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

281–290 of 598 posts

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

#281

Post by ars »

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?

Why is it weird? Social media has existed for around the same amount of time for all western countries, and people have noticed the harm at around the same time everywhere.

Why do you require some special interest? Ordinary people are seeing the harm and demanding help. Tech companies did themselves no favors by locking down phones and accounts to the point that it's impossible for parents to police and/or check their kids phones.

So now that parents have been blocked from parenting, who else is going to do it?

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

#282

Post by ars »

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.

That's just not true. If you give your kid WhatsApp access because that's how 95% of their peers text each other, then your kid has access to a hidden chat that can only be revealed by typing a secret code in the search bar.

Tell me how a parent is supposed to parent their kid when they can do that? Locking down WhatsApp is no solution because then they can't talk to anyone. (Other countries do not use SMS as much as the US does, it's mostly WhatsApp.)

Say you are sure your kid is being bullied or abused and you want to check their phone. You can't. From the password to encrypted apps kids can hide their communications in ways that are impossible for a parent to check.

Apps do not have "child modes" that disable all the secret stuff, although that would be nice.

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

#284

Post by enzar »

enzar wrote: post #283

This would be amazing .

Folks saying "kids will find a way" yes but the social norm of them being looked down upon certain online content would make it so they view it less as its not a norm. Kinda how NSFW content is right now, nobody whips that out unless they are in private...

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

#285

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

antonvs wrote: post #273
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if it's targeted.

True, but in practice, the vast majority of advertising-funded sites use targeted advertising, because they use standard ad networks. There are very few ads networks that don’t do targeted ads.

Right but if we could kill that business model by making platforms chose between age verification and non-targeted ads, that would be a win right?

That's not so say I'm in favor of age verification, just pointing out the silver lining.

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

#286

Post by stego-tech »

Once again banging my “there’s already an age check to get online and it’s the adult paying the ISP bill” drum.

Seriously, enough with mandating compliance with the surveillance economy. Build a society where parents can actually take care of their kids instead of hiding a surveillance state behind the guise of “protecting children” and blaming adults who want to preserve privacy or anonymity in the last space it exists within.

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

#287

Post by pdonis »

9x39 wrote: post #280
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…

No, because: with respect to which more than one-third of the material made available thereon is sexual material harmful to minors; and (C) with respect to which the provider of such platform knowingly makes available the sexual material harmful to minors described in subparagraph (B). (look for line 19 to see the covered platform) Of course, it's a delicious web they're trying to weave - pass it now by casting the t…

You're looking at section 102 of the bill, which is a different part than the one I was looking at (and that the EFF article is referring to). The bill is a mismash of several different proposed bills all squashed together into one. Title I, which is what you're looking at, is more restrictive about what platforms it applies to than Title II, which contains the section I quoted.

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

#288

Post by voxl »

a34729t wrote: post #268
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.

It's a good thing what random people thing is not taken a science these days, oh wait I guess science is on a historic decline as well.

Maybe it's not climate chance, pseudo intellectualism, late stage capitalism, etc. Nah, it's the kids in their group chat or scrolling through tiktok, that's it, that's the reason.

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

#289

Post by AlienRobot »

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…

You need to be more realist.

"Uses the personal information of the user to advertise"

Is 99.9% of all websites. So long as websites don't sell things, they will be having ads.

This includes Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Twitter, Tumblr, Pinterest, Imgur, TikTok, Twitch, Youtube, etc. I think even Steam and other game platforms would fall into this category despite the fact they make money selling products. Naturally search engines also fall into this category.

Websites like HN are the exception, not the norm.

It's also disingenuous to say "a personal blog" would be exempt from this when most people don't have blogs in first place since they start microblogging instead. In fact, most people don't want to go through the trouble of maintaining their own blog, dealing with spam, hosting, hacking attempts, software updates, etc., when they can just use tumblr and pin the responsibility on the platform anytime something bad happens.

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

#290

Post by pdonis »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #285
antonvs wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but in practice, the vast majority of advertising-funded sites use targeted advertising, because they use standard ad networks. There are very few ads networks that don’t do targeted ads.

Right but if we could kill that business model by making platforms chose between age verification and non-targeted ads, that would be a win right? That's not so say I'm in favor of age verification, just pointing out the silver lining.

You're assuming that platforms that tried age verification in order to show people targeted ads would lose enough users to make that business model no longer viable. While I would fervently like to believe that's true, I'm not so sure it is. I think there might well be enough people who will hand over their personal identifying info without a second thought in order to continue to use targeted ad-supported platforms, to keep them in business. I hope I'm wrong.
Post reply on HN