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

Ageless Linux – Software for humans of indeterminate age

agelesslinux.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

661–670 of 671 posts

Re: Ageless Linux – Software for humans of indeterminate age

#661

Post by charcircuit »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #611
charcircuit wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Civil disobedience is wrong. Society has established ways to change the rules. Breaking rules instead of changing them is disrespectful to the society that has been built. Just because you quote someone, that does not mean what they are advocating for is just.

Society is wrong. It allows trillion dollar corporations to simply buy the laws that they want to impose on you while conveniently leaving loophopes for themselves. Why the hell would you want to "change" this rigged system through the system? That's mind boggling. There is absolutely no reason at all to even so much as recognize these laws as legitimate. Society can go to hell if it thinks otherwise. They were suppo…

>Why the hell would you want to "change" this rigged system through the system? That's mind boggling.

The current system allows for changing it if you have enough support. People who try to go around it because they do not have the needed support. If society was truly wrong we could easily dissolve it.

Re: Ageless Linux – Software for humans of indeterminate age

#662

Post by karlgkk »

PeterStuer wrote: post #512
karlgkk wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Obviously, it's not for protecting children Frankly, this is false. There's a lot of well intentioned people writing these laws and pushing for them. > Obviously, it's a technocratic trojan horse for increasing surveillance capabilities on digital systems. However, it is also this. And that's not a tradeoff I think we should make as a society.

"well intentioned people" I believe the standard nomenclature is "useful idiots".

> I believe the standard nomenclature is "useful idiots".

I don't. This snark really lets you downplay them and willingly ignore people who are concerned about a real problem. And then you'll act surprised when they get traction and you've been laughing the whole time.

I think there is a solution, and it's to prevent companies from offering social features to children. Full stop. No age verification, just make it a "ban on sight" thing.

Re: Ageless Linux – Software for humans of indeterminate age

#663

Post by widowlark »

gzread wrote: post #547
widowlark wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

having children is a choice. Therefore, the difficulty of that choice is not really a factor in our lawmaking nor should it be.

If we make laws that make it impractical to have children, I'm sure this will have no consequences for the country's future.

no one said anything about making laws making it more difficult to have children - and laws like age requirements don't make it easier, either

Re: Ageless Linux – Software for humans of indeterminate age

#664

Post by jmcgough »

jmcgough wrote: post #158
helterskelter wrote: post #105

Meta is why all these laws are happening. Please reach out to media outlets with this investigation so it can get more coverage. People need to be talking about this. https://tboteproject.com/

I'm fairly skeptical of the findings, as the majority of the research and writing was done by Claude Opus. I'd be more likely to believe groups like AIPAC are behind this - they have poured a lot of money into online censorship legislation.

Okay, I've learned a bit more about this - the motivation is COPPA fines, which cost Youtube $170M in 2019, Epic Games $275M in 2022, etc.

Meta is in the middle of a huge multi-state lawsuit (33 attorney generals), so they have a lot of incentive to do this.

Re: Ageless Linux – Software for humans of indeterminate age

#666

Post by Minor49er »

gzread wrote: post #550
Minor49er wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parents already have full control over this because they make the choice to give their kids a device in the first place

Do they have full control or do they only have a choice between two extreme options?

They have full control. If you're talking about dangerous outcomes, those are reasons why parents don't give their kids things like knives or chemicals. Internet-connected devices should also warrant the same kind of caution

Re: Ageless Linux – Software for humans of indeterminate age

#667

Post by matheusmoreira »

charcircuit wrote: post #660
matheusmoreira wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course. That would be too obvious. They write checks to lobbyists instead.

Lobbyists can't send a check to the government to buy a law either.

Lobbyists are quite literally people you pay to "influence" the lawmaking process. Through them you can essentially buy whatever laws you want. The exact methods they use are irrelevant, though I wouldn't discount the possibility that some politicians were corrupt enough to get literally bought with literal checks.

Nobody asked for this age verification nonsense. The entire child protection angle is just a way to manufacture outrage and cover up the real nature of this law. This is purely a political move from Meta against Apple and Google. Apple cut off their data via iOS privacy controls, now Meta is striking back.

Meta spent billions on lobbyists, then laws benefiting Meta and hurting its competitors were passed. If this is not evidence that you can buy laws, I don't know what is.

Re: Ageless Linux – Software for humans of indeterminate age

#668

Post by k33n »

dragonwriter wrote: post #544
k33n wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The left wing constantly says “we started letting women work”. Women have worked for thousands of years. The phenomenon of manipulating women into believing working for a corporation is some kind of “higher calling” is relatively new, and it’s been a disaster for the family unit.

> The left wing constantly says “we started letting women work”. I’ve literally never seen anyone on the left (and rarely even the liberal capitalist center-right) say that. I’ve seen people on the hard right, when complaining, use that framing, though. And, look, here its part of a complaint glorifying the defects of the capitalist-patriarchal family and whining that more equal treatment of women in the economic sph…

You’re of course free to pretend to be unaware of embarrassing left wing rhetoric. But the idea that capitalism hurt the family unit doesn’t really square with reality. The first order of Marxism is the explicit destruction of the family unit in favor of “chosen family” and the state.

Re: Ageless Linux – Software for humans of indeterminate age

#669

Post by smsm42 »

gzread wrote: post #552
smsm42 wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or get another source of demographic data and suppress smaller competitors who can't comply with onerous regulation.

I don't see how this regulation is onerous or hard to comply with.

Having age verification in every operating system? I think it is onerous. Imagine you need to update every embedded system because your wise lawmakers made it a crime to run any code that does not include age verification API.

Re: Ageless Linux – Software for humans of indeterminate age

#670

Post by subscribed »

thayne wrote: post #518
subscribed wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a solved problem with a slightly flawed implementation on the end devices. You seem to be arguing that introducing the whole new class of legal frameworks, technical requirements and privacy scandals(1)(2) is somewhat better than fixing the end user software flaws. (1) https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/1-billion-identity-rec... (2) https://proton.me/blog/discord-age-verfication-breach

I am not arguing for that at all! I specifically said that I don't think age verification laws are a solution. But I also don't think it is a solved problem, and think that parents need better tools to help protect their children online.

My apologies then, this is what I understand.

I agree with "parents need better tools", but at the same time by "solved problem" I meant technical measures deployed by the parents.

Not the surveillance and privacy hell for adults.

Post reply on HN