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

251–260 of 486 posts

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#251

Post by gzread »

txrx0000 wrote: post #238
gzread wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would the content rating be per HTML element and the browser would delete the elements with bad ratings from the DOM, or how would it work?

I'd imagine it works like movie ratings. You don't filter movies from scene to scene. There's just one rating for an entire site or app. But yeah I get the point, API based solutions are complicated and brittle because they require all services to implement it properly. In contrast a user-set app installation password in the OS settings is more effective and easier to implement.

If a chronological social media feed contains both R and G rated elements how would you implement that?

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#252

Post by gzread »

chinabot wrote: post #248
gzread wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN is mostly for people with entrepreneur spirit, not hacker spirit - entrepreneurs who want to be known as hackers. The difference is vast.

big opportunity here for therealhackernews.com

Not really. You couldn't get the network effect. Real hackers hang out on IRC.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#253

Post by GeorgeWBasic »

theshackleford wrote: post #100
gruez wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>we simply can't pretend that there isn't rampant CSA by those in power, because we've had proof of it despite their best efforts What's "rampant"? The news coverage provides no shortage of people, but ringing off 100 (or whatever) people that are in the files doesn't say much, even if we make the questionable assumption that inclusion in files implies guilt. I'm sure that everyone would prefer the amount of pedophil…

> You conveniently omit the fact that they broke up 5 years before he was first convicted. And? It doesn’t change the reality of the original statement. The president of the United States was friends with the alleged ring leader of a large pedophile network.

And more importantly, resisted releasing the files as hard as he could.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#254

Post by mindslight »

simonask wrote: post #239
mindslight wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sticking our head in the sand crying "git gud" while millions get scammed out of their life savings... The solution is called a durable power of attorney and then moving significant assets to different financial institutions with e-statements. Or the heavyweight option is a living trust. Mandatory identity verification or locking down software really have no bearing on this problem. Scammers leverage generic apps i…

Perhaps the first step is to actually listen to the frustrated people. Maybe at least some of their problems are real.

I've definitely listened to the frustrated people, as well as even sharing many of their frustrations. And their (our) problems are definitely real. I still stand by what I said.

To show you that I'm maybe not just blowing smoke out of my ass on this topic, here is me personally dealing with a scammer-adjacent problem: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47125550

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#255

Post by cedws »

poly2it wrote: post #148
hei-lima wrote: post #71

I was a kid with unrestricted, unsupervised internet access, and it definitely affected many things in my life. If I happen to have a child in the future, they won't go through that. The Brazilian government passed a law requiring age verification for every site categorized as 16+. It can't be self-declared, so companies usually resort to facial scans and ID verification. I DO NOT want photos of our Brazilian childre…

I guess the opposite case might not be as interesting to many, but I achieved basically unfiltered internet access as a child, and it has been immensely helpful for me as a person. Everything I am today -- a programmer, technically literate, a founder of a startup with momentum, I am because I had freedom and autonomy as a child (which was not granted to me, rather achieved by me). Many of the people of my age who gr…

I think the same for me, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t be in my career if I had been restricted to an hour a day on a filtered iPad.

But I also think the internet has more potential for harm now. Widespread social media makes it easy for predators. YouTube actively incentivises content creators to produce brain numbing shit instead of the more amateur and educational content I was exposed to. Instagram creates vicious dopamine hooks that children have no mental defense against.

Also sorry to sound egotistical but I think I was an outlier that drifted into doing educational things, many or most kids will spend every moment they get just playing video games.

That being said, I’m in favour of parents doing the parenting, not the government.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#256

Post by nandomrumber »

gzread wrote: post #217
closeparen wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no world where a totalitarian government’s law enforcement ambitions on some object-level question are thwarted by the same government’s enforcement of privacy law. Countries with GDPR that are thinking of rounding up and kicking out the refugees know perfectly well who and where the refugees are.

The law is irrelevant in that case but the actual situation is not. If people have never put their personal information online, the bad government can't get it from online. A new phone coming out during the time of the bad government, that says the government requires you to enter your name and address, will not be received as well as if it comes out during good government times.

> will not be received as well as if it comes out during good government times.

What bearing does that have on anything.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#257

Post by chinabot »

NeutralCrane wrote: post #96
bilekas wrote: post #9

It's too late and never about children, simply deeper forms of data harvesting and surveillance. What makes me extremely sad and concerned is that more recent generations simply have no idea or expectation of privacy online anymore. There will never be more of a fight against all this Orwellian behavior.

I live in an area that has been declared among the safest in America. Two months ago a 17 year old girl from our city disappeared. Turns out she had been being groomed for a year over Discord and in Roblox by a 39 year old the next state over. He eventually convinced her to let him pick her up, after which he filmed himself having sex with her, killed her, and then dismembered her body. He apparently was grooming oth…

If the government knew every single user on the internet's name, address, phone number and what they had for breakfast, it would not stop monsters like this, or even slow them down.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#259

Post by fc417fc802 »

simonask wrote: post #136
yalogin wrote: post #102

The big issue isn’t even age verification. The end goal is verified user identification. They want every transaction on the internet to be associated with the exact identity of the user. No more anonymity. In the short term the way it will be implemented is this — age verification will not be a binary, it will also want to push your DoB, name, location etc and they say “the choice is with the user” but the default wi…

I truly share your concerns, especially as someone belonging to a minority. At the same time, we have to be real: Online anonymity has significant, real-world drawbacks. I don't think it's reasonable to keep dreaming of the 90s or 00s when the internet was a comparatively innocent place. As society is more and more digitized, the stakes become much, much higher. An information leak 30 years ago was bad, but it had a…

> Online anonymity has significant, real-world drawbacks.

Do please be specific about those. Provide concrete examples and justify for the class why those involved couldn't have voluntarily done away with anonymity for that particular interaction.

Hypothetically someone can browse a tor site in one tab, post on 4chan in a second one, all while accessing online banking in a third. The bank can use hardware backed 2FA to verify you. Where's the issue here?

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#260

Post by abcde666777 »

simonask wrote: post #149
abcde666777 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The idea that even a single person in the world is trans because of "trans ideology" is what's absolutely insane here. If you think you could be convinced by anyone that you're not living out your true gender identity, I have news for you... Most people, children too, are not having those thoughts unless there's actually a journey waiting for them.

The idea that none of them are trans for that reason is what sound insane to me. Are you not aware of how much humans absorb from the messaging in their environment?

And FYI, I've seen it happen with one of my own family members - someone who so far as I can tell isn't 'a man in a woman's body', but rather just someone who never fit in and was always a bit of a social outcast.

Their struggle was never their bloody gender, it was their struggle to find a way to fit into the world.

And that's what a lot of transitioning actually is. Because human psychology works such that when we're not fitting in, when we feel insecure and out of place, a subconscious pressure emerges to reinvent ourselves due to the current formula not working for us.

It's offensive to me that you'd make such claims whilst clearly so naive about it.

Post reply on HN