91–100 of 175 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great, you do your job as a parent and keep your children away from them while leaving the rest of us free from your envisioned surveillance state.
He says clicking "accept" to tracking cookies and their 762 "partners"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The people do want this crap. If you have kids of a certain age, you know kids that have had near misses with grooming on Roblox, or have seen the comments from men on child Tiktok accounts. It's a stupid amount of exposure that we just didn't have to deal with as kids. People just don't understand the problems implementing AVS. I'd be much much happier submitting details or a face scan to a .gov.uk service than all…
Then do your parenting and stop limiting the rights of the rest.
But how are your rights limited?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you don't use YouTube?
I use YouTube, but only watch stuff I SEARCH for or from people I have subscribed to. No watch next BS. If you have self control you can avoid the social media element of it. YouTube demonetisation tends to act as a reasonable steward on the platform, but it does need to be strengthened. I.e. make YouTube responsible as the publisher for any video with over 100k views. This would be totally doable.
If governments want to set up online age gates, they should be responsible for providing an electronic ID system and enable privacy preserving age verification (zero knowledge proofs)
Zero knowledge proofs don't accomplish the ID checking that the governments want. The reason all of these improvised ID check systems require you to do things like submit a video of you moving your face around (which has its own problems) is because they want to get closer to proving that the ID you submit is actually the ID of the person holding the phone, not just some ID (or zero knowledge proof) you copied from t…
The EFF is very wrong on this one. Some things are bad and we should keep children away from them.
“ But the social media ban does not stop there. The provision also requires internet service providers to limit the time kids spend online, and has rules about who can contact them online. These extreme rules will take decisions about using technology away from families and put them in the hands of government regulators. “ I’m not sure that “there are rules on who can contact children online” is “extreme” for anyone…
Or you maybe need to start properly educating your children by limiting your own devices instead of harming the whole net sphere. Call your ISP and set restricted DNS' and ban any instalation of software on children's devices. Problem solved.
From an outside perspective, the tech industry/community has repeatedly demonstrated that it's actually very pro-surveillance and child exploitation. From that same outside perspective, another argument of 'hey, we have to combat all attempts at protecting children to avoid surveillance' just sounds like self-serving lies.
You can argue that the tech world is not a monolith, but it looks like one from a wider societal perspective, and often the conflicting calls are coming from the same exact sources. Every AI company, for example, bleats about the potential harms of AI while chasing after them headfirst.
If you want to argue against this kind of legislation, you need to repair a lot of lost trust first.
Probably an unpopular view, but why not fix the issues with social media.
If governments want to set up online age gates, they should be responsible for providing an electronic ID system and enable privacy preserving age verification (zero knowledge proofs)
The only possible law is making bigco social media less addictive, and better controls for parents
But maybe this is UK just exercising some soft power, since they have no tech to speak of