401–410 of 1001 posts
Age verification is merely the background task to set up infrastructure for OS to provide many many other signals about who's using the device. Age signals from the OS? Need to provide a channel of information available to applications. Applications already talk to servers with unchecked commonality. Biometric data? Today it unlocks your private key. Tomorrow it's used to verify you are the same person that was used…
In history we had four media revolutions (printing press, radio, television, Internet), each greatly disrupting and reshaping society. This is the fifth (social media and maybe AI).
All these revolutions had the same theme: increased reach of information, increased speed of transmission, increased density (information amount per unit of time), and centralization of information sources. Now we seem to reach the limits of change. No more reach, since our information networks span the entire globe. No more speed, since transmission times are close to how fast we can perceive things. The only things left to change are even more centralization and tighter feedback loops (changing the information based on how the recipient reacts).
Given all that, this media revolution might be the last one, so there is a gold rush among the elites to come out on top.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>it create difficulty for undocumented people to access the web Why is this such a sticking point in US politics? If the "undocumented" people aren't supposed to be in the country in the first place, why should rest of society cater to them? Even if you're against age verification for other reasons, dragging in the immigration angle is just going to alienate the other half of the population who don't share your view…
I don't think it's "catering to them" to avoid passing laws that impose undue burden. For example, if you passed a law requiring a US passport to buy food in the US, and made it so all restaurants and grocery stores are required to check passports before selling food to anyone, I would be opposed to that law, and part of the reason is that I don't think it should be hard for anyone to get food, whether they have a US…
Which is kind of my point. Don't say it's a bad idea because "undocumented people" won't be able to get food, say it's bad because it'll be a pain for everyone.
>"Undocumented" doesn't mean "residing illegally" anyway, it just means "lacking documents", which is a state that many perfectly legitimate US citizens find themselves in. But we should want people who are here illegally and everyone else to be able to use the world wide web and computers regardless of their legal status, just like everyone should be allowed to eat and buy food regardless of their legal status, because that's just basic humanity.
But if you're undocumented, it's already a massive pain to participate in society. You can't get a bank account or any other sort of financial product, can't get a job (Form I-9, or want to do background checks), can't buy real estate (who are you going to register it to?), or even drive (yes, I know some states issue drivers licenses to "undocumented" migrants, but that makes them documented and irrelevant to this discussion). Therefore you're going to have a hard time garnering sympathy from voters. An analogy to this would be all the government forms that require a telephone number or an address. Is it illegal to not have a telephone number or an address? No. Do many people not have a phone number or address? Also yes. Is "let's abolish phone numbers and addresses on government forms" a good issue to run on? No.
Does this surprise anyone, just over a decade ago there was a whistleblower who said the government was spying on its own citizens. The president and half the country called him a traitor. The only way to stop this from happening is half the country refuse to buy any tech that implements OS age verification. That includes working any job that also requires the use of that tech(Basically all jobs). The only thing that…
> The only way to stop this from happening is half the country refuse to buy any tech that implements OS age verification. You have consumer activist brain. Next you're going to suggest that we complain to the manager or start our own government and compete in the marketplace. > The only thing that talks is money No, the only thing that is talking is money. Money wants this. You're busy pretending like you're going t…
And you seem to have been fooled into thinking all victims are powerless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, I certainly prefer if big tech fight each other instead of the user as sometimes there might even come something good out of it - like elevated privacy in Apple's ATT case. Overall, that's the reason anti-trust laws must be applied rigorously, otherwise the normal population has no chance.
Sometimes something good (ATT). Sometimes something bad (this terrible age-verification thing that is a huge barrier to entry for small entrants and comes with massive state surveillance risk). In the end, all the little people are just collateral damage or occasionally they get some collateral benefits from wherever the munitions land.
I'm not sure I fully grok the hypothesis that Meta is materially advantaged by pushing for OS-level age verification. I suppose its another intelligence signal for ad targeting, but they have to believe that at least on platforms like iOS this signal is going to be obfuscated from them. Its hard to believe it'd be any more valuable than the other non-verified heuristics they're already gathering. Arguably they would…
These laws, that attempt to move "age verification" into the OS, 100% absolve Meta (and all the Meta owned "properties") from any legal liability so long as all of Meta's app's follow the law's required "ask the OS for the age signal of the user".
Any "bad stuff" which then gets shown to "underage users" then becomes "not Meta's fault, they followed the legally proscribed way to check the age of the user, and the OS said this user was 'old enough'" and Apple/Google then get to shoulder the liability (and pay out for the class action lawsuits) for failing to provide a proper age signal.
That's the "material advantage" gained by Meta by pushing these laws.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The only way to stop this from happening is half the country refuse to buy any tech that implements OS age verification. You have consumer activist brain. Next you're going to suggest that we complain to the manager or start our own government and compete in the marketplace. > The only thing that talks is money No, the only thing that is talking is money. Money wants this. You're busy pretending like you're going t…
>You're busy pretending like you're going to do a boycott; they're going to boycott you. What do you mean? They still need people purchasing software and hardware. You can argue effectiveness, but if enough people say no, then a boycott is extremely effective. The issue is always on awareness and making people take hard actions.
They don’t need you to purchase hardware or software any more. We’re moving to centralized economic planning, where resources for datacenter buildouts are reserved for people with sufficient political loyalty (and come from tax dollars), and the only products are surveillance and collective punishment.
If you don’t want that to happen, then you’ll need to help build an alternative.
Does this surprise anyone, just over a decade ago there was a whistleblower who said the government was spying on its own citizens. The president and half the country called him a traitor. The only way to stop this from happening is half the country refuse to buy any tech that implements OS age verification. That includes working any job that also requires the use of that tech(Basically all jobs). The only thing that…
> The only way to stop this from happening is half the country refuse to buy any tech that implements OS age verification. You have consumer activist brain. Next you're going to suggest that we complain to the manager or start our own government and compete in the marketplace. > The only thing that talks is money No, the only thing that is talking is money. Money wants this. You're busy pretending like you're going t…
Just because you're a pessimist doesn't mean you have to be coy. :)