Welcome to Яussia.
EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"
261–270 of 467 posts
Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"
#262The China gap is going to zero, yet slave masses still sleep...
Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"
#263Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Oops, someone forgot languages evolve! Otherwise you must use Turkye, one of the Middle English spellings. The United Nations agreed to their request, it’s a minor thing to let people spell it the way that was requested. You don’t have to, but others can. Languages evolve.
[flagged]
Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"
#264Earlier quoted context omitted.
Age verification isn't the problem. It is just a tool for censorship. It's censorship which is the problem.
So to put the bricks together: Age verification is worse than allowing children to watch pornography, because age verification is censorship. I hope you can see how that argument is not compelling.
That argument is hugely compelling.
Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"
#265Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are right, it is possible to do age verification in a privacy-preserving manner. Feels like most people being very vocal against the idea don't know about that. At least most complaints I see here are assuming that age verification means tracking. Too bad, there could be interesting discussions about privacy-preserving age verification, if people just bothered getting informed before complaining.
We already have privacy preserving age verification: the website asks for your age (or just whether you're over 18), and lets you through. There's no issuing party to collude with to deanonymize users, no hard requirement on owning a Google- or Apple-vetted smartphone, and generally no way to identify me besides my choice of random numbers. You move past that, and people rightfully tell you that your scheme outright…
> You move past that, and people rightfully tell you that your scheme outright breaks privacy, or that it makes too many assumptions or is too complex to easily verify it actually preserves privacy.
Encryption is too complex to easily verify it actually protects your data. Still you use it all the time without even knowing it.
Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"
#266Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It’s entirely reasonable to have some preventative measures but acknowledging that there are ways to circumvent them and accept that as a reasonable conclusion. I totally agree. That can be used as an argument in favour of age verification, though.
Sure, if you ignore the other part of my comment where I said parents should be responsible for the upbringing of their own children.
I disagree with that part.
Parents cannot be responsible for what other children can do.
If all the children use social media, good luck preventing your kid from participating. "It's okay, just be completely disconnected from everything they share between each other, it's not important to socialise, you can make friends when you are old".
The problem with social media is that it's not okay for one kid to be disconnected. What we want as a society is to prevent them all, so that they are all in the same situation.
Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"
#267Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Currently you can often identify people, sure, but there's hassle involved You vastly underestimate the current state of surveillance capitalism. > You could also look at who is heavily lobbying for this, you'll find it is fascist tech oligarchs from the US. Go in the street, and ask a bunch of random people: "If there was a way to prevent kids from accessing stuff that is bad for them, and it had no downsides. Wou…
Well why did you say to them it doesnt have downsides? It has downsides and a very essential one like privacy.
> Well why did you say to them it doesnt have downsides? It has downsides and a very essential one like privacy.
It is possible to do age verification in a privacy-preserving manner. So... you're wrong here.
Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"
#268Earlier quoted context omitted.
You always hear the argument "protecting the children", because anyone oposing the regulation/laws can be labeled at best "exposing the children to danger" or at worst "pedofile". So as a consequence at best the oponents of such regulation/laws should not be listened to, or at worst they should be put into prison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
The excuse has to be something nobody can appear to be supporting (pedophilia, terrorism, nazis, etc.). It's not only an appeal to emotion, it's also a false dichotomy, a loaded question, guilt by association. Others look at this recipe and can't help but notice its effectiveness. Eventually nobody is beneath pulling this kind of logic, even if they were the ones crucifying it just a few short years ago. The weaker t…
> The excuse has to be something nobody can appear to be supporting (pedophilia, terrorism, nazis, etc.).
If only being associated with pedophilia and nazis was still something that had to be avoided because it would be career ending otherwise.
Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you calling me a corporate apologist? For one, corporations want less regulation. "Being a hacker" does not mean "being stuck in the 80s", IMO. If TooBigTech cryptographically controls everything, it becomes harder to hack. Are you aware that the biggest restriction against jailbreaking stuff is that it was made super illegal... because it helps corporations?
> Are you calling me a corporate apologist? For one, corporations want less regulation Ah yes, so that's why Meta et al are the main ones behind pushes for more "think of the children" ID verification/attestation regulations.
Is that how it went? My feeling is that more and more people are realising that social media are terrible for the children (well, for everybody, but children we want to protect). Therefore more governments are looking into preventing children from accessing social media. Therefore social media companies are trying to lobby for whatever is better for them.
For Meta, it's better to have age verification than to downright ban social media.
Re: EU Parliamentary Research Service calls VPNs "a loophole that needs closing"
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it is possible to "pretend that they want something reasonable", it means that there is something reasonable somewhere. Maybe some want more control, but most certainly not everybody. > so that pervasive monitoring If you haven't gotten the memo, pervasive monitoring already exists. To sell ads. > or permission and/or deanonymization is normalized For age verification, it's possible to do it in a privacy-preservin…
what i personally don't like about privacy-preserving age verification is the single subsequent law change that would criminalize individuals for "improperly" doing age verification. it'd be so easy to do, and would immediately make obsolete any measures taken digitally to preserve privacy
How would an individual improperly do age verification?