51–60 of 485 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. It's a fallacy when dealing with logical entities, but humans aren't logical entities.
It’s only a fallacy when dealing with logical relations under certainty. Once uncertainty and probability is introduced the slippery slope just is relating Bayes’ Rule in plain English.
Haven't checked the others, but at least for the skin cream bill, the text explicitly lists "a date of birth entry or checkbox verifying age system" as sufficient, so the outrage about privacy seems overblown. Of course this raises questions as to what is the point of requiring verification that doesn't actually verify anything, but that's an entirely separate problem.
> Haven't checked the others, but at least for the skin cream bill if you did check the other two, you'd notice that they're much more restrictive. from the NY bill, apologies for the all-caps but it's in the original [0]: > "IDENTITY VERIFICATION" SHALL MEAN THE USE OF AN ON-DEMAND SELF-PHOTOGRAPH TO VERIFY THE OWNERSHIP OF A PERSON'S GOVERNMENT-ISSUED IDENTIFICATION; > "LICENSE VERIFICATION" SHALL MEAN THE USE OF T…
2/3 examples being heavily exaggerated is a pretty bad look for the author (even though I agree with the article sentiment in general).
While I don't support age verification (I don't think that would solve anything) two of the targeted product categories, skincare and diet foods/supplements, are some of the heaviest spending ad categories I see nowadays, and feel very huckster-y as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Such a law doesn't necessarily have to require that every browser include the content filtering code. Only that websites must correctly report the content they serve. Of course then the obvious workaround for someone wanting to access restricted content is just to install a browser that does not enforce the restrictions. But that's a problem even if browsers were "forced" to implement this anyway. There would always…
> Of course then the obvious workaround for someone wanting to access restricted content is just to install a browser that does not enforce the restrictions You really see a world where such a law is passed and such browsers aren’t outlawed?
The other way to limit access to such browsers is penalties for users of those browsers. But that feels even less likely. Even if such a law were on the books, how would it be enforced? Either someone would have to report someone using an "illegal" browser or perhaps some method of fingerprinting that is somehow tied back to the actual user. Both of these seem far-fetched to me.
So perhaps such browsers would be outlawed, but I'm not sure it would practically do much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is about a Texas Law that went before the Supreme Court recently. Texas' law, H.B. 1181, requires people visiting porn websites to prove their age by either uploading government-issued identification or a "commercially reasonable method" such as bank information. More than a dozen other states have passed similar bills, though they are all on hold pending what the Supreme Court decides.
There's just too much money to be made selling porn to children.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How would this work? Who's going to set up the taxonomy / classification tree for every domain/site on the internet just so a guardian can say "yes to drugs, no to porn, no to news, no to weapons..."? This isn't really an answer, but the same problem exists with current age verification laws. I think the main difference with traditional parental control software is that the burden would be on the site maintainer to…
Have browsers default block anything that doesn't label their content (allow this setting to be disabled and locked down in parental controls), then hold websites liable for willfully or negligently mislabeling. Exceptions for good faith efforts to label correctly. Maybe a special label for user generated content that holds companies a bit less liable for it.
This doesn't solve the case for entities not subject to this law. They can just label their content as totally safe and not have to worry about penalties.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the core fallacy I see in proponents of such rules: they think the rules can be enforced.
I think the parent had an even more important fallacy - that the rules can't even be _stated_. there is an implicit presumption that everyone everywhere agrees on what material is appropriate for what people and at what age.
> I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. It's a fallacy when dealing with logical entities, but humans aren't logical entities.
It’s only a fallacy when dealing with logical relations under certainty. Once uncertainty and probability is introduced the slippery slope just is relating Bayes’ Rule in plain English.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>How would this work? Pornhub knows they do not want to have trouble so they will respect the browser setting and not serve minors. There could be an institution that can receive complains about websites not using this API and those wbsites can be blocked from the country and fined if possible until they implement the API. We need all mobile and desktop OSes to make it easy for parents to setup accounts for their chi…
> We need all mobile and desktop OSes to make it easy for parents to setup accounts for their children How about don’t give your children devices until they’re old enough for them. The kids of the rich are already mostly device free. Attention spans and eye contact shouldn’t be a privilege.
I had access to a computer since 14, my bother since 10, we are both OK.
My solution is to protect us the normal people from the extremists that want the government to protect their children, this solution is making the parent responsible if their children get access to bad websites or apps. But as I said is not 100% perfect.
But I agree that you should not give your child a device and at teh same time demand the government to do your job for you.
Am I missing something here? Entirely possible and likely. When I go to pornhub I have to click a button that days I’m 18. Some other sites I’ve seen actually make me enter a birthdate. Slightly more annoying but I always make one up. Is this what people are upset about? I get actual age verification with an account required or checking my ID is more invasive..but I guess I’ve not experienced this as an actual proble…
Certain US states are requiring the porn sites actually do rigorous age verification via scanned documents. I believe PornHub just opted to stay out of those states entirely hoping that their "reverse boycott" would cause enough of a backlash to get the laws changed. I'm not sure it's working. That said, as a parent to teenagers, I don't know that I believe that age verification is such a terrible idea. The reality i…
I agree with you. I’m very pro-privacy/anti-surveillance and pro-freedom, so I’m entirely against the invasive ID-based systems, but the problem you highlight is pretty real and has to be addressed somehow, and I’m just not sure what the solution is.
As a parent of very young children, I’d hope that we’ve already figured this out by the time my children are teenagers.
Also, I doubt your viewpoint is actually a minority viewpoint here—it’s more likely those with your viewpoint just won’t post it here.