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

Age verification is just a precursor to automated attribution of speech

nonogra.ph

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 663 posts

Re: Age verification is just a precursor to automated attribution of speech

#181

Post by ball_of_lint »

NoPicklez wrote: post #53

I think you can look at all things pessimistically, like this article does but at the end of the day we all agree that there are things online we don't want our kids seeing or engaging with and it takes regulators to push how we protect them from those online places. What other options to regulators have? Age restriction has been around for longer than the internet itself, so its regulators applying that logic to the…

Why do you or anyone besides me (and my partner) get to decide what is ok for my kid to see?

If you want your kids to not see porn on the internet, cool. Don't give them Internet access. You don't need to make the internet worse for me and my family to make that rule for your family.

And maybe if you are parenting your child well, at some point you will be able to trust them to use the internet in a responsible way.

Re: Age verification is just a precursor to automated attribution of speech

#182

Post by dv_dt »

bluegatty wrote: post #171
dv_dt wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My local librarian did not restrict my books to the kids section when I was a kid. Also librarians have fought civil legal battles to keep reading activities anonymous. Libraries are unlike the restrictions and risks of the proposed legislation being discussed for social media

? --> Your local library fought for your right to read literature of some kind. ---> They did not fight for your right to gang up on others and call them the n-word, to spread lies and slander about people, to harass children and expose them to creeps and pedophiles, to inundate children with hyper-targeted advertising, or 'Andrew Tate 'how to beat women' seminars'. Nobody is pushing for a ban on social media so that…

Im not sure of your direction as the age verification legislation also does not address this:

| They did not fight for your right to gang up on others and call them the n-word, to spread lies and slander about people, to harass children and expose them to creeps and pedophiles, to inundate children with hyper-targeted advertising, or 'Andrew Tate 'how to beat women' seminars'.

I think existing laws should be engaged to address pedophiles and incitement of violence in public spaces and social media - no new legislation is really needed. Barring potential victims from a place instead of prosecuting the noxious behavior from the public place seems like an odd approach indeed.

As for libraries - libraries are curated spaces of freedom that are obviously under assault by right wing parties to ban books that support cultural and personal acceptance for other societies as well as out groups like lgbt information, and even basic women's health information. The problem for authoritarians is libraries are too free - not that they are "curated".

Re: Age verification is just a precursor to automated attribution of speech

#183

Post by nullorempty »

14 wrote: post #128
aucisson_masque wrote: post #119

If I say something illegal during a meeting, people will notice it and will report it to the police. Then I may get arrested or fined. Why should it be different on the internet ? Provided we live in countries where freedom of speech is enacted. Of course in Russia or china it's different but surely they already have tools like that.

Because it has been shown that even if freedom is speech is a right that people will still be afraid to speak up if they know they are being monitored. Because the reality is that even if you are allowed to speak you might still be punished through other means. This is much bigger than saying something illegal on the internet. This is about not being able to criticize your government without fear of retribution. Or h…

I feel we are there already.

The weather is a bit rainy now but there is sun in the forecast for afternoon.

^^^ that is all we have left to discuss already in personal conversations at work anyways.

Re: Age verification is just a precursor to automated attribution of speech

#184

Post by microgpt »

charcircuit wrote: post #94
microgpt wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's an example of the government silencing people for speech

No, it's an example of someone being told to leave, not doing so, and then being arrested for trespassing.

[flagged]

Re: Age verification is just a precursor to automated attribution of speech

#185

Post by watwut »

josteink wrote: post #47
watwut wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, social networks already made genocide happen. They they were instrumental in the curren winning march of fascism - in USA, in EU in Asia.

That’s a very dramatic take - and I dare say a counter-factual one too. Which actual genocide would you be talking about? I really don’t think people should water out words like that over what is essentially tiny political differences.

> I really don’t think people should water out words like that over what is essentially tiny political differences.

I really don’t think people should minimize actual historical and current events for political purposes. Knee jerk "bad things are inconvenient, therefore they did not happened" denial is how we got here.

> essentially tiny political differences

The political differences between actual fascism that is on the rise, its actual opposition and those in between are large. Not small. Also, in more recent events there were pogroms in Belfast now. Elon Musk personally contributed to their incitement.

Re: Age verification is just a precursor to automated attribution of speech

#186

Post by Telaneo »

bluegatty wrote: post #167
Telaneo wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your local library has age and ID requirements. It literally doesn't (at least not if I don't intend to borrow a book and take it home; if I stay there and read, I can do so without any ID. I only need ID to get a library card, and I don't need that to enter and read a book).

It literally does - and you just admitted it. The point is that 'even the local library' enacts rules and social conventions - not that they're exhaustively and acutely enforced in all corners. No 4chan section in the library? You might wonder why it doesn't have vast array of avant guard adult content, porn or art with really aggressive themes and people calling each other the n-word? In society we have 'age related…

> It literally does - and you just admitted it.

