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

401–410 of 598 posts

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

#401

Post by program_whiz »

kelnos wrote: post #396
djaro wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that not all parents are "concerned parents" and children dont deserve to be taken advantage of by trillion dollar corporations for the crime of having bad parents.

That's the classic question of when the state should step in to correct bad parenting, and when it should leave well enough alone. I'm sympathetic to the idea that this is one of the "step in" times, but I think the negatives for doing so seem far too costly. At any rate, with age verification, un-concerned parent will likely just want their kid to shut up, and will verify using their own details to give the kid the…

What are the negatives for doing so?

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

#402

Post by [deleted] »

preg_match wrote: post #176
microgpt wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, they'll get it even if you don't buy it for them

No, they won’t. The schools have internet but they also often don’t even allow phones these days. And those networks block almost everything. They might still get some content downstream of other kids. However, I doubt a “look at this tiktok” here and there has any harmful effects. What’s harmful is excessive social media use, especially unmonitored. So, either monitor your kid or do not give them access. It’s perfec…

[deleted]

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

#403

Post by saghm »

program_whiz wrote: post #401
kelnos wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the classic question of when the state should step in to correct bad parenting, and when it should leave well enough alone. I'm sympathetic to the idea that this is one of the "step in" times, but I think the negatives for doing so seem far too costly. At any rate, with age verification, un-concerned parent will likely just want their kid to shut up, and will verify using their own details to give the kid the…

What are the negatives for doing so?

Forcing literally everyone else on the internet to give up privacy. No kids ever use my devices (there are no kids in my household), but in order to protect the non-existent children who theoretically would use my devices, I'd be forced to share information I don't want to and blindly trust that the process is done in a way that magically doesn't increase the ability to track me across websites.

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

#404

Post by saghm »

CalRobert wrote: post #366
kerridge0 wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had an idea the other day that children could have some kind of jewellery that they can't remove like a curfew device. Probably impractical but at least it matches - children=limited rights and need protection. Once of age, no need, come of age, can remove.

"Once of age, no need, come of age, can remove." This seems very naive to me, to be honest.

If you're concerned with the fact that the government might have misaligned incentives to use a system beyond the originally given intent, I think the actual approaches that are in danger of being implemented should probably be something you focus on more than something that one person on an internet forum casually suggested

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

#405

Post by saghm »

kgwxd wrote: post #189
duxup wrote: post #174

I remember when the advice was to NOT give out your personal information online. Now it's "present your personal info when demanded or else".

There's not a single point in history where everyone on the planet advised just one of those things simultaneously.

There has also never been a single point in history when everyone in the planet was over the age of 70, but there are also a lot more people who are over 70 now than 1000 years ago. I don't understand why you think that all fractions between 0 and 1 are equivalent.

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

#406

Post by saghm »

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #263
j-bos wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They're implemented in a way that people who don't ever buy alcohol or cigarettes get effected by though. I can't feasibly opt out of the entire internet that I use to pay bills, schedule doctors appointments, file taxes, etc. because hypothetical children could use them to access completely unrelated things to those boring parts of my everyday life. The equivalent would be if I got carded every time I stepped out of my house just in case I might decide to buy alcohol later.

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

#407

Post by doublerabbit »

kerridge0 wrote: post #361
kulahan wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of studies came out kinda at the same time showing how harmful it is and people aren’t coming up with alternatives. What else can you do?

I had an idea the other day that children could have some kind of jewellery that they can't remove like a curfew device. Probably impractical but at least it matches - children=limited rights and need protection. Once of age, no need, come of age, can remove.

At this point you might as well make it Battle Royale style. If you're not next to your countability buddy (an adult) when you use the internet, poof.

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

#408

Post by monegator »

sph wrote: post #346
jeroenhd wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That Facebook story is an AI generated attempt at astroturf that has gone viral, but we shouldn’t probably continue perpetuating it. It is not Meta working across the globe because they’re too lazy to implement age verification. Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48708278

Meta is actively sponsoring the bills in my country. They go as far as ads on TV and Radio, something that never happened before

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

#409

Post by saghm »

simoncion wrote: post #271
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...

> Super awesome as long as your kids never go anywhere they could access a non-locked-down device. Please describe how requiring a government ID in order to use a computer prevents an over-seventeen from presenting their ID to unlock their computer and then handing that computer over to an under-eighteen? An over-seventeen handing over control of their unlocked computer to a visiting under-eighteen seems to me to be…

> The only way I can see to even begin to combat that is to constantly surveil the operator of the computer to attempt to detect when its operator changes. Do you have a superior method?

The idea that I should have to figure out a mechanism for other people to police their children in order to use my devices that no child ever has access to for things like paying bills and making doctors appointments without presenting identification is absurd. Minors still drink alcohol all the time, but that would be a pretty shoddy excuse for the government making me flash my ID to leave my house and didn't let me in grocery stores because I couldn't come up with any more effective way to prevent underage drinking.

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

#410

Post by saghm »

interloxia wrote: post #362
kelseyfrog wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we expect the behavior of parents to change we must change their incentives. Providing access to social media must be met with the same punishment as offering heroin to children. The monopoly on violence must be brought to bear on parents who neglect parental responsibilities.

That's how we end up with stolen generations of kids taken from parents. It was bad and suggesting state violence for lack of compliance with your world view is bad.

I'm pretty sure the parent comment is not being serious. They're making a point that some solutions are worse than the problem they're trying to solve.
Post reply on HN