Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Never Give Them Your Face

nevergivethemyourface.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 468 posts

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#211

Post by ooterness »

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #129

I have yet to receive my federal tax refund because I submitted my taxes through a preparation service and, thinking that physical checks were still an option (the tax software didn't tell me otherwise), I did not give the federal government an ACH account number for direct deposit. The IRS then told me I'd have to open an account to update/provide direct deposit info, which in turn requires me to register with ID.me…

I was in a similar situation this year. Miapplied a rule, overpaid slightly, IRS owed a refund on the difference. It took a while, but they did eventually send me a physical check.

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#212

Post by jazzyjackson »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #194

I quit facebook over a decade ago. Then, a few months back, I was under some pressure to sell something, and the facebook marketplace appears to be the way to go locally. So I tried to create a facebook account. They wanted to scan my face, and in a moment of weakness, I performed the ritual. Thirty seconds later, they suspended my account due to violations of their terms of service: "this decision cannot be appealed…

I tried to make an account while forgetting my VPN was engaged. Another US IP address but one from a block of IPs I’m sure is used for nefarious purposes. So because I briefly shared an IP block with ne’erdowells, I am, without an option to appeal, banned from interacting with Facebook forever.

Google Ads is ghosting me too. I really could get behind legislation that requires companies to have a human point of contact in these cases, but I guess a private company has the right to ignore people they don’t want as customers.

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#213

Post by sailfast »

kspacewalk2 wrote: post #142
ghusto wrote: post #127

This and every post like it hurts the cause. Don't argue "Resist!" like a child, argue with an alternative. You're not bringing anything to the table other than teenage angst, ensuring nobody takes the _very valid and terrifying concerns_ seriously. Instead, suggest a feasible alternative. Bonus points if it works better, cheaper, and safer.

And don't handwaive away the real problem with children on social media. It's not good enough, not gonna cut it, there's strong consensus around fixing this big societal problem. Go ahead and blame the parents all you want - to a critical mass of people nowadays, it reads like the equivalent of blaming them for a 10 year old being let into a casino and getting addicted to slot machines. The debate will then just move…

I have kids, and I don't think we need age verification. I'm not blaming the websites for content my kids access, and I have to work to make sure I'm tracking what my kids are doing.

Not saying we should stop trying to verify age in a privacy-respecting way, but the current incentive structure means that we cannot really EXPECT this in the near term.

If we cannot expect it, then we should not legislate or require it until the right solution has been found and we need to encourage our lawmakers to FUND the right way to do this.

I'm not handwaving the problems of children on social media, but it is within parental control to a certain extent, and preventing access with age verification will not prevent access in other places, nor help them deal with the onslaught when they are of age to make decisions.

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#214

Post by dwd »

inigyou wrote: post #41
brettermeier wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean the analogy sounds about right, why downvoting?

How does it

The Covid vaccination should have only been given to those in the population that were most at risk: The elderly and those who were at risk due to comorbidities. 81% of deaths alone occurred in the over 65 population. [1]

There's the analogy, it was primarily beneficial for a small group yet for many, particularly Government workers and those in medical care it became a condition of employment that you were vaccinated. [2]

There was a lot of pointless policies despite knowing:

- Being vaccination did nothing to prevent transmitting Covid, it only gave the vaccinated individual better protection from mortality. [3]

- Herd immunity for Covid was known to be impossible once the infection rates got too high with Delta and Omnicron. So trying to vaccinate everyone including children was pointless. [4]

- There is Evidence that being vaccinated actually increases transmission of respiratory viruses. You were less likely to get seriously ill, while potentially increasing the risk of passing it on to your family. [5]

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/covid/risk-factors/index.html

[2] https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/1000-nsw-health-workers-...

[3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39283431/

[4] https://theconversation.com/herd-immunity-was-sold-as-the-pa...

[5] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1716561115

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#215

Post by red_admiral »

btown wrote: post #205
Aurornis wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to put this all on Meta with a look at their 2025 lobbying spend is missing the point. The “think of the children” panic about the internet pre-dates this by years. Remember the debate around the TikTok ban? The states instituting laws about porn age checks pre-dates all of this too. I think trying to blame Meta is convenient because it’s easy to think there is just one villain coordinating everything, but the…

While the panic is indeed nothing new, Meta could have chosen a path of solidarity across the tech industry, lobbying for the ways age/identity verification makes people of all ages less safe, especially in the context of phishing and data harvesting. Instead, its strategy has become to advocate for increasing the net levels of tracking and regulatory burden, so long as it is positioned to burden other parts of the t…

The next question is why alphabet, apple, even Microsoft aren't opening their purses to push back on this? They're going to be the ones in court for false negatives.

