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

The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 598 posts

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

#101

Post by pessimizer »

dogcatdog wrote: post #67
echelon wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> vendors of alcohol and nicotine products are responsible for age verification. You don't wind up in a database for buying alcohol. This proposal puts your name right next to the category of porn you're into, which will be a great way to coerce all those politicians into voting for the "correct" bill. Would be a shame if they found out a state senator watched porn, so maybe they'd better vote yes on the proposal. In…

Age verification can be done by a third party, so that the online service isn't provided with any details of your identity, just that you passed an age verification check. But if you're still worried about online pornographers getting a copy of your identity, maybe don't use their websites? It's an easily avoidable risk. Perhaps use your imagination instead, or read an erotic novel bought in cash from a second-hand b…

Do you hear yourself? You're a guy telling people that if they don't want to be put on a list for reading a book, they should read other books.

> erotic novel bought in cash from a second-hand bookshop

Your confidence that this will remain an option probably means that you aren't aware of the many court battles, lives ruined, and leftover frozen conflicts resulting from attempts to publish novels. Its a confidence you could only have developed since the mid-1960s.

There is absolutely no physical reason why the government couldn't record all of the books you buy, arrest secondhand booksellers that don't keep those lists faithfully, and even sit outside of secondhand booksellers identifying everyone walking into the building and putting them on a list of people who are interested in obtaining books through unorthodox methods.

If everyone had been like you, there wouldn't be erotic novels available from bookstores. Or communist novels, or gay novels, etc.. And through the mails, it would become federal. The government mainly opened mail to search for possible birth control information being sent.

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

#102

Post by felooboolooomba »

brettgo1 wrote: post #21
felooboolooomba wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meta has spent $2B lobbying for this. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47410870

They're lobbying FOR it?! I thought this would hinder them along with everyone else

Meta has a long history of breaking the law. I have no doubts Meta will have access to the personal details once you've "verified your age". They'll know WHO you are, as accurately as possible. Can you imagine how much that it worth to Meta, history's largest harvester of personal data? A whole lot more than $2B.

Now, based on their ruthless disregard for the law, do you think they're just going to use it to sell your ads?

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

#103

Post by microgpt »

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.

What you describe, but at the OS level, is already the law in California. We got angry about it a few months ago when it passed, do you remember?

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

#105

Post by dogcatdog »

kloop wrote: post #94
dogcatdog wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But isn't putting something behind an age gate similar in concept to putting it behind a paywall? The speech is still there, whatever it may be, just has conditions for access.

It would probably also be illegal for the government to mandate a paywall. The issue is not that age gates are illegal, but that the government forcing people to use age gates is illegal.

But there are already laws that, for example, restrict children from buying pornographic magazines. These have been found by the Supreme Court to be constitutionally compatible. I don't see why this would be different with similar laws that apply to online services.

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

#106

Post by microgpt »

Zambyte wrote: post #71
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.

Or we could have UBI and parents could parent their kids without corporations babysitting for them.

Wouldn't corporations still declare war on parents over their kids?

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

#107

Post by microgpt »

dogcatdog wrote: post #50

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,…

Nah, it should be like in California. When you set up an account you should put how old thr user is, and websites should get a header that says whether it's over 18 or not. No ID checks, just good parenting.

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

#108

Post by noosphr »

none2585 wrote: post #41
shomp wrote: post #23

call and email your congresspeoples, and tell them not to go through with this

Then donate millions in campaign contributions to ensure they actually care at all what you think!

Money is a poor substitute for people who care.

The only people who think otherwise are terminally online losers who have never organized anything larger than a birthday party.

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

#109

Post by kakacik »

echelon wrote: post #61
kakacik wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

same thing most parents did, and here we are... don't expect miracles from massively underpaid profession which should be the opposite, literally the way to prepare the future of the nation, or fuck it up

Frankly, our liberty and privacy do not deserve to die because of children. They are going to track everything everyone does, and the next generation will turn that tracking into coercion and control. This is everything we were warned about in 1984. Kill products that advertise to kids before you kill privacy. Make it illegal to advertise to children instead of making people submit their state-issued ID. Fine parents…

Look, I'll do my part with my kids (as in no social e-life before 16, which anyway somewhat aligns with various state bans flying all around the world, if there will be peer pressure then so be it new Commodore flip phone looks ideal for that), I know what sort of cancer to young developing defenseless mind screens have. I can see it all around. Child psychologists all agree, but few parents want to hear that.

But its unfair to kids who have shitty weak lazy parents, and screens are like fentanyl to young mind, there is literally nothing more attention-grabbing in the world for them. Their potential lost to... nothing worth mentioning, just empty dopamine kicks one after another. Its a miniscule fringe situation you say? More than half of kids before 2 are exposed to hours of screens (I see similar articles almost daily these days). This is mankind's future, your pensions, the society that will be taking care of you (and trust me you will need it, the only way to avoid that is to die young). But this isn't about selfish take-care-of-me situation, I just care and worry about how subpar lives such addicts have, spread across whole mankind. Compared to life filled with nature, hobbies, passions, physical social interactions.

I've seen it personally many times, I had kids in my early 40s so most of peers are a solid decade ahead. What began as boasting of having 'digital kids' when younger is now just a sad story of hard addictions thats actively avoided in any conversation, after few drinks parents end up 'what should we do when we have bad kids' sort of questions. When I look at given parents the apple really doesn't fall far from the tree, how could it, after all its just genes and parental upbringing that define people's personalities more than anything else.

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

#110

Post by microgpt »

failbuffer wrote: post #88
dogcatdog wrote: post #50

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,…

Aims aside, did you even read the article? This will mostly end anonymity online and require heavier policing of content. A child might see something they shouldn't walking down the street, strolling thru the park, visiting the local zoo, or visiting an ice cream parlor. Should those places be requiring identification and hiring extra security guards to wander around making sure nobody is saying it doing anything pol…

Why can't we talk about the topic that is in front of us instead of making absurd comparisons like hiring security guards to check ID to enter parks?
Post reply on HN