Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids

Re: Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids < 16

#691

Post by xyzzy123 » Tue, Jan 30, 2024, 8:40 PM UTC

px43 wrote: post #687

xyzzy123 wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The selective disclosure is super cool, I wonder how it works since smthing like a hash of DG1 is what is actually signed, how can you selectively disclose verified data from "inside" the hashed area? It does not sound very feasible to me but I am not an expert in zk-snarks etc. There are some wrinkles that prevent passport data being used more broadly - technically it is a TOS violation to verify passports / use the…

ZK circuts have gotten really fancy lately, to the point where full blown ZK virtual machines are a thing, which means you can write a program in rust or whatever, compile it to riscv, and then run it on the risc zero zkVM. ( https://github.com/risc0 ) This means you can literally just write a rust program that reads in the private data, verifies the signature, reads the first byte in the name string and confirms tha…

Thanks! I have a big rabbit hole to go down now :)

I don't get what causes the proof to fail if I provide the wrong bytes to the zkvm when it tries to read from inside the hashed area after the hash & signature are verified (this might not be directly sequential I guess, I think it has to be part of the same proof).

Put another way, I get we have to zk prove that a) I know a message M that hashes to H ... (can see this is do-able from googling), but also that a particular byte range M[A-B] is part of M, in a way that the verifier can trust I'm not lying and I don't see how the second bit is accomplished. It feels like there are also details in proving that the data comes from the right "field" in the DG1.

This stuff is such black magic! EDIT: will try this out in ZoKrates...

Re: Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids < 16

#692

Post by Zak » Tue, Jan 30, 2024, 8:52 PM UTC

15457345234 wrote: post #686

Zak wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a partial attribution error; the goal is to make money by capturing attention and selling it to advertisers. The fact that strife is one of the most effective ways to do so, and the companies appear utterly unconcerned about the resulting damage to society makes it look like strife is the end goal, but it is merely a means to make money. They would change their algorithms immediately if large advertis…

> the goal is to make money by capturing attention and selling it to advertisers I mean, how do you know that? How do you know that the goal isn't actually to perform social engineering on a huge scale and that the advertising is just the way that goal is being funded?

I suppose I don't. It could be that Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and TikTok are all actively trying to create chaos, but greed adequately explains their behavior. One thing that points more strongly to greed is that the companies, aside from Twitter post-Musk, rapidly change their behavior when it impacts their revenue.

With TikTok, there's some chance geopolitics is a factor as well.

Re: Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids < 16

#693

Post by sangnoir » Tue, Jan 30, 2024, 11:28 PM UTC

mirekrusin wrote: post #682

sangnoir wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Design is far from the only threat vector. Any implementation that is less than perfect is prone to all kinds of attacks. A few years ago, there was a report that the NSA could decrypt a double-digit percentage of encrypted web traffic thanks to a larger-than-expected bag of factored primes they keep handy.

Great story, are you claiming that NSA can infer from zero-knowledge proofs inputs, maybe map cryptographic hashes to plain input text or something of that nature?

No, but I bet a dollar that NSA isn't just going to collectively fold hands and say "These schemes and implementations are too good and too secure for us to break. We'll ignore the meta data, network analysis, side channels and our data centers that can store 2 days worth of internet traffic; we'll give up and focus on defensive security only"

Re: Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids < 16

#694

Post by djfdat » Wed, Jan 31, 2024, 2:04 AM UTC

mlrtime wrote: post #671

djfdat wrote: post #658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've never been the party of small government and parental rights. That's just their sanctimonious tagline they use when convenient.

The reddit /r/politics trolls are entering HN. If you want to criticize something, better to understand it first. Small Federal Government, more local government control. Let local communities decide for themselves what is important. Now I know your first thought is to ignore what I'm saying to find examples that prove this wrong. But this is the conservative approach in general. NY and CA are never going to pass a b…

Pretty dismissive to label me as a /r/politics troll.

I think there is something that you need to understand about our society. "Move somewhere else" is not a solution. Our country should not be operated in a way that something so radical can be decided by smaller and smaller groups of people, and if you don't like it, you must uproot your life and find somewhere else to live.

What do you define as more local government control? How much control should be provided at more localized levels? At what point does a higher authority act to disallow local government overreach? Is that seen as Federal government overreach?

At any level, we should be having a discussion to consider: whether we agree on the problem, that the problem is a problem, what solutions we have and what are the unintended consequences of those solutions. If we instead have knee-jerk overreactions such as this, and then tell everyone who disagrees to get out... is that the country you want? A country of more local government control?

Re: Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids < 16

#695

Post by protocolture » Wed, Jan 31, 2024, 10:19 AM UTC

JoshTko wrote: post #684

protocolture wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be less imposing on the populace if you just demanded a government hit squad kill those PHD's instead of demanding everyone submit to some onerous government crapware to access the internet.

