Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 485 posts

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#221

Post by amrocha »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #183
autoexec wrote: post #181

> 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…

> Why would we want to keep minors safe from "harmful chemicals" but not adults? My understanding is they’re harmful if misused.

That can be said about pretty much anything though. Don’t drink shampoo!

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#222

Post by N2yhWNXQN3k9 »

kmeisthax wrote: post #192
autoexec wrote: post #181

> 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.

> if they contain chemicals

If they contain known substances that cause cancer or birth defects*. There are plenty of substances that can harm you that aren't subject to requiring P65 warnings.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#223

Post by BrawnyBadger53 »

hot_gril wrote: post #83
saurik wrote: post #9

This should be held up as a visceral demonstration of how the "slippery slope" isn't inherently a fallacy, as many oft like to claim: it is merely a form of argument that is easy enough to get wrong--leading to a fallacy when the cause is disconnected--that people have become overly-wary of it, reacting to the premise of the conclusion without even bothering to analyze how steep the slope might be before tuning the i…

Also why "ad hominem" can be legit. Lawmakers' personal beliefs and incentives say a lot more than whatever generic arguments they pick.

This is less true, slippery slope as a fallacy is having large unclear jumps chained together to make a really improbable outcome because each improbable chain scales off all the previous pieces. But ad hominem as an argument is only really valid when the attack against the person is highlighting conflicts of interest, which is more reason for scrutiny of the original argument than it is cause for ignoring it entirely. You should still attack the argument itself.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#224

Post by theoreticalmal »

slg wrote: post #186
ty6853 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#225

Post by bcraven »

d0mine wrote: post #198
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

what do you think an unbiased heterosexual man should feel stumbling upon two men kissing in public?

Gosh, how about, _"oh how fabulous that those people clearly love each other"._

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#226

Post by kerkeslager »

d0mine wrote: post #198
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

what do you think an unbiased heterosexual man should feel stumbling upon two men kissing in public?

Not a lot honestly. You're not involved, it doesn't affect you in any way, no one is being harmed, why would you bother forming feelings about it?

Generally when I stumble upon a couple kissing in public, if I think anything at all about it, it's something along the lines of "Oh, good for them, they're in love," and I'm happy for them.

I'm not sure why the genders of the participants would be relevant. I've got my own gender preferences for relationships (I'm a straight man) but again, I'm not involved, so my preferences for myself aren't relevant to the situation.

In a larger sense, one of the dumbest things you can do is form opinions for no reason. You aren't obligated to form an opinion on everything you come across.

It's literally self-destructive to feel some sort of negative feeling about this. You don't have to. Why would you want to?

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#227

Post by wongarsu »

ty6853 wrote: post #213
7952 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with the internet is the mixing of different contexts. You can have cute cats, disney fandom, hobbies, politics, porn, extremism all on the same platform. In the real world you don't have strip clubs at disney world or children wandering about in a bar.

In my state children can wander in a bar. They can even sit at the stool in front the bar counter. It's considered better to allow it than have children neglected at home without supervision.

The kind of hierarchies we deem necessary are certainly different.

In most of Europe (spoiler: overgeneralization incoming) nobody would have an issue with a child walking alone through a city, going into a bar and ordering a coke. Nobody is going to stop them from taking public transit to a book store, and nothing is legally or physically preventing them from looking at a couple pages in the latest playboy issue in the magazine rack. Though the clerk might interfere out of his own judgement, and depending on the country they might check your age before selling it. You will however be asked for ID before being allowed in a strip club, brothel or casino, or before being sold a DVD of some action movie.

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#228

Post by slg »

d0mine wrote: post #198
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

what do you think an unbiased heterosexual man should feel stumbling upon two men kissing in public?

[flagged]

Re: Age Verification Laws: A Backdoor to Surveillance

#230

Post by eszed »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #170
haswell wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The 20th century internet had boobs Porn on the Internet today isn’t like it was either.

There is more of it now, certainly. Is it worse than goatse?

Goatse was shock, not porn. Kid sees that, gets mildly traumatized and figures it out later and laughs about it when they're an adult. I'm far more worried about them internalizing mysogyny from mainstream porn; that shit sinks deep.
Post reply on HN