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#216

Post by stephenhuey »

munk-a wrote: post #199
baq wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I visit my facebook once a year and always regret it

At this point I purely use it to log in on my birthday to pass pleasantries with relatives that don't use any other platform and then turn it off again for a year.

I was one of the earliest on FB. It's mostly an address book for me now. I'm sad sooooo many acquaintances and relatives are there, and yes, it would be a lot of effort to get their contact info or get them to use other messaging platform (but I've started doing that).

For 15+ years, I've thought long and hard countless times about what could sustainably replace social media platforms that do not serve us well. I know a paid app is not super likely to succeed, although WhatsApp did use to cost a dollar! It seems like a nonprofit wouldn't be that great, and so I wonder about a mission-driven public benefit corporation (not to be confused with a B corp, though it could be one of those too). Of course it has to be cool or no one would use it. Not a fuddy duddy wannabe social network. Anyway, to sustain itself, would ads or paid offerings (that don't harvest personal data) be successful?

Happy to discuss with anyone interested!

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#217

Post by svachalek »

ghaff wrote: post #169
wwweston wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And increasingly, everyone isn’t using them, even if they’re on them. I’m on Insta and WhatsApp and I use them a few times per year. I’m on Messenger and have seen a dramatic dropoff in messages. I’m on FB frequently and notice only a small fraction of my friends bother anymore and it’s become an interest platform to make up the lack, so I’m trending toward less time there. I’m on Twitter/X but check in maybe once a…

I'm very much like you. There are several apps that I use to communicate with a handful (or less) of people in the world. I see people on travel sites saying "Just use WhatsApp" and I'm more or less, yes it's installed on my phone and I use it with a couple people but it's certainly not something that most people I know use. Probably something of a demographic (geography/age) thing.

WhatsApp is very much a geography thing; it's pretty ubiquitous in many countries but relatively unknown in the US.

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#218

Post by b40d-48b2-979e »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #212
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #194

I quit facebook over a decade ago. Then, a few months back, I was under some pressure to sell something, and the facebook marketplace appears to be the way to go locally. So I tried to create a facebook account. They wanted to scan my face, and in a moment of weakness, I performed the ritual. Thirty seconds later, they suspended my account due to violations of their terms of service: "this decision cannot be appealed…

I tried to make an account while forgetting my VPN was engaged. Another US IP address but one from a block of IPs I’m sure is used for nefarious purposes. So because I briefly shared an IP block with ne’erdowells, I am, without an option to appeal, banned from interacting with Facebook forever. Google Ads is ghosting me too. I really could get behind legislation that requires companies to have a human point of contac…

    but I guess a private company has the right to ignore people they don’t want
    as customers.
The problem is the monopolistic power these companies have.

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#219

Post by flipbrad »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #212
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #194

I quit facebook over a decade ago. Then, a few months back, I was under some pressure to sell something, and the facebook marketplace appears to be the way to go locally. So I tried to create a facebook account. They wanted to scan my face, and in a moment of weakness, I performed the ritual. Thirty seconds later, they suspended my account due to violations of their terms of service: "this decision cannot be appealed…

I tried to make an account while forgetting my VPN was engaged. Another US IP address but one from a block of IPs I’m sure is used for nefarious purposes. So because I briefly shared an IP block with ne’erdowells, I am, without an option to appeal, banned from interacting with Facebook forever. Google Ads is ghosting me too. I really could get behind legislation that requires companies to have a human point of contac…

This is what the EU has: https://www.eu-digital-services-act.com/Digital_Services_Act...

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#220

Post by ferngodfather »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #194

I quit facebook over a decade ago. Then, a few months back, I was under some pressure to sell something, and the facebook marketplace appears to be the way to go locally. So I tried to create a facebook account. They wanted to scan my face, and in a moment of weakness, I performed the ritual. Thirty seconds later, they suspended my account due to violations of their terms of service: "this decision cannot be appealed…

I had the exact same experience. Never used Facebook. Wanted to create a page for a product. Suspended. Did the face scan. Now they have my face and I'm still suspended. Absolute joke. Zuckerberg can go suck a fat one.
Post reply on HN