely be unable to be used by those who wanted to hide some aspect of their identity for safety reasons.

This seems like a legitimate concern for something that has a goal of becoming a global universal identity system. I would hope that something like that would look more like cash - usable by anyone, whether the state likes it or not, with fundamental privacy aspects - rather than like VISA with some privacy bolted on.

> Why have you chosen to express this point in such a trollish way?

I am legitimately confused by this question, since it does not appear trollish to me.

I chose to express it that way to emphasize that (some) abuses of a digital identity system would present as lawful actions by authorized law enforcement personnel, and (apparently too tacitly) that "holocaust-like situations" are not a qualitatively different operating regime that system can assume it is not in during 'normal' operation.

I was a bit worried that it would be percieved as overly confrontational (hence the second paragraph attempting to disclaim that), but I assume that's not what you mean by "trollish".