71–80 of 598 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> I'm telling you why ordinary people support this, and I can tell you they overwhelmingly do This is a claim without backing, and if there were backing to be had, it would constantly be thrown in people's faces by the various administrations that suddenly decided this was a problem that had to be stopped now by any means necessary. They do not need any public support to implement this, they need opposition to sleep…
Enough with this "but they can work around it" argument, too. Kids can get adults to buy cigarettes for them, we still ban them from buying cigarettes because it's a very useful roadblock.
call and email your congresspeoples, and tell them not to go through with this
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…
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…
This is the biggest attack on personal freedom since decades. It is time to crush those lobbyists that push for this.
By the way, even ignoring the propaganda by the lobbyists here, at which point did the "discussion" suddenly become to deny young people access to information? Because this is implied here. Some people were underage when wikipdia first emerged. The age sniffing here tries to undermine and revert all of that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I’m not a TikTok fan by any means but that really does feels to me like bordering on delusion…
That sounds like a reasonable aim. Online services should be responsible for implementing age verification checks on content that children shouldn't be accessing, just like vendors of alcohol and nicotine products are responsible for age verification. The EFF likes to frame everything that might even slightly rein in online service providers as being a terrible assault on online freedom and therefore, in their view,…
There's a big difference here, in the US anyways, neither alcohol nor nicotine have first amendment protections. Basically all content delivered over the US does. That's a much thornier legal issue
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…
The truth hurts and you're getting downvoted for it. The public at large have real issues with the current state of the internet and people here don't want to hear it or address it so we get this.
call and email your congresspeoples, and tell them not to go through with this
Isn't it interesting how they're doing it in every anglo country simultaneously? How does that work?
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…
> 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 h…