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

Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

news.dyne.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 486 posts

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#151

Post by txrx0000 »

We have to separate child protection from Internet control so that the "protect the kids" narrative loses its potency. So here's a counter-narrative: we can implement digital child protection without Internet-wide access control, and it requires just 3 simple features that can be implemented in less than a week. There's no need to introduce new laws at all. This could just be done tomorrow if there is genuine will to protect the kids.

1) If you're a platform like Discord or Gmail, give users the option to create an extra password lock for modifying their profile information (which includes age). This could also be implemented at the app level rather than at the account level. Parents can take their child's phone, set the age, and set these passwords for each of their child's apps/accounts.

2) If you're an OS developer, add a password-protected toggle in the OS settings that gates app installation/updates, like sudo on Linux. Parents can take their child's phone and set this password, so they can control what software runs on their child's phone. If we have this, then 1) isn't even strictly needed because parents can simply choose to only install apps that are suitable for their child.

3) If you're a device manufacturer, you should open-source your drivers and firmware and give device owners the ability to lock/unlock the bootloader at will with a custom password. Parents should be able to develop and install an open-source child-friendly OS. Companies like Apple and Samsung have worked against this for years by introducing all kinds of artificial roadblocks to developing an alternative OS for their hardware.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#152

Post by scotty79 »

echelon wrote: post #145
wakawaka28 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about gutting moderation. They want you to dox yourself to get online. It's a pro-censorship authoritarian-friendly move. I don't believe the narrative that Meta is behind it all either. If they are, they are probably serving someone else.

Here are just some of the things you can do with tracking: - Dox, coerce, blackmail, and ruin political candidates, powerful CEOs, and wealthy people. If they watch a category of porn that is embarrassing or have an affair, suddenly you have leverage against them. You can parlay that to accomplish lots of things. - Make it impossible to talk about certain things and eventually eliminate those things. Porn today, abor…

> ruin political candidates, powerful CEOs, and wealthy people

This is mostly fantasy propagated by works of fiction. In the real world release of any evidence of sins has practically zero impact on the wealthy people and when it very occasionally does have an impact it just happens in cases of people who weren't wealthy enough for the circumstances.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#153

Post by nssnsjsjsjs »

Velocifyer wrote: post #119
jjk166 wrote: post #24

The people pushing for "child protection" went to the island. It's not even about control, it's about shifting liability away from platforms so they can further gut moderation, reducing their expenses and getting away with doing nothing to stop the actual bad actors.

Which island?

Epstein's most likely.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#154

Post by scotty79 »

gruez wrote: post #110
bigfatkitten wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has been on Labor’s agenda, in various forms for many years. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-09/government-abandons-p...

That doesn't change the conclusion, unless you're trying to imply the entire party is full of pedophiles.

At this point the burden of proof is on the party. Benefit of the doubt has ran out.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#155

Post by poly2it »

abcde666777 wrote: post #90
tangotaylor wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their real goals are even worse than that. Some of these groups have admitted they're also about suppressing LGBT+ content. As the Heritage Foundation admitted: > Keeping trans content away from children is protecting kids. No child should be conditioned to think that permanently damaging their healthy bodies to try to become something they can never be is even remotely a good idea. https://arstechnica.com/tech-polic…

I mean, I don't disagree with the sentiment of keeping trans ideology away from kids, in exactly the way I'd want to protect them from any kind of religious indoctrination.

Gender dysphoria can be medically studied, is not an ideology and is not a disorder. Hope this clears things up.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#156

Post by gruez »

tangotaylor wrote: post #44
jmcgough wrote: post #4

What's sad is how effective this is. Religious groups figured out a few years ago that anti-porn groups accomplish nothing, but if you start an anti-trafficking group you can restrict porn access.

Their real goals are even worse than that. Some of these groups have admitted they're also about suppressing LGBT+ content. As the Heritage Foundation admitted: > Keeping trans content away from children is protecting kids. No child should be conditioned to think that permanently damaging their healthy bodies to try to become something they can never be is even remotely a good idea. https://arstechnica.com/tech-polic…

>they're also about suppressing LGBT+ content

>> Keeping trans content away [...]

Isn't it a stretch to round off "trans content" to "LGBT+ content"? I mean, from a pure logical point of view the statement is correct, because "trans content" is a subset of "LGBT+ content", and therefore "suppressing LGBT+ content" is technically correct, but it's at least misleading. The left's version of this would be something like "twitter is suppressing anti-immigration content!", and the actual example is some alt-right commenter saying that immigrants should be lynched. Immigrants being lynched is certainly an subset of "anti-immigration", but it's still misleading.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#157

Post by amatecha »

hei-lima wrote: post #93
deadbabe wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What did it affect in your life? Ultimately something with affect a kid’s life.

I mean... access to adult content at that age is really, really bad. It really messed up my brain. Gore videos, chatting with adults, etc. But I learned many good things, too. It's a double-edged sword.

For me, it didn't mess up my brain at all, it showed me a much broader range of what humanity really is, which is exactly what I wanted to understand at that time. I understood the depravity humans will exact upon others, or those they see as lesser (such as the treatment of animals, or prisoners, "the enemy" whoever/whatever that may be). I also saw unfiltered sharing of valuable knowledge, science, tech stuff, software, games, music, culture...

The uncensored internet taught me more than I could ever have been taught in school, and I'll be forever grateful for that. It didn't take me long to understand that I could generally hate no ethnicity or people or country, and the people who do are manipulated by their government or other powerful figures in their life (or disproportionately swayed by experiences in their life). Humans are pretty much all the same, we all have far far more in common than we do differences. I have a stronger perspective of this than my immediate ancestors (demonstrated over and over throughout my life) and I do credit my exposure to the open internet for a huge amount of that.

There is one huge and problematic difference now, though: the uncensored internet of the 90's is nothing like the disinformation-saturated internet of today.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#158

Post by rdevilla »

echelon wrote: post #145
wakawaka28 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about gutting moderation. They want you to dox yourself to get online. It's a pro-censorship authoritarian-friendly move. I don't believe the narrative that Meta is behind it all either. If they are, they are probably serving someone else.

Here are just some of the things you can do with tracking: - Dox, coerce, blackmail, and ruin political candidates, powerful CEOs, and wealthy people. If they watch a category of porn that is embarrassing or have an affair, suddenly you have leverage against them. You can parlay that to accomplish lots of things. - Make it impossible to talk about certain things and eventually eliminate those things. Porn today, abor…

Good luck, man. Nobody cared in 2012, and even less people care now. The west is lost. 1984 is already here.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#159

Post by scotty79 »

foltik wrote: post #97
Tarq0n wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't like the "those in power" framing because it implies that they all participated and that such a homogenous group even exists.

In the USA it literally is two homogenous groups though? One of which is majorly complicit in covering up the files, against their constituents’ wishes.

I wouldn't even call them two groups. It's just one group ostensibly and publicly split in half, but it's still one group that intermingles behind the courtains.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#160

Post by cdrnsf »

The people pushing these bills are the same that are looking to ban library books. They’re either bad or ineffective parents (or both). Instead of having a healthy relationship and discussion with their kids they’d rather impose their own regressive ideas by way of legislation on everyone.
Post reply on HN