Live data from Hacker News

Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms

cnn.com

561–570 of 579 posts

Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms

#561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s very hard to control kids internet access. Impossible really. Even if you do it fine at home, once they go to school it’s whatever policies the school has. Most require laptops and provide internet access.

That's objectively not true. You can just use your own DNS server and lock the settings app either through android mdm policies or an locker app.

No that doesn’t work - tried it.

Google is basically its own private internet. It caches content so you can access all sorts of terrible stuff just from Google.com (and its related domains).

But if you cut Google you cut Google Classroom - which is required.

And Google Classroom itself has many workarounds.

This isn’t just a Google problem. The centralization of the Internet around a few mixed content domains really kills conventional filtering.

Paradoxically, there are so many centralized domains that even if you can block one, it’s just a game of whack a mole.

Eventually you just block the whole internet - and then what’s the point? Take away the 20 most popular mixed content platforms, messaging, etc, and you’re effectively blocking the whole internet.

The kids can’t contact their friends, watch educational videos, or any other legitimate use.

Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms

#562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, but it's a framework that would allow other laws to do so. 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 call…

> Online platforms should do what nearly every other publisher does and provide a rating for their content. That's fine, but it needs an enforcement mechanism, or we're back to where we currently are ("click here if you're 18"). > 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…

> That's fine, but it needs an enforcement mechanism, or we're back to where we currently are ("click here if you're 18").

It'd be dead simple to tell if a website returned a rating or not, just pull the http headers and if it isn't there fine them or warn them first and then fine them or whatever. You could even have browsers just refuse to load pages that didn't include a rating header in their response and enforcement would take care of itself.

> it does still run into questions about how you handle websites with content from multiple brackets

I think it'd be up to reddit (or mods) to either set ratings for each subreddit and moderate accordingly. Pages at /r/MsRachel/ would return a different rating than /r/watchpeopledie.

Same with twitter I guess. Every user can specify if their account was intended for children or not. Elmo's twitter account would be shown to everyone, while accounts that don't intend to self-censor wouldn't.

> what's the UX supposed to look like if a child attempts to access adult content on one of those platforms?

browsers that detect a rating higher than authorized can just throw up an about:blocked page telling kids to talk to their parents for access to the page they wanted or click the back button to return to the page they were on.

The platforms would see that a page was requested, and they'd transmit the data to the client along with the rating header. They wouldn't get any signal that the page was blocked. It'd look no different on the server side than it would if the user had clicked a link and then closed their browser/tab/window. If you wanted to be sneaky, you could actually have the browser load the page in the background to avoid platforms guessing between a closed tab and blocked access.

This not only solves the privacy/safety concerns, most importantly it puts parents back in control of what their children can access. Parents would even be able to run software that would log the times/urls of blocked pages, and let them override a rating based on URL or domain. Parents could block roblox.com even though it returns a "for kids" header if they didn't want their 8 year old playing in an ad infested online pedo playground but still allow their mature 10 year old access to plannedparenthood.org even though it has an adult rating without exposing them to adult everything else on the internet.

There are countless better alternatives to what facebook wants us all to be subjected to, but facebook couldn't care less about our interests they are only looking out for themselves and lawmakers are happy to take their bribes and eager to erode our ability to browse without an ID attached to our every action.

Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms

#563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> No, but it's a framework that would allow other laws to do so. 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 call…

> Online platforms should do what nearly every other publisher does and provide a rating for their content.

That only happens to "publications" of particular forms where state regulation has mandated it, or enough noise was made about state regulation mandating it (or simply censoring content) was made that the industry adopted a rating system as a way to discourage that (and in the latter case, there are always plenty of publishers that don't make use of the industry rating system, either at all or at least for selected publications in the field to which the ratings nominally apply.)

> 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

Netflix does not provide ratings for "everything else". Most of what they carry has either MPAA or TV Parental Guidelines ratings, and if it has such ratings they provide them. But they have content which does not have such ratings, which is simply noted as not being rated. (Of course, if "not rated" as an option is a valid to comply with your "you must have ratings in an HTTP header" law HTTP header, then it is trivial to comply and provide the "not rated" header for every piece of content, but this doesn't actually achieve anything.)

Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms

#564
post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you asking lawmaker questions of people on HN? What kind of answer are you expecting? Just because I don't know how to write a law that can prevent it doesn't mean that I can't recognize an actual issue when I see it.

