591–600 of 720 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't have to be perfectly enforceable to have a positive effect. Even just making illegal the promotion of social media toward children would have a huge effect.
Seeing this opinion all over this thread. Unenforceable laws are one way to create the pretext for discriminatory enforcement. And you have to be trolling with your second paragraph.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the only way to do this is to require ID checks, effectively regulating and destroying the anonymous nature of the internet (and probably unconstitutional under the First Amendment, to boot.) It's the same problem with requiring age verification for porn. It's not that anyone wants kids to have easy access to this stuff, but that any of these laws will either be (a) unenforceable and useless, or (b) draconian and…
> But the only way to do this is to require ID checks, effectively regulating and destroying the anonymous nature of the internet That seems intuitive, but it's not actually true. I suggest looking up zero-knowledge proofs. Using modern cryptography, it is easy to send a machine-generated proof to your social media provider that your government-provided ID says your age is ≥ 16, without revealing anything else about…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fast forward to today. Ours came home with a google account in the 5th grade I think. Something I explicitly did not want. They didn't send a permission slip home like they do for everything else either. Another teacher around the time had the kids set up on GoodReads. They were under 13 and there was a TOS at the time restricted to 13+. Mostly adults on that site. Not happy with the school to say the least.
> Fast forward to today. Ours came home with a google account in the 5th grade I think. Something I explicitly did not want. They didn't send a permission slip home like they do for everything else either. Google Workspace accounts, especially those for education[0], have Web & App Activity, as well as Location History, automatically turned off. It's just a tool for schools to get free/cheap email, storage, and class…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know, I'm not really sure that requiring IDs for access to porn / social media is a terrible idea. Sure it's been anonymous and free since the advent of the internet, but perhaps it's time to change that. After all, we don't allow a kid into a brothel or allow them to engage in prostitution (for good reasons), and porn is equally destructive. But with the topic at hand being social media, I think a lot of the sam…
You think watching porn is equally destructive to engaging in prostitution? I'd hate to see what kind of porn you're watching.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the only way to do this is to require ID checks, effectively regulating and destroying the anonymous nature of the internet (and probably unconstitutional under the First Amendment, to boot.) It's the same problem with requiring age verification for porn. It's not that anyone wants kids to have easy access to this stuff, but that any of these laws will either be (a) unenforceable and useless, or (b) draconian and…
> But the only way to do this is to require ID checks, effectively regulating and destroying the anonymous nature of the internet That seems intuitive, but it's not actually true. I suggest looking up zero-knowledge proofs. Using modern cryptography, it is easy to send a machine-generated proof to your social media provider that your government-provided ID says your age is ≥ 16, without revealing anything else about…
Of course you need to trust that the hash is not reversable.
That doesn’t stop kids from using Facebook, but it stops kids’ ID from being used to create an account.
I might be the only one here in favor of this, and wanting to see a federal rollout. It is not reasonable to expect parents to spontaneously agree on a strategy for keeping kids off social media- and that kind of coordination is what it would take, because the kids + social media companies have more than enough time to coordinate workarounds. Have the law put the social media companies on the parents side, or these k…
But the only way to do this is to require ID checks, effectively regulating and destroying the anonymous nature of the internet (and probably unconstitutional under the First Amendment, to boot.) It's the same problem with requiring age verification for porn. It's not that anyone wants kids to have easy access to this stuff, but that any of these laws will either be (a) unenforceable and useless, or (b) draconian and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know, I'm not really sure that requiring IDs for access to porn / social media is a terrible idea. Sure it's been anonymous and free since the advent of the internet, but perhaps it's time to change that. After all, we don't allow a kid into a brothel or allow them to engage in prostitution (for good reasons), and porn is equally destructive. But with the topic at hand being social media, I think a lot of the sam…
The biggest problem with this is how we would define "porn". Some states are currently redefining the existence of a transgender person in public as an inherently lewd act equivalent to indecent exposure. I have no doubt that if your proposal were to pass that there would be significant efforts from extremist conservatives to censor LGBT+ communities online by labeling sex education or mere discussion of our lives as…
I wholeheartedly agree. And that’s a problem we should lean into and solve. Its difficulty doesn’t make it less worth of solving.
> The horrors and dangers of porn are squarely a domestic and family issue.
Therein lies the problem however. Every systemic issue in our world begins in a family or domestic situation of some form. While I am well aware and also concerned about the implications of government overreach here, I don’t think we can throw up our hands and say, “Meh”. At a minimum it can begin with education. We can teach people about the destructive nature of porn (and social media).
The fact that this impacts every family, domestic situation, and therefore indirectly or directly touches every single life in our society actually kinda makes it a great candidate for government oversight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But the only way to do this is to require ID checks, effectively regulating and destroying the anonymous nature of the internet That seems intuitive, but it's not actually true. I suggest looking up zero-knowledge proofs. Using modern cryptography, it is easy to send a machine-generated proof to your social media provider that your government-provided ID says your age is ≥ 16, without revealing anything else about…
I'm not a cryptographer so I might miss something but I have the impression that - either a stolen card can be reused thousands of time meaning that it's so easy to get a fake that it's not worth the implementation cost - either there is away to uniquely identify a card and then it becomes another identifier like tracking ids.
You have an incentive to keep the secret token to yourself, and would probably use existing mechanisms for that: You might manage like your phone number, private email and other personal accounts today. Not perfect, but effective most of the time for most people.
You might decide to share it with someone you trust, like your sibling. That's up to you, but you wouldn't share it widely or with people you don't trust, even under pressure, because:
To prevent mass reuse of stolen tokens, it's possible to use more cryptography to detect when the same token is reused in too many places, either on the same site or across many sites, without revealing tokens that don't meet the mass-reuse condition, so they still can't be used for tracking. If mass-reused tokens auto-revoke, they can't be reused thousands of times by anyone, and that also provides an incentive to avoid sharing with people you don't trust.
I won't pretend this is trivial. It's fairly advanced stuff. But the components exist these days. The last paragraph above requires combining zero-knowledge proofs (ZKP) with other branches of modern cryptography, called multi-party computation (MPC) and perhaps fully homomorphic encryption (FHE).
I might be the only one here in favor of this, and wanting to see a federal rollout. It is not reasonable to expect parents to spontaneously agree on a strategy for keeping kids off social media- and that kind of coordination is what it would take, because the kids + social media companies have more than enough time to coordinate workarounds. Have the law put the social media companies on the parents side, or these k…
- Make this an ISP level thing? Somehow? They already know the makeup of a household. If they know a house has kids, something something ToS "You as the parents are liable..." Then maybe repeat those scary RIAA letters but "for good" when someone in that household hits a known adult IP?
- Maybe browsers send an "I'm an adult" flag similar to "Do Not Track," and to turn it on, the user has to enter a not-to-be-shared-with-kids PIN? If the browser and OS can coordinate, OSes would be able to tell the browser if the user is an adult, and skip the PIN entering.
- Force kids to use a list of Congress-approved devices that gate access to the wider Internet? YouTube Kids but for everything. Yes, hacker kids will be able to get by, but this being Hacker News, they'd deserve the fruits of that particular labor.
Just spitballing. Anything obvious I'm missing?
PS- I am neither for nor against the Florida-type legislation as of this comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The intention of the API is for that to not be possible. > The privacy of this API relies on that fact: the issuer is unable to correlate its issuances on one site with redemptions on another site. If the issuer gives out N tokens each to M users, and later receives up to N*M requests for redemption on various sites, the issuer can't correlate those redemption requests to any user identity (unless M = 1). It learns o…
would this mean if the issuer experiences an outage you'd be unable to access sites?