I can be 9 years old and go to the library and read any book they have without showing ID. Whatever your point is, it escapes me.

> The point is that 'even the local library' enacts rules and social conventions - not that they're exhaustively and acutely enforced in all corners.

Then let us do the same thing on the internet. Age verification is not that (at least in the forms being pushed).

> No 4chan section in the library?

No, but there are 4chan-style books I can read there. Anything that isn't outright illegal (Anarchist's cookbook) is pretty darn available there.

> You might wonder why it doesn't have vast array of avant guard adult content, porn or art with really aggressive themes and people calling each other the n-word?

That'd be because it does have books like that. Your point continues to escape me. Maybe my library is really pushing whatever limits.

> I just can't believe anyone here has any relationship with the reality of children, teaching or parenting whatsoever

I've literally been an assistant teacher for about a year. You probably won't believe me though.

> It's the same argument made by the 'drugs should be legal and accessible' crowd

Who I agree with! Funny how that works!

> completely oblivious to the instantaneous massive health epidemic we'd have with opioids and fentanyl

Imagine a world where we can have that regulated, so people know what they're taking, and can see a doctor to get help without getting the police on their back, rather than the unregulated shitshow we have now.

> or the 'anti vaxer' crowd - narrow ideological arguments about expression disconnected from any kind of reality or nuance.

This comparison escapes me too. Anti-vax started with (or at least got a massive growth boost by) Andrew Wakefield, whose paper was based on science so bad and whose research was so heinous he's no longer a doctor. If the 'drugs should be legal and accessible' stance is based on science that bad, I'd love to see it.

Re: Age verification is just a precursor to automated attribution of speech

#187

Post by fyredge »

rockskon wrote: post #26
zarzavat wrote: post #19

I don't like age verification. However I'm not concerned about it. The internet needs new spaces that are more decentralized and less in bed with governments. We already lost our freedom when we agreed to move from IRC to Discord, from phpBB to Reddit, etc. The teenagers who are blocked from mainstream social media will deliver us new free online spaces that are better than what they're blocked from.

Such spaces will never scale if there's widespread legal prohibitions. It is foolish to assume we can innovate our way around the law as opposed to talking with lawmakers to oppose the law before it gets on the books.

And they absolutely should not scale. Scaling is the root cause of all social media ills. If all you see are the 100 people nearest to you, the village idiot will not be able to spread his gospel so easily

Re: Age verification is just a precursor to automated attribution of speech

#188

Post by vaylian »

stymaar wrote: post #100
onion2k wrote: post #10

If we taught systems thinking in schools things like internet age verification would never get past being an idea on the back of a napkin. People struggle to consider the second-, third-, and nth-order effects of anything so asking them to consider what else might happen if we bring in laws and technical mechanisms to 'protect the children' is unfortunately too a big leap for a lot of them. Most people are bad at spo…

“Age verification” isn't a problem in itself, the problem is how it's done. They could issue a physical id card with a cryptographic chip and do the age verification in a zero-knowledge fashion and it would be perfectly fine. The problem is the lack of thinking about the solution and just handwaving “age verification” as a political posture, which is why we end up with half-baked systems.

People fall through the cracks of the system. You suddenly can't use a digital service any more, because it requires you to use a specific technology that you can't obtain, even though you are old enough. You might be a refugee, you might be someone with special characters in their name or you might be someone from a country that simply doesn't provide recognized digital certifications. Or you might want to run a rooted operating system on your phone or computer.

Re: Age verification is just a precursor to automated attribution of speech

#189

Post by Havoc »

zarzavat wrote: post #19

I don't like age verification. However I'm not concerned about it. The internet needs new spaces that are more decentralized and less in bed with governments. We already lost our freedom when we agreed to move from IRC to Discord, from phpBB to Reddit, etc. The teenagers who are blocked from mainstream social media will deliver us new free online spaces that are better than what they're blocked from.

The only thing teenagers are delivering is doomscrolling addiction. Seems improper me that the revert to something like irc en mass

Re: Age verification is just a precursor to automated attribution of speech

#190

Post by Aramgutang »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #163
aucisson_masque wrote: post #119

If I say something illegal during a meeting, people will notice it and will report it to the police. Then I may get arrested or fined. Why should it be different on the internet ? Provided we live in countries where freedom of speech is enacted. Of course in Russia or china it's different but surely they already have tools like that.

> If I say something illegal A situation that should be impossible due to freedom of speech.

Here are some crimes you can commit by speaking, where freedom of speech cannot be used as a defence:

- assault / terror threats

- extortion / blackmail

- fraud

- conspiracy / solicitation to commit a crime

- treason / sedition

- perjury

- slander

Post reply on HN