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

341–350 of 468 posts

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#341

Post by howard941 »

addedGone wrote: post #312
dd8601fn wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meta, obviously the same company, has four separate pages that handle the creation of a “page” for a business. They all prompt for the same information to do the same job. You are required to make one of these “pages” to be able to advertise on any Meta property. None of them work, and they have non-functional error handling. And if you keep trying, getting zero feedback about what’s wrong, you get the “scan your fac…

It's actually real that a ton of businesses must resort to shady providers of "Ads account" for legitimate stuff, nowadays it's very hard to join Facebook, if you didn't have an account made the past years, it's likely that you can't signup and run your business on it, you have to use illegal methods.

What illegal methods work? I'd like to post again (non-commercially)

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#342

Post by antisthenes »

joenot443 wrote: post #160
vodou wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is great that people point out LLM generated articles here on HN. Sadly, it feels like I am slowly loosing my skill to identify LLM speak. Maybe I am getting worn out of all LLM content... So, please, list the indicators and telltale signs from the specific article or blog post (like others have done here already). At least I would appreciate it a lot.

> It is not age verification. It is identity verification. > You can change a password. You cannot change your face. > This is not a popularity contest, and refusal is not a vote you are trying to win These were a couple sentences that were immediate flags to me. There've been countless articles written on this (I can dig them up if you want), but IMO there are pretty clear semantic rhythms you start to notice. It is…

If anyone uses a couple of these red flags to dismiss the entire article and the underlying idea, that says a lot more about them than the author.

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#343

Post by inigyou »

Nevermark wrote: post #338
inigyou wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None, presumably, since age verification is illegal there.

> If it's not ZK you can get arrested for sharing it What is the scenario where not using ZKP's gets you arrested. Who is collecting what information?

I am John Smith, I give out my non-ZK age tokens, I get arrested because 200 people logged in as me today

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#344

Post by cormorant »

dredmorbius wrote: post #223
supriyo-biswas wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's all caused by a Meta lobbying initiative across multiple countries as documented in https://tboteproject.com/ (sadly, the website is down right now), but you can find references e.g. https://www.jwz.org/blog/2026/03/the-tbote-project/

NB: don't link jwz.org directly from HN. It plays poorly from both ends.

I feel like HN should ban linking to the domain. After all, no good-faith commenter intends the result that happens.

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#345

Post by tokioyoyo »

ekall wrote: post #81
harel wrote: post #44

It ends with "The platforms need you far more than you need them". And I think this is the misconception. No, they don't. The amount of people who will sign this, is a fraction of a fraction of a "platform"'s users. They will not care if they lose 50,000 users out of 2 Billion. A drop in the ocean. Not the target audience anyway. And that is the real shame. Because I don't want to have to give my face or do age verif…

I think this kind of comment where you share the sentiment that you will ultimately admit defeat emboldens the factions that are hoping for people to be like you. I also think these kinds of comments may also bring doubt to people considering resisting these kinds of concessions. In other words I think the people pushing these kinds of "identification" methods would love you for spreading their silent message of this…

Smart and driven people wasting time on ideas that have been tested time and time through to be ineffective is not net good for society.

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#346

Post by csomar »

Damogran6 wrote: post #231
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…

Add to that, FB is no longer people...it's viewing entertainment...and I turn it off a bunch. Threads is the new time sink and a lot of times I open it and close it shortly thereafter because it's all the same...someone with a 20 part diatribe, someone repeating the news, someone telling you to be outraged, engagement bait.

They have plateaued on number of users/engagement. They are instead increasing ad impressions and jacking up the prices of ads. (source: https://investor.atmeta.com/investor-news/press-release-deta...)

Revenue is up 33% year over year. Not sure how that is sustainable.

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#347

Post by azdle »

LZ_Khan wrote: post #290

Are you allowed to do this in places like airports?

I was just at a US airport and there were a bunch of signs saying you can opt out of having your face scanned at security, you just have to tell them.

Though, if you have a passport or driver's license, its not like they don't already have your face...

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#348

Post by AdmiralAsshat »

sailfast wrote: post #183
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…

While I agree that this is annoying, you're trying to interact with the federal government which actually does require IDENTITY verification and not age verification in order to perform its duties. That id.me account allows you to take actions on behalf of a citizen, so they need to confirm some things first. It's not great, but it's not what the original poster is against.

The frustration, I suppose, is that the government doesn't seem to demand this level of scrutiny to take my money, in the event that I owed on my tax returns for that year. But when they have money to give to me, suddenly it's 12 interviews and a colonoscopy to get approved.

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#349

Post by Henchman21 »

joenot443 wrote: post #160
vodou wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is great that people point out LLM generated articles here on HN. Sadly, it feels like I am slowly loosing my skill to identify LLM speak. Maybe I am getting worn out of all LLM content... So, please, list the indicators and telltale signs from the specific article or blog post (like others have done here already). At least I would appreciate it a lot.

> It is not age verification. It is identity verification. > You can change a password. You cannot change your face. > This is not a popularity contest, and refusal is not a vote you are trying to win These were a couple sentences that were immediate flags to me. There've been countless articles written on this (I can dig them up if you want), but IMO there are pretty clear semantic rhythms you start to notice. It is…

These are normal patterns in US English. The zeal to accuse limits the scope of possible responses. There are all sorts of things humans do when writing that LLMs mimic — em-dashes for instance — that are entirely legitimate ways to communicate but get shouted down for… reasons?

Surely you’re aware that LLMs were trained on the ways humans write specifically to mimic them? Yes? So what’s the gripe? Someone cranked out a “thought piece” with no effort or actual thinking on their own?

But thats the promise of AI.

So are you advocating doing away with AI tools and research? Maybe we start asking “should we” not “can we”? Now that is a position I might get behind.

But really how the hell am I supposed to write at all when nearly ANYTHING I write could be interpreted as AI-generated and then shouted down in some quasi-ad-hominem attack on me while not engaging with any points made?

It is the utter end of written discussion.

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#350

Post by jandrese »

the_doctah wrote: post #76
jandrese wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Things may not be quite so simple if your skin color is on the darker side, especially with the current administration. Doubly so if your passport shows you come from a country who's name ends in -stan.

Pure conjecture, Reddit-coded, seal-clapping bait.

Tell that to Omar Artan.
Post reply on HN