The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online • Hacker News Board

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#31

Post by api » Sun, Jun 28, 2026, 1:35 PM UTC

throwthrowuknow wrote: post #29

api wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EDIT: about half to two thirds of the responders didn't catch "I'm not a fan of these proposed solutions." I am not saying I like these solutions. I am trying to explain why they have support among the general public. Many of these responses are the usual "shoot the messenger" response you get online when you point out what the "other side" thinks and why they think it even if you don't necessarily agree . On this is…

This is just the latest incarnation. They’ve already used the same tactic successfully to remove other freedoms not related to tech. Just compare the stories from older people about their childhood experiences (when they’re being completely open and honest) with the way children are raised now. My own parents did things that would get them on a terrorist watch list nowadays like building explosives and home made mort…

Personally I find everything you listed here safer than letting a kid have unfiltered unlimited access to TikTok.

You know a gun or a bomb is dangerous, so you'll probably be careful with it. The gun and the bomb are not engineered on purpose to hook you by exploiting your dopamine pathways and get you to shoot yourself or blow yourself up.

EDIT: I'm being a little hyperbolic here, but I'm also talking about aggregate harm and intent to harm. I'm really being hyperbolic to bash what I consider to be the key villain in this story: addiction engineering, a.k.a. "maximizing engagement." This is the root of all evil.

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#32

Post by Hizonner » Sun, Jun 28, 2026, 1:36 PM UTC

api wrote: post #19

athrowaway3z wrote: post #17

Targeting the kids is so infuriatingly successful tactics. It gives the adults the option to be apathetic. In reality, anyone who is a kid now will never know any better. It just means we're the last generations that had the luxury of a world that remembered what privacy was.

EDIT: about half to two thirds of the responders didn't catch "I'm not a fan of these proposed solutions." I am not saying I like these solutions. I am trying to explain why they have support among the general public. Many of these responses are the usual "shoot the messenger" response you get online when you point out what the "other side" thinks and why they think it even if you don't necessarily agree . On this is…

> Or you have a child who is questioning their sexual orientation or identity and is targeted by an online bullying ring.

It is far more common for that child to be targeted by parents, and maybe by people they know in person, especially because of the lousy social environment their parents have pushed them into, and therefore to have limited offline support systems, and you are now trying to take away all they do have.

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#33

Post by edot » Sun, Jun 28, 2026, 1:38 PM UTC

api wrote: post #28

edot wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are missing half of the story. This is not “caring legislators punishing big bad tech”. This IS big bad tech. Meta has spent $2B lobbying for this. More than wanting to get kids addicted, Big Tech and the intelligence community wants perfect observability into online activities. This is a win/win for big tech. If they don’t get age verification, they can keep getting kids addicted to propaganda and consumerism. I…

I'm telling you why ordinary people support this, and I can tell you they overwhelmingly do... at least those with children. I'm also aware of what you're talking about. That's called regulatory capture. They know this kind of regulation is coming and want to make sure they're the ones writing it so they can use it to entrench their oligopolies. My point is that something like this will happen unless we find an alter…

There is no technological fix for the issue you raise. The issue being parents not wanting to bother raising their kids, and thus giving the state and corporations control over what they can and can’t do. That’s a cultural issue. No idea how to solve it.

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#34

Post by exceptione » Sun, Jun 28, 2026, 1:41 PM UTC

api wrote: post #19

athrowaway3z wrote: post #17

Targeting the kids is so infuriatingly successful tactics. It gives the adults the option to be apathetic. In reality, anyone who is a kid now will never know any better. It just means we're the last generations that had the luxury of a world that remembered what privacy was.

EDIT: about half to two thirds of the responders didn't catch "I'm not a fan of these proposed solutions." I am not saying I like these solutions. I am trying to explain why they have support among the general public. Many of these responses are the usual "shoot the messenger" response you get online when you point out what the "other side" thinks and why they think it even if you don't necessarily agree . On this is…

The logical conclusion is to shutdown Meta, Youtube, TikTok, Twitter to name the biggest offenders. And why on earth would algorithmic manipulation, brain washing and exploitation of adults be allowed via the same platforms?

I am not disagreeing with you, but the conversation to be had is far, far wider than "think of the children!". Part of any deal would have to be: privacy of citizens is not a business model. But then you are facing the full might of Corp Inc, including their legislative powers.

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#35

Post by llukas » Sun, Jun 28, 2026, 1:41 PM UTC

athrowaway3z wrote: post #17

Targeting the kids is so infuriatingly successful tactics. It gives the adults the option to be apathetic. In reality, anyone who is a kid now will never know any better. It just means we're the last generations that had the luxury of a world that remembered what privacy was.

You mean targeting with ads, sucking into feeds, making kids harm themselves and making money on this with lip service about corporate responsibility?

Sounds about right.

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#36

Post by ivanjermakov » Sun, Jun 28, 2026, 1:41 PM UTC

wewewedxfgdf wrote: post #11

Avicebron wrote: post #2

Who wants this?

All governments in the world, both sides of politics. It's for the kids, you understand - to protect the kids. There is no more noble purpose than to protect the kids. Only a monster would not want to protect the kids.

Kids want it themselves. All popular people want it too. Imagine if we don't do this for the kids? Either this or kids will get hurt. All my friends want it too. One eastern country didn't protect their kids and look where it's at. This is the only way to save kids and we need to act fast! You should rather be against child labor than this.

Tried to collect more logical fallacies here.

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#37

Post by OutOfHere » Sun, Jun 28, 2026, 1:41 PM UTC

What about services for AI agents? I don't mean services where the agents use a human's account, but one where they use a permissionless or a dedicated account that they self-registered. By politician grade logic, I guess it won't be long before AI agents are mandated to have a separate annual registration, permit, and fee, not that we should agree to any of it.

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#38

Post by zimpenfish » Sun, Jun 28, 2026, 1:43 PM UTC

api wrote: post #31

throwthrowuknow wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just the latest incarnation. They’ve already used the same tactic successfully to remove other freedoms not related to tech. Just compare the stories from older people about their childhood experiences (when they’re being completely open and honest) with the way children are raised now. My own parents did things that would get them on a terrorist watch list nowadays like building explosives and home made mort…

Personally I find everything you listed here safer than letting a kid have unfiltered unlimited access to TikTok. You know a gun or a bomb is dangerous, so you'll probably be careful with it. The gun and the bomb are not engineered on purpose to hook you by exploiting your dopamine pathways and get you to shoot yourself or blow yourself up. EDIT: I'm being a little hyperbolic here, but I'm also talking about aggregat…

> You know a gun or a bomb is dangerous, so you'll probably be careful with it.

The statistics on people killed/injured by their kids accidentally discharging firearms in the US disagree[0]

[0] eg. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/unintentional-shootings... "At least 157 people were killed and 270 were injured last year in unintentional shootings by children" (2024)

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#39

Post by throw9398449 » Sun, Jun 28, 2026, 1:43 PM UTC

hoppp wrote: post #27

hackingonempty wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GOP. This is part of Project 2025. They want to outlaw porn. > Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered. https://web.archive.org/web/20241103190346/https://static.pr...

Why not just outlaw sex? If looking at sex is illegal they might as well go all the way.

[flagged]

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#40

Post by Aspos » Sun, Jun 28, 2026, 1:43 PM UTC

hoppp wrote: post #22

Just put the age verification in the browser already. Then introduce some new headers the browser sends to servers with some proof that the user was verified and the browser would need a response (like CORS) for it to work.

USB anal probe can be integrated the same way.