331–340 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why not? This implies the creation of an infrastructure for the total surveillance of citizens, unlike age verification by physical businesses.
Knowing if the user's over 18 doesn't imply total surveillance, it only implies a user profile setting that says if they're over 18.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For one thing, it's fairly uncommon for children to purchase operating systems. As long as there is one major operating system with age verification, parents (or teachers) who want software restrictions on their children can simply provide that one. The existence of operating systems without age verification does not actually create a problem as long as the parents are at least somewhat aware of what is installed at…
What if all the useful apps refuse to run on the childproof operating system?
Anyone reading this purely as a child safety or campaign finance story might miss the broader architectural war happening here. If you zoom out a little, this is the inevitable, scorched-earth retaliation for Apple's ATT rollout from a few years back. Apple cost Meta billions by cutting off their data pipeline at the OS level, justifying it with a unilateral privacy moral high ground. Now, Meta is returning the favor…
> Gotta give it to Zuck. if "it" is the middle finger, for sure. "terrifying" is a great choice of word for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Scott Alexander had a few posts about that ("why is there so little money in politics?"): https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/tech-pacs-are-closing-in-on...
I think one of the reasons politicians can be bought so cheaply by interest groups is that the opponents of the interests groups have practically no money. The interest groups don't need to spend a ton as long as they spend more than their opponents. The linked post talks about the effectiveness of AIPAC but fails to mention how much is spent by say, Palestinian interest groups. Perhaps there's a good reason for this…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why not? This implies the creation of an infrastructure for the total surveillance of citizens, unlike age verification by physical businesses.
Knowing if the user's over 18 doesn't imply total surveillance, it only implies a user profile setting that says if they're over 18.
There is also the problem of mission creep. Once the infrastructure is in place, to control access to age-restricted content, other services might become out of reach. In particular, anonymous usage of online forums might no longer be possible.
Removed! Anyone got a copy of the original text?
You're not missing anything. It's just an AI generated summary of the original GitHub link https://github.com/upper-up/meta-lobbying-and-other-findings
I found the original article much easier to read anyways
Earlier quoted context omitted.
QWACs exist to provide a more stringent and user-accessible way to assert a website's identity, mostly to foil phishing and other exploits that regular certificate systems don't address well. Where does this cross into censorship at all?
When the government decides not to issue certificates to websites they don't like.