161–170 of 485 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Internet should be Unrated and thus Adults Only by default. Just like public spaces. This is exactly the opposite of the way public spaces actually work, and the way that public spaces actually work is the very justification for laws like this in the first place! You've just taken their exact rationale and imagined a world that would lead that metaphor to the opposite conclusion. In most of the real-life US, yo…
[flagged]
The Internet should be Unrated and thus Adults Only by default. Just like public spaces. (Would you allow an 8 year old to wander New York City unattended? Arguments can be made for more controlled spaces but...) Have a website and want the chance for kids to see it? Advertise in the headers that it's moderated and intended to be a given rating. Various indexers can pick that up. Complaints can be forward to relevant…
we arrest people who have sex in public...
Live sex shows are illegal in most places in the US regardless of whether the audience is exclusively adults, so the motivation for these laws is apparently something other than preventing children from seeing them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Littering degrades the commons.
In rural areas animals shit all over farms and areas where people exist and commingle
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You're taking the metaphor a bit too literally. Or maybe the metaphor is flawed? GP says that public spaces are adult-only by default, the parent rightly points out this is nonsense: public spaces are Safe for Work (and for kids) by default, and you have to prove you're an adult to access the adult-only spaces. Which is exactly what laws like this are trying to do by analogy to the physical world . It's not OP that…
There is an important difference in the metaphor. Physical spaces don't have a user-agent. Therefore the space itself has to exclude minors because there is nothing else to do it. The internet does have user agents, and for children the user agents are controlled by adults (and if the child has the cooperation of an adult, you already can't enforce age verification). So now you don't need anyone to prove their age in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I want to fight so much for open access to the internet because it was so useful to me as a child As a child of the 80s who benefited greatly from the Internet as a kid (repressive religious parents, and the Internet was a lifeline), I feel extremely conflicted. On the one hand, I absolutely want to preserve the kind of benefit we received growing up. On the other, the Internet looks nothing like it did when I was…
The dangers of the modern internet aren't boobs though. The 20th century internet had boobs. The modern dangers are state-funded and international they're not going to be thwarted by an age-verification law, are they?
Porn on the Internet today isn’t like it was either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMO slippery slope is a fallacy when the small step only supports the big step symbolically, shifting the “Overton Window”. It’s true that the Overton Window has some effect, but we shouldn’t avoid taking a step towards the middle just because it’s also a step towards the opposite bad side, if the middle is good. Wrt. privacy, the real issue is that the small step helps the big step not just symbolically. ID-based ag…
IMO the problem isn't ID-based age verification specifically, it's that such verification is usually impelemnted in a way where the service in question gets a lot more data than they need, with no real control over how that data is kept and processed. It would absolutely be possible to implement that stuff in a fully privacy-preserving way, with nothing but basic cryptography, and the government could absolutely enfo…
There are ways to do this which are less bad, but there is no way to do it "in a fully privacy-preserving way" without also making it fully ineffective, because if there is no way to prove who someone is then there is no way to catch anyone providing false age verification as a service to minors. But if there a way to prove that, you've demonstrated the existence of a privacy failure because you could then use the same mechanism to determine what someone is looking at.
The Internet should be Unrated and thus Adults Only by default. Just like public spaces. (Would you allow an 8 year old to wander New York City unattended? Arguments can be made for more controlled spaces but...) Have a website and want the chance for kids to see it? Advertise in the headers that it's moderated and intended to be a given rating. Various indexers can pick that up. Complaints can be forward to relevant…
> Would you allow an 8 year old to wander New York City unattended? At age 8 I was wandering in Munich unattended. But okay, gotta admit, this is Germany we're talking about, so not many issues with hordes of mentally ill and/or homeless people doing anything from drugs to defecating on the sidewalk right next to big tech's offices [1]. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/18/san-fr...
I’m sure someone came along later to clean up but this was early morning. My point is let’s not pretend like Germany doesn’t have homelessness and people sleeping rough.
They generally are quite harmless though and not generally any threat to wandering children.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The dangers of the modern internet aren't boobs though. The 20th century internet had boobs. The modern dangers are state-funded and international they're not going to be thwarted by an age-verification law, are they?
> The 20th century internet had boobs Porn on the Internet today isn’t like it was either.