Because people like you then go and vote for politicians without actually understanding what they are proposing. It's all Trump style "believe me I know how to fix it" and you will vote for the person that pushes your buttons regardless of whether they have a plausible solution or not.

So everyone should go to law school?

Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms

#565
post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it so important that kids have access to the internet anyway that we're willing to sacrifice both our privacy and freedom of speech rights for it when we already know it's damaging their mental health? We don't need all this privacy invasion if we just didn't give kids a smartphone with a data plan.

School basically requires them to have one. So.

On school computers maybe, but not on their smartphones. If schools actually require kids to have their own computer with internet then that's quite simple to fix by enacting new rules. That's important for access to education as well for kids from low-income families.

Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms

#566
post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Centralized organizations with proprietary software can never offer meaningful end to end encryption because they can just ship an app update to disable or backdoor it at any time. It is better for them to be forced to turn off the security theater so people that need actual privacy can research alternatives.

well, name an example of a thing that can never change then. "research alternatives" meaning what exactly? You think open source is somehow not susceptible to the same issue, plus all of the malicious updates?

Security focused FOSS does signed commits, signed reviews, full source bootstrapping, and reproducible builds.

Proprietary software solutions are unable come close to that level of accountability.

Not all published source code is secure but all secure software has published source code.

Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms

#567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t agree we should Treat everyone as an adult by default online. We wouldn’t do that in any other circumstances.

And the only reason it is permissible to presumptively treat people as underage until proven otherwise in the physical world is that there isn't a constellation of intermediaries collecting all your habits and preferences when you buy porno magazines or alcohol in person. Why is the answer people seem to arrive at being "mandatory collection of blackmail material that will ruin careers and relationships" when it come…

Why do people feel they can behave in a way that can be blackmailed.

Just behave

Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms

#568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a widely shared opinion.

Since when was DJ David Guetta a reactionary? (Yes, I read your comment history. I was tryinna figure out if you were in fact that guy and saw a bunch of conspiracy-ass right wing misinformation.)

Im not the guy obviously.

Its not reactionary to say you dont want the state to interfere too much in your child éducation.

Whether you are left or right its fine as long as the state aligns with you. But if you open an history book, you will sée it VERY OFTEN happened that states get crazy / ideological or just plain eugénist / liberticide.

Its dangerous to give too much power to the state

Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms

#569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a widely shared opinion.

Is that definitely not a widely shared opinion? I feel like I can think of lots of situations where society puts in to protect children rather than leaving it to the parents (age ratings on films and games, YouTube Kids, regulations around advertising to children, the whole concept of school, reduced speed limits around playgrounds to give a few examples off the cuff).

It's fine as long as the state aligns with you and is generally sane.

History shows its not necessary always the case.

Re: Jury finds Meta liable in case over child sexual exploitation on its platforms

#570
post #526

what is so hard to teach children not to e-messaging with strangers just like not to snail-mailing with strangers? also the parents should be able to join the conversation just like in the analogue world. call me backward but i dont want to outsource parenting neither to government nor to remote businneses.

In analogue world, shops and pubs are responsible for not giving kids alcohol, porn, gambling access and whatever else. In an analogue world, parents are not expected to do perfect surveillance every minute of kids lives. Also, parents have in fact full control of snail mail.

does the post office and postmen are responsible to police kids' snail mails?

where does this "perfect surveillance" idea come from? i teach my children how to get acquaintances; first in more direct, more supervised way, later let them more and more self-driving. like anything else in parenting, eg. bicycle. but i guess urbanization diminished that skill as well. no need for "perfect surveillance"; no parent wants it. it's not only easier to pass on basic principles, but also makes supervision gradually less neccessary over time.

> parents have in fact full control of snail mail

what? children using e-messaging can just as do snail mails completely on their own (of course they don´t but it's not about going back to analogue world but to form the digital world on the same principles). well, i can imagine in highly urbanized environment, where children are forbidden to go outside, but locked down together with family even making them more isolated, and trusting them "to the phone" to cope with the daily frustration, may easily lead to a situation where phone usage and e-messaging is completely unattended and undisclosed by and with parents, while posting an evelope is at a level of expertise for them. parents ability to be in control of e-messaging is as much as of snail mails.

Post reply on HN