461–470 of 579 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
two separate cases.
Both articles cite a New Mexico case about the Unfair Practices act. Though I don't see a link to a specific case in either article, I don't think they're separate cases.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/25/technology/social-media-t...
on this post
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have enough lawyers that they can easily find another criminal avenue that doesn't step on the previous path.
Your opinion isn't particularly important in our legal system. Since your comment expresses a preconceived notion of the accused's guilt. It would disqualify you from a jury, and undermine your legitimacy in a judicial, defensive and even prosecutorial function. Though I respect it as a human opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've quoted out of context, eliminating: "The state has no business listening in on private citizen's communication." So yes, the concept of privacy is so primary that the it requires an entire legal framework for the state to listen in. -- In terms of the rest of your post, even though you quoted out of context, what you're saying is fine. But the people noticing things on the street, have nothing to do with those…
" You really don't want corporations to have algorithms which mean they have to report trigger words to the police or state" They already do. The entire financial system, all of social media, and many organizations past a certain size. I did not quote out of context - the commenter was missattributing context.
And some things are reported, others are not, point being, yes E2E isn't reported for obvious reasons. Loads of stuff isn't reported on social media; in fact, that's the absurd complaint against Meta!
And regardless of what is done now, that doesn't mean we want it. I didn't say it is or isn't done, I said "You really don't" want that. The more encroachment in that realm, the less free a people are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When Mom and Dad buy the device for their kid, just punch in the kid's age before handing it to them. Doing this doesn't accomplish anything in terms of protecting children from the harms of the internet. In fact it feeds your child's age to marketers and child predators. Every website will get to decide how to handle the age data our devices will now be supplying them. In the case of facebook, it's not as if they…
> The law California (and other states) passed doesn't define what content has to be blocked for which ages No, but it's a framework that would allow other laws to do so. Because... > it's not as if they had no idea the children endlessly posting selfies and posting "six seven" on their service weren't adults. ...you can make statements like that which sound like common sense, but it would be incredibly hard to regul…
I worry that's it's the start of a lot of "other laws" which will limit the ability for children and adult's to maintain even pseudo-anonymity online.
> The law has to provide (guarantee) a way for them to know in order to actually require them to take action based on it.
That sounds like an argument for even stronger proof of age than what the law calls for. Online platforms should do what nearly every other publisher does and provide a rating for their content. Netflix doesn't need to know how old I am. They provide a "kids" profile populated with their own curated content if that's the kind of thing I want and for everything else they provide ratings (PG, R, TV-14, etc.) It would be easy enough to push a rating to clients, they could even use HTTP headers for it. If lawmakers really felt the need to interfere in all of our operating systems it could require some means to collect and act on those ratings.
> It'd be difficult to compel businesses to provide services to audiences they don't want to.
This is the norm. It's what every business does apart from those who demand ID for every transaction. It's useful for businesses to give people their opinion or intention for who they're targeting, but it's entirely inappropriate for every website and online service to force their opinion onto others. They aren't qualified to know what's appropriate for a specific child and platforms like facebook have repeatedly demonstrated that they absolutely can't be trusted to put our children's interests above their own.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not how the legal framework in society works. Victims are compensated. The business pays. The precedent of wrongdoing is specifically established which means that further infringements can be quickly resolved. The legal system does not seek to destroy the business, or individual criminal. Instead it wants them to be able to continue doing their other non-criminal stuff.
8 Xboxes is a pretty small compensation for a sexual abuse case.
Maybe I'm just getting old and cynical but, while I think current social media is bad for children, I'm very suspicious of the current international agreement that it's time to take action, especially with all the ID verification coming from multiple avenues
> I'm very suspicious of the current international agreement that it's time to take action Especially since, when you look at the behavior of younger people, they're way more careful about social media than millennials were. My teenage child an their friends keep all of their conversations in a massive but private group chat. Any social media consumed by them, is basically 'read only'. They don't post online, none of…
Absolutely are a lot of gen z who avoid social media, but to pretend most are privately hunkered away is completely ignorant of today's social media usage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would lying about having E2EE be securities (as in stock market) fraud? Would that make any lie ever told by a corporation equate to stock market fraud?
Yes! As Matt Levine says, “everything is securities fraud”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand the concern but then to make this available for adults you now have to provide proof of age to companies, which opens up another can of privacy worms.
Theoretically we don't actually need proof of age. Websites need to know when the user is attempting to create an account or log in from a child-locked device. Parents need to make sure their kids only have child-locked devices. Vendors need to make sure they don't sell unlocked devices to kids.
Given how current parental controls work, kids are not getting access if their device is under parental control (the default for open web access is off). So Facebook still won't see any child-locked devices, even before this ruling. My guess is that this ruling applies to parents who aren't making sure their kids get access only via child locked devices.
Many will cheer for any case that hurts Meta without reading the details, but we should be aware that these cases are one of the key reasons why companies are backtracking from features like end-to-end encryption: > The New Mexico case also raised concerns that allowing teens to use end-to-end encryption on Instagram chats — a privacy measure that blocks anyone other than sender and receiver from viewing a conversati…
The correct nuance here is... * Classifying accounts as child accounts (moderated by a parent) * Allowing account moderators to review content in the account that is moderated (including assigning other moderation tools of choice) In call cases transparency and enabling consumer choice should be the core focus. Additionally: by default treat everyone online as an adult. Parents that allow their kids online like that…
> Surveys by Britain’s tech regulator, Ofcom, find that among children aged 10-12, over half use Snapchat, more than 60% TikTok and more than 70% WhatsApp. All three apps have a notional minimum age of 13: https://archive.ph/y3pQO
Once you get the classification correct — and AI cannot it do this — only via community ombudsman/age verifiers, in a privacy first way*, the app stores can easily tell the app devs what accounts are sensitive and filtering should be much more effective.
*Basically once your age is verified by a real human for your device(using device local encryption to verify biometrics) you are set. No kid should be able to bypass and install apps it on devices that their parents hand to them. There will always be black market devices with these apps, but there are ways of beating those to be very minimal by existing tech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The function of a system is what it does. Meta knowingly hurt children for profit. It worked. If we are in any way serious about technocratic solutions to social problems, this would be untenable, the company would be bankrupted, a new company would fill its place. No tears would be cried, nothing of value would be lost, half of hacker news would be chafing at the bit to build a better alternative for the newly opene…
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/come-on-obviously-the-purpo...