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

261–270 of 598 posts

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

#261

Post by krater23 »

downrightmike wrote: post #212
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…

The world sucks and the kids have no hope. Social media/ internet is to distract everyone from the real world problems

Normally we used beer for that, but during covid we've learned a whole generation that going out is danger and staying at the couch is good. And they decided that it's much easier than going out and have stressful situations with other people.

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

#262

Post by mlnj »

verisimi wrote: post #142
noosphr wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you talking from experience? What legislation have you organised?

> terminally online losers

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

#263

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

j-bos wrote: post #253
anjiro wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Super awesome as long as your kids never go anywhere they could access a non-locked-down device. And assuming that device parental controls work, which (at least on iOS) they don't [1]. 1. https://www.macworld.com/article/2305919/apple-parental-cont...

Same applies to alcohol at a friend's house, cigarette's behind the shop, and any other sort of restrictions when away from parents. Ultimately kid's will either take to heart their parent's guidnace or they won't.

Those things are still illegal for minors. I find that to be a rather weak argument.

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

#264

Post by krater23 »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #235

Maybe www users do not need "platforms" run by third parties, usually in Silicon Vallley, who conduct data collection, surveillance and advertising services as a "business model" What 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…

Just a story from Germany in early 2000. I had a website and just installed a php script to have a forum on my website and just forgot about it. Today, I could do the same, but I had a 24/7 job to monitor everything someone writes there because it could bring me personally into jail. The same with the comment section of my blog. Thats the reason why this big platforms exist and are used. Because no one other than they want to take the risk. At least in Germany are not much people that want to do that.

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

#265

Post by jtmarl1n »

GeekyBear wrote: post #201

Parents already have the ability to lock down Android or iOS devices for their own children, if they choose to do so.

Parental controls are extremely weak on all the major platforms. Apple, Google, Amazon, etc. they all have them so they can check the box but they are not good and certainly not a solution.

That said, it is better than nothing, but that’s about it.

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

#266

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

antonvs wrote: post #256
pdonis wrote: post #246

Would this website (HN) be a "covered platform" according to the bill? As far as I can tell, the answer is no, because it doesn't do what's described in Section 201 (E): "Uses the personal information of the user to advertise, market, or make content recommendations." Neither does, for example, my bank's website, or someone's personal blog, or many other discussion sites like this one. So from what I can see, while t…

It’s not just “social media”. Any site that’s funded by advertising fits that description.

Only if it's targeted.

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

#267

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

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?

I think it's because they're afraid of what we might ask AI to help us build.

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

#268

Post by a34729t »

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…

Hmmmm that's odd, because everybody I know who has worked (or works) at a major social network (or two or three), including me, thinks it is horrible for mental health of everybody involved.

I'd be very curious what kind of "research" NPR is talking about, and who funded it, because it flies in the face of what all of us at these companies have seen.

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

#269

Post by hactually »

michaelt wrote: post #207
andai wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it interesting how they're doing it in every anglo country simultaneously? How does that work?

When nobody's done something before, there are lots of unanswered questions. Is it even possible? Will businesses my voters like and use a lot just leave my country entirely? Will companies be able to develop privacy-preserving age check infrastructure? Will the press present it as a 'Chinese-style Great Firewall' or be more supportive of it? Will the blocks all be trivial to bypass? Will the large number of porn use…

kinda. but not really. they just showed a lack of effectiveness and has emboldened other countries to further restrict things like VPNs and roll out ID based net access

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

#270

Post by pdonis »

zmgsabst wrote: post #250
pdonis wrote: post #246

Would this website (HN) be a "covered platform" according to the bill? As far as I can tell, the answer is no, because it doesn't do what's described in Section 201 (E): "Uses the personal information of the user to advertise, market, or make content recommendations." Neither does, for example, my bank's website, or someone's personal blog, or many other discussion sites like this one. So from what I can see, while t…

Your bank almost certainly uses your personal information to advertise or market to you — and so seems like it would be covered by that definition.

That's true, but the bank also already knows my age.

Also, a bank would not satisfy section 201 (B), (C), or (D), so it wouldn't be a covered platform anyway. (I should have left "bank" out of my original post, I was really thinking more about discussion sites like this one, blogs, etc.)

Post reply on HN