Perhaps save kids from peter file gangsters first? If local police protects child molesters, and government supports it... Very difficult to take this child internet protection seriously!!!
What we call "age verification" is actually mass surveillance
81–90 of 520 posts
Re: What we call "age verification" is actually mass surveillance
#82What an exceptionally bad faith way to put this whole thing. A five year old watching hours of the most depraved porn available is harmful to that child. Even if you disagree with that statement, you surely must acknowledge that it is an entirely reasonable opinion to hold and one our societies have generally held to this sort of thing for ages. I also acknowledge that there is a reasonable debate to be had if the di…
Disclaimer: I do not agree this take was made in bad faith. I think that raising a kid comes with its own set of expectations around caring and curating experiences of said kid. Therefore, I do think that offloading that responsibility to the state (and by extension, businesses that offer age-gating tech to that state...) is not the right way to do it. And even in the absence of that, my experience taught me it is entirely possible to grow up with unsupervised internet access and turn out an OK adult. The internet is not only "depraved porn". It is also a lifeline for that weird kid who has been bullied and effectively barred from social experiences.
Of course, YMMV.
That said, if such a nanny state is inevitable: zero-knowledge-proof-based age verification would not only be possible, it would further protect these kids from a bad state actor. In that spirit, I agree with your last point. The fact that any other alternatives are even being considered makes it on principle a non-starter to me, because it betrays the actual goals of the political actors involved.
Re: What we call "age verification" is actually mass surveillance
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Transparency doesn't matter without consequences. Many of the currently ruling governments have demonstrated that already.
You're wrong, it still matters. It's the first step, and it's an important step in maintaining fairness.
>You're wrong
As a rhetorical trick this is generally ineffective.
Re: What we call "age verification" is actually mass surveillance
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn’t about kids at all. The ID requirement is the WHOLE POINT. That it is technically possible to do age verification in a privacy-preserving way is thus entirely irrelevant. They want all online activity tied to ID so they can violently, illegally retaliate in the dark of night against protected expression online that they don’t like. That’s all this is. Privacy-preserving techniques are irrelevant because the…
There is also, separately from that, a need to protect kids from growing up into the people in Idiocracy.
They already failed to do that by steadily eroding the educational system and its standards over the last 50-70 years. We’re already there. The electorate can’t locate the countries on a map in which the US is fighting multiple wars in their name.
Banning Instagram ain’t gonna fix that.
This is not in any way whatsoever about children.
Re: What we call "age verification" is actually mass surveillance
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where are these mythical sweet-spot solutions? Concretely, half the websites I visit from the UK want me to either scan my face or upload ID documents to access their full featureset. Now that users have been conditioned to accept this, nobody seems very interested in figuring out how to collect less PII - only insulating themselves from liability by having the data processed by a third party.
Government builds a website where you can log in using any government issued ID or using one of the many many many available services that hold your details already(at least in the UK nearly everyone will have a DLVA account, HMRC account, HMPO account, NHS account.....all of these are government services which we can only assume hold our data securely already). On that website, you can click "give me a verification…
Every time I search something, I open a fresh private tab and google it. If I want to turn safe-search off, I'd have to go through this code verification flow for every single search. Aside from just being annoying, they'd have to implement strict rate limiting to prevent automated code sharing, so I'd soon end up waiting for a rate limit to expire before I can search anything.
And "the government will know you've authenticated with pornhub" is extremely harmful, in my opinion.
Re: What we call "age verification" is actually mass surveillance
#86My main concern is transparency. How do we know that the ruling/governing class is not abusing these monitoring systems and exempting themselves from monitoring? If we are all subject to the same monitoring and there are no exceptions, that would be fair. However, if some people are exempt from monitoring because of their connections, relations, etc. then that would be unfair. And if some people are allowed to harass…
They are 100% abusing until proven otherwise. Naive to think otherwise.
Re: What we call "age verification" is actually mass surveillance
#87Could we instead disallow algorithmic skinner-box addiction machines for everyone ?
How can you tell what one is? Reddit in 2010? Facebook in 2005? IRC in 1999?
If the users chooses what they are shown and the order they are shown in, then it's fine. If the platform chooses, then it's not, because they will always choose what creates the most engagement.
Re: What we call "age verification" is actually mass surveillance
#88What an exceptionally bad faith way to put this whole thing. A five year old watching hours of the most depraved porn available is harmful to that child. Even if you disagree with that statement, you surely must acknowledge that it is an entirely reasonable opinion to hold and one our societies have generally held to this sort of thing for ages. I also acknowledge that there is a reasonable debate to be had if the di…
You can't use the words "reasonable debate" in your post after you've immediately jumped straight to some mythical worst case scenario of a 5 year old being given a device with no supervision and somehow managing to immediately find their way to some sort of super duper snuff porn that will scar them for life.
Re: What we call "age verification" is actually mass surveillance
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you be more specific as to what you're imagining? I don't personally see a way to verify someone's age which doesn't involve either credit card verification, photo id verification, or some sort of facial recognition. If you know enough about someone to verify their age—even to a relatively low degree of accuracy—you probably know enough to pinpoint who they are in general. Heck—in most cases, we can't even tell…
> Could you be more specific as to what you're imagining? sure, i'll put my favorite two. though you'll find much more detailed and thought-out versions of these (and others) in the dozens of other giant threads on the same topic. - buy a card with a UUID from anywhere that sells alcohol/tobacco that is valid for some period of time. most people are comfortable with flashing their ID at the clerk. the UUID card is no…
I'm just left wondering, how would that be different than buying a phone? Most kids also don't have money to spend on devices, that's all coming from adults, how would the UUID work any different? In my view it seems we'll just reach the current state as with phones.
Re: What we call "age verification" is actually mass surveillance
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think I would be fine with a positive enumeration. Some ideas for serving content: - purely random - sponsored but without user tracking (like old school TV ads) - sponsored for user selected geographical area feed - sponsored for user current location geographical area feed - follow "friends" or influencers - purely timeline - discussion boards - timeline (IRC like) - threaded - user votes (not magic platform vote…
So Hacker News wouldn't be allowed?
I think it should be, maybe I'm missing some aspect, I just cooked up a simple list of rules on the spot, sheesh :-D
Edit: huh, I'm probably stupid, but can you explain more?