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

191–200 of 486 posts

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#191

Post by txrx0000 »

tzs wrote: post #180
txrx0000 wrote: post #151

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…

So basically parents set the child's age and apps rely on that if they need to know if the user is old enough? That's pretty similar to the California bill. Parents set an age when creating a child's account. The OS provides an API to get the user's age bracket from that, which apps that need to know the age bracket of the user can call.

The California bill gets it backwards. Rather than Internet services taking the user's age and deciding what content to serve, the Internet service or app should broadcast the age rating of its content to the OS (if convenience is desired), like how movie ratings work. The responsibility to decide what content is suitable for a child should rest in the hands of that child's parent, not the state or the corporation.

edit: on second thought, realistically, the API solution is too brittle regardless of which way it goes. Because the API requires every service to implement it and that's not happening, whereas an app installation lock only requires one child-friendly OS to implement it, then parents can choose that OS.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#193

Post by sneak »

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.

What did it do to mess up your brain? What were the lasting negative effects?

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#194

Post by echelon »

scott_paul wrote: post #173
echelon wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I disagree with almost all of your political opinions, and some of your positions I very much hate. But we should be free to have the argument, without the thread of handcuffs or the threat of starvation. Although I use my real name here, sometimes I prefer not to, and that should be allowed. The right to actual real privacy is the same thing as the right to actual real freedom of speech, and we should harm anyone wh…

Regardless of how we (mis?)align on social and economic issues, we should align on dislike of authoritarianism and surveillance. It is our common enemy.

----

Edit: I can't respond to comments anymore (HN rate limits on downvotes and commenting within a single thread), but I also wanted to respond to a sibling comment:

> "your team"

Just because I believe in personal freedom of people from the government does not mean I'm left-wing. I agree with some democratic party policies, and I disagree with some others.

I'm not strictly a libertarian either, because I believe government regulation is necessary to prevent monopolies. But over-regulation is also stifling to progress.

But it shouldn't matter what my politics are. Social and economic issues are orthogonal, and frankly, not as potentially dangerous as this one issue.

Democrats and Republicans alike should be aligned on their disdain of surveillance and authoritarianism. Either party in power (or any power) can use it against the "other side" (or the entire population outside of the oligopoly).

These tools are nothing but evil and designed to control. Once they start sinking their teeth in, they only sink in deeper. Every free person should hate them.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#195

Post by pembrook »

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…

You've accurately described what could happen with right-wing authoritarians in power. You've not described what could happen with left-wing authoritarians in power.

Don't be fooled that your team doesn't have people with the same impulses. Privacy and civil liberties exist to protect us from abuse of authority on all sides.

- "Oh I see John is connected to this account. I really don't like this HN comment and opinion he posted, I find it deeply offensive. Put him on the bank KYC fail list."

- "We'd love to give you this mortgage backed by the US government, but why didn't you post the right flag in support of the new hip thing?"

- "Before you login to your retirement account, how much wealth are you secretly harboring there from this job we think you unfairly got due to your privilege?"

- "If you just let us monitor your activity and the ideas you see, we'll stop you from wrong-think and will create a utopia"

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#197

Post by skybrian »

Devices with child locks turned on really shouldn't have access to everything on the Internet. A simple protocol could let cooperating websites know when child locks are on, so they don't show inappropriate content. Whitelisting or blacklisting could handle the rest.

This doesn't mean every device needs to implement child locks. It also shouldn't affect anyone using unlocked devices at all.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#198

Post by k33n »

We had a good run when the internet was a disruptive force. But mass adoption of anything always leads to where we are. The internet is an established institution. The wild west days are over. If you're looking for that vibe, p2p technology in small corners will be where you can find it.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#199

Post by txrx0000 »

panzi wrote: post #183
txrx0000 wrote: post #151

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…

1) Could be simpler for a start if 2) ensures that no web sites that send a special "over 18" server header are displayed. The header could be more detailed and the parent could select what things are allowed, but for a start make it simple.

Yes, that's even better. Make apps and websites provide an API that broadcasts the age rating of its content, then let the OS attest the apps and websites, not the other way around.

edit: on second thought, there is a trap here. If hardware manufacturers lock down the bootloader, then we're basically still handing over parental authority to governments and companies in the long run. So I think for a start, we just implement a app-install password lock like sudo. It will be easier to implement than the API. The convenience API can come later when hardware manufacturers are banned from locking bootloaders.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#200

Post by jacquesm »

For almost three decades authorities have been wondering how to put this 'free communications' genie back into the bottle without taking the GFW approach. It looks like this time they just might get it.

If you really believe that this is about child protection then you are much too gullible, that was never the main reason. If the authorities really wanted to do something about child protection online they'd spend a fraction of what they are going to spend on this on building out the departments in the various countries that actually work on that problem exclusively. As it is they have more work they can handle, which leaves a lot of cases lying and far more of these perps active than what would otherwise be the case.

So as long as you don't see that you know for a fact that this child protection is not the real reason.

Post reply on HN