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

221–230 of 598 posts

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

#221

Post by halyconWays »

monksy wrote: post #217

So.. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/7757... Find your rep on congress.gov, and write them. Sponsors: Brett Guthrie (R-KY) CoSponsors: Frank Pallone (D-NJ) Find and write your congress member: https://www.congress.gov/ Guthrie is sponsored by: (Alpahbit is the biggest) https://www.opensecrets.org/profiles/brett-guthrie /us_congress/summary?mpid=1048046 Frankie: (AIPAC, Anthropic and Comcast) h…

More info on AIPAC endorsements:

Guthrie (4th out of 7): $42k https://www.trackaipac.com/states/kentucky

Pallone (7th out of 10): $241k https://www.trackaipac.com/states/newjersey

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

#222

Post by ethbr1 »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #210
ethbr1 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The internet in 1986 and 1996 was nothing like 2006. 2006 is on the other side of the event horizon of "Don't be evil."

Idk about that one chief, maybe 2016 was tamer than that, 2006 was still wild.

By 2006, you already had Google, Amazon, and Facebook outpacing their competition. Apple was riding iPod success and just about to launch the iPhone.

Imho, that's well into the re-centralization of the internet and tech landscape.

Rewind another 10 years, and I'd call 1996 wild. That's before XMLHttpRequest/AJAX and when a cat could create as impressive of a website as any corporation.

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

#223

Post by anthk »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #211
anthk wrote: post #202

Dear goverments, if you care about KIDS, provide them a separete internet outside of ICANN with mandatory ID. Let the rest of the people create an anonymous, adult internet with no ID's.

So Tor?

No. Separate of ICANN. Their own network. Like Yggdrasil, but ID checked.

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

#224

Post by pythonaut_16 »

paytonjjones wrote: post #191
jschveibinz wrote: post #182

I just listened to a radio program on my local NPR station about the topic of kids and social media. From what was presented, the research shows (longitudinal study) that there is very little evidence of social media impacting mental health--which is shocking because a majority of adults think there is a connection and the politicians are pushing that narrative. I have not personally vetted the research. Has anyone e…

Yes. The research is quite confusing. This is because the strongest version of the argument is not "your child uses social media, and that makes them depressed". The strongest version is more like "when a society mass adopts social media, this irrevocably alters the culture in ways that causes massive changes in mental health, most prominently among young girls, including those exposed to the culture who don't even u…

The problem is that argument is indistinguishable from the argument "the lack of proof is the proof!"

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

#227

Post by jeroenhd »

bArray wrote: post #225

Anybody else think it is weird that suddenly all Western countries suddenly want to lockdown the internet to "protect the children"? There is surely an international special interest group lobbying for this?

Facebook has been documented for sponsoring these bills in the USA.

But we also have years of research about how social media and other internet phenomena are ruining kids' lives.

I don't disagree with the principle of a lot of these laws, but many implementations are too flawed to be a mistake.

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

#228

Post by 8note »

paytonjjones wrote: post #191
jschveibinz wrote: post #182

I just listened to a radio program on my local NPR station about the topic of kids and social media. From what was presented, the research shows (longitudinal study) that there is very little evidence of social media impacting mental health--which is shocking because a majority of adults think there is a connection and the politicians are pushing that narrative. I have not personally vetted the research. Has anyone e…

Yes. The research is quite confusing. This is because the strongest version of the argument is not "your child uses social media, and that makes them depressed". The strongest version is more like "when a society mass adopts social media, this irrevocably alters the culture in ways that causes massive changes in mental health, most prominently among young girls, including those exposed to the culture who don't even u…

but also, you have to distinguish from "society has separately become anti-child"

which also did happen through the nineties and 2000s before social media, but how would you measure the effects of each on their own?

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

#229

Post by paytonjjones »

pythonaut_16 wrote: post #224
paytonjjones wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. The research is quite confusing. This is because the strongest version of the argument is not "your child uses social media, and that makes them depressed". The strongest version is more like "when a society mass adopts social media, this irrevocably alters the culture in ways that causes massive changes in mental health, most prominently among young girls, including those exposed to the culture who don't even u…

The problem is that argument is indistinguishable from the argument "the lack of proof is the proof!"

No, I don't think it's the same as an unfalsifiable or circular claim.

Network level effects are still falsifiable, it's just often really challenging to falsify them at scale.

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

#230

Post by ekr____ »

microgpt wrote: post #103
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?

Note that California AB1043 isn't actually age verification; rather it just requires the OS to ask for your age, not check it.
Post reply on HN