There are plenty of middle ground approaches - one possible one: App default would be restricted time use. To get unrestrxistricted use you use a driver's license to authenticate birthdate only with OS. Mobile OS only confirming with app that user is above age requirement (does not share birthdate). App can only query if user is above 18yrs and nothing else. Easy peasy.

So more crapware?

Re: Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids < 16

#696

Post by protocolture » Wed, Jan 31, 2024, 10:20 AM UTC

mirekrusin wrote: post #609

protocolture wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont want government crapware on my device to access the internet. I also dont want third party crapware on my device to access the internet. "wowee it can be done without revealing my identity to anyone but the government or the corp running the chain" No thanks

Identity is not revealed.

You very obviously have to reveal your identity to some party or other, otherwise 12 year olds wont be excluded.

Re: Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids < 16

#697

Post by protocolture » Wed, Jan 31, 2024, 10:24 AM UTC

protocolture wrote: post #696

mirekrusin wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Identity is not revealed.

You very obviously have to reveal your identity to some party or other, otherwise 12 year olds wont be excluded.

Let me expand on this because Digital Identity proponents tend to try and oversimplify everything and then act surprised when their favorite cryptos implode.

There are 2 situations.

1. Everyone who wants to access restricted content needs to access a government or corporate tool to generate their wallet or keys or whatever you want to call it.

2. Everyone in the jurisdiction is required to sign up for the tool.

1. Is effectively putting yourself on a list for future fascist governments to purge.

2. Is an onerous burden on the entire population. We had enough issues with Digital TV.

Re: Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids < 16

#698

Post by mirekrusin » Wed, Jan 31, 2024, 12:45 PM UTC

sangnoir wrote: post #693

mirekrusin wrote: post #682

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great story, are you claiming that NSA can infer from zero-knowledge proofs inputs, maybe map cryptographic hashes to plain input text or something of that nature?

No, but I bet a dollar that NSA isn't just going to collectively fold hands and say "These schemes and implementations are too good and too secure for us to break. We'll ignore the meta data, network analysis, side channels and our data centers that can store 2 days worth of internet traffic; we'll give up and focus on defensive security only"

Your argument applies equally to any initiative ever made by humans that mentions "internet". Yet it appears quite few things exist on the "internet". We do have cryptography with good guarantees available.

Re: Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids < 16

#699

Post by evantbyrne » Wed, Jan 31, 2024, 4:07 PM UTC

mrangle wrote: post #676

evantbyrne wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mean to turn this into a religious discussion, but adding onto what you are saying here with a personal anecdote: having access to the internet allowed me to see viewpoints besides the religious right-wing perspective I had been conditioned with (for lack of a better term), but the internet did not start the process of leaving religion. I made the decision to seek other perspectives and did so through many av…

There's nothing hamfisted about monitoring what other adults say to teens (and younger) when alone. It falls under basic supervision of minors, in order to prevent abuse. Including abuse that abusers try to shoehorn in under the guise of noble cause. For example, like sexual grooming, cultic induction, political radicalization, etc. Anything that anyone can say to a child, can be said to an adult. I mean that in two…

Teens shouldn't be coddled as though they are children. They should be given responsibilities and some amount of autonomy. Prepare them for when they eventually screw up and they will be okay. Also, they are probably being exposed to way worse shit by their peers in school than from using the internet.

Re: Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids < 16

#700

Post by Shocka1 » Wed, Jan 31, 2024, 4:08 PM UTC

nerdjon wrote: post #310

mrangle wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Restricting social media use is tantamount to brainwashing? I don't see the connection. As for restricting access to "opposing" (opposition to what?) viewpoints, what children can be exposed to has long been restricted. But since there isn't a syllabus for what children will be presented on social media, I don't see the viewpoint restriction angle either. In fact, that position is illogical to the point that it raise…

> opposition to what? This is coming from the state that is trying to ban books based on some backwards concern of a white kid feeling bad. (for the record I am white). I don't care what side of politics you are on... you know what opposition I am talking about. Whether you are for or against it. > not people concerned with it have an agenda to expose kids to "viewpoints" that their parents would disapprove of. Yes!…

I feel like you might be looking at this incorrectly. This is political of course given it's FL, but I'm attempting to look past that. The issue, which has been exhaustively studied by people like Jonathan Haidt and posted about on HN, is that there is great evidence that the underlying psychological impact and algorithms with social media platforms is having a negative effect on teenagers, especially females. Some of these studies have been shared right here on HN, but here is a link - from a mostly left leaning source just for you:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/facebooks-...

This isn't the same as the Yahoo chatroom or social media that some of us older people grew up with. We might as well compare apples to oranges. Does that mean we should ban it? I don't think it matters.

My personal opinion is that stuff like this can't be stopped by a stroke of a pen or by whether you identify as left or right wing. 13 year old me didn't care about some checkbox asking if I was a certain age. The only thing that will stop this is for kids to not want to use social media - they have to think of it as not cool. Given the ever increasing sophistication of this type of software on a psychological level, I don't see that ever happening.