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?
The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online
231–240 of 598 posts
Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You don't wind up in a database for buying alcohol. Yes you do, if they scan your ID with any technology they're uploading a picture to that company's server. If you use a payment card then your bank and the card network also know.
They don't scan my id when I buy alcohol.
Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online
#233I 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…
[flagged]
Sustained.
Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Crucially, no privacy is violated, but children are still protected. This not only protects children but also disarms any argument that we need to protect the children. It's great actually.
Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online
#235What if after "age checks" are put in place many www users stop using these "platforms"
No doubt EFF would try to argue that's somehow bad
But such argument is total nonsense. It's as if EFF has ties to Silicon Valley
Less use of these third party "platforms" is a huge win for internet privacy and privacy in general
The internet isn't going away. By and large, it's financed by internet subscribers paying monthly bills to telecoms. It's provided by those telecoms in return for those fees. It's not provided by so-called "tech" companies in Silicon Valley running "platforms" offering "free services"
There is no "age check" to open an account for internet service.^1 Yet EFF argues there will be an "age check" to "get online"
Would EFF argue that having internet service does not constitute "being online" and that an "account" with a so-called "tech" company performing data collection, surveillance and ad services is necessary to "be online"^1
If so, that's really quite strange considering the issue we are supposedly debating is internet privacy. The "business model" of these "platforms" and the concept of internet privacy are in direct conflict
The ridiculous arguments EFF is making around age verification seem to be aimed at trying to preserve the Silicon Valley status quo, to protect the surveillance "business model" of Silicon Valley, whilst "minimising" its harmful effects, including the effects of these companies relentlesslly challenging peoples' personal boundaries to the point where "age checks" sound reasonable
The legislation is aimed at certain companies in Silicon Valley conducting data collection, mass surveillance and pushing content at kids to drive ad services revenue. It's not aimed at internet service or anyone's ability to "get online". EFF's opposition looks like support for these companies
1. The California bill specifically excludes telecommunications services and broadband internet service
Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a child circa 2000, I remember seeing explicit bestiality porn pop-ups while looking up video game cheat codes. You're right, the internet is much different now, and not in the way you're implying.
Oh my God, this. Kids are safer today.
If a preteen sees a horse fucking a human they won't even know what that is.
Notice you didn't answer the question btw
Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
sometimes it's true. We ruined the brains of a whole generation of people. Should we stop doing that? If so, how?
Which generation of people and with what? Kazaa or porn? I presume the former because the latter is about as old as the civilisations.
Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online
#238If you want to stop this instance of "think of the children", build a working and cheap alternative that respects privacy. It is technically possible, so if you feel as strongly about it as your words suggest, do it. Once it's ready, spread awareness through old-media, new-media, politicians, everything and every means.
Seriously now, if you give in to demanding people, they will just demand more. Appeasement does not work.
Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online
#239Earlier 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…
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?
One clever example discussed in the blog I linked:
> We also found five studies that used a similar design applied to the rollout of high-speed internet. It’s hard to have a phone-based childhood when data speeds are very low. So what happened in Spain as fiber optic cables were laid and high-speed internet came to different regions at different times?
https://www.afterbabel.com/p/social-media-mental-illness-epi...