191–200 of 485 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Or alternatively, someone else with homophobic feelings will use my comment to reflect and realize it's OK to acknowledge their feelings while acknowledging the rights and freedoms of others. I welcome gays the freedom to kiss in public, just as they must accept my freedom to discuss my feelings. It's a two sided coin, and I'm not sure it's a loaded coin as you imply.
> California’s AB-728 mandates age verification for anyone purchasing skin care products or cosmetics that contain certain chemicals like Vitamin A or alpha hydroxy acids. On the surface, this may seem harmless—who doesn't want to ensure that minors are safe from harmful chemicals? Why would we want to keep minors safe from "harmful chemicals" but not adults? If skin cream products with Vitamin A or alpha hydroxy aci…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Recognizing you have feelings isn't wrong. It's how you learn to control your actions and reason your response.
> Recognizing you have feelings isn't wrong. It's how you learn to control your actions If you’re afraid of the monster under your bed, the solution isn’t to clench you teeth—it’s to learn there’s no monster. Recognising the bias is good. We all have subconscious biases based on fear and disgust. But the solution is to learn more about the thing so it stops triggering a reptilian response.
Which leads me to, is public nudity/display of sex something we feel is wrong based on fear or disgust? Or because there is a scientific basis of degraded life outcomes? There can be health hazards in say most indoor spaces but for say printed material those biohazard don't exist. I'm seeking to find if I'm being a reptile here.
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]
> California’s AB-728 mandates age verification for anyone purchasing skin care products or cosmetics that contain certain chemicals like Vitamin A or alpha hydroxy acids. On the surface, this may seem harmless—who doesn't want to ensure that minors are safe from harmful chemicals? Why would we want to keep minors safe from "harmful chemicals" but not adults? If skin cream products with Vitamin A or alpha hydroxy aci…
California does keep adults safe from chemicals already - there's special Prop 65 labels you have to put on things in California if they contain chemicals.
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…
Public spaces are most definitely not "Adults Only" by default. You're not allowed to have a big billboard with porn on it, you have to show ID to get into a bar, you have to show ID to buy a pack of cigarettes, and in many states the cigarettes have to be in an opaque cabinet. You can't walk around naked. You can't be drunk in public. Now admittedly many of these things are unevenly enforced, but society absolutely…
Our state-issued eID cards are supposed to have a function that allows anonymous age verification to a trusted party. It should work like this: a requesting party sends a request signed by state-issued certificate to the ID card, the card verifies the request authenticity and responds with a signed confirmation of legal age and that signature then can be verified by the requester. No personal information is shared. W…
You'd know the state they're a legal resident of as they use state-specific keys used for signatures.
If the request allows checking arbitrary ages like Apple's, then you can get their age with a handful of requests. If one has to verify every visit, then you can get exact birthdate eventually.
If the one verifying has to pass data to the verifier site or the request to the verifier has any site/app/company-specific IDs (again, Apple), then you're leaking what you're visiting to the verifier.
And not to beat a dead horse, but as long as there are jurisdictions that don't require age verification in the world, children can easily use a free VPN or proxy to avoid checks altogether at which point, one has to ask, why do it at all?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Recognizing you have feelings isn't wrong. It's how you learn to control your actions and reason your response.
> Recognizing you have feelings isn't wrong. It's how you learn to control your actions If you’re afraid of the monster under your bed, the solution isn’t to clench you teeth—it’s to learn there’s no monster. Recognising the bias is good. We all have subconscious biases based on fear and disgust. But the solution is to learn more about the thing so it stops triggering a reptilian response.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The children didn't seem worse off in the days where a 2nd grader could bike 5 miles to the grocery store to buy mom a pack of smokes and dad a six pack.
https://www.lung.org/research/trends-in-lung-disease/tobacco... > Long term, smoking rates have fallen 73% among adults, from 42.6% in 1965 to 11.6% in 2022. > Long term, smoking rates have fallen 86% among youth, from 36.4% in 1997 to 3.8% in 2021. I'd say that's better off, not just in childhood but with long term effects.
age verification should be backed into the browser and not into websites. parents should be able to access a (password protected) setting in any browser that can exclude some types of websites (like porn). governments should be free to go after any website not respecting that setting. but forcing the age-verification onto websites is just moronic.
> but forcing the age-verification onto websites is just moronic. Agree. > parents should be able to access a (password protected) setting in any browser that can exclude some types of websites (like porn). 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..."? Or if that's…
I would think adblock lists are a pretty good example of similar efforts (that is, people classifying large amounts of random sites), so I don't think that would be impossible.
Such things don't need to be perfect, either - just good enough.
(I don't agree with age verification efforts or even parental control software; just pointing out it's not impossible)