Age verification is just a precursor to automated attribution of speech • Hacker News Board

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

#271

Post by stavros » Mon, Jun 29, 2026, 9:44 AM UTC

fyredge wrote: post #269

stavros wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think that a society that actively harassed and persecuted homosexuals would spontaneously take pity on them, we have such different understandings on the world that debate can't be productive.

Then I'm disappointed that you would think that way. Change is the only constant, in people, in societies, in politics. Change can be spontaneous, but more of then than not, it is slow, gradual, boring, but still change nonetheless. Would you concede to that?

Change doesn't happen by itself. If you take all the people who want the change and put them in prison, nothing will change.

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

#272

Post by jonathanstrange » Mon, Jun 29, 2026, 9:46 AM UTC

stymaar wrote: post #248

jonathanstrange wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kids will simply find a way to circumvent it without any extra steps. To make age verification useful for protecting kids, you'd need to lock down every software on every operating system and put it under tight government control. We're talking about things like every programming language with a networking library, wget, curl, every web browser that was ever developed, etc. All kinds of tools and software would need…

> Kids will simply find a way to circumvent it without any extra steps. This is just an argument against any regulation whatsoever. Yes, some people will find ways to do illegal stuff, but that doesn't mean forbidding stuff is useless. For instance gangs members always find a way to get access to weapons even in countries where firearms is regulated, but there are still pretty much zero mass slaughter in schools in t…

First of all, the sane chip card design will not take place. That's virtually guaranteed. As a closely related example, banks all over the world have moved away from this design to merely trust the (nonexistent) security of mobile phones. Why? Costs and convenience.

Second, if you hand over a chip card, you still need to lock down and tightly control every executable on every machine. How else would you guarantee that kids cannot access content the government deems unsuitable for them?

Third, I still haven't seen a coherent argument why parents shouldn't be in charge of what content their children are allowed to consume. I'm not at all against governments providing free parental control software, for example, or voluntary industry standards similar to the movie ratings.

Finally, "protecting the children" is obviously a pretense. The sole purpose of the push for this is for governments to get the foot in the door of operating systems they currently can't control well. It's the starting point for a surveillance infrastructure: age verification -> digital ID verification -> tracking who said what and handing the data over to intelligence and law enforcement.

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

#273

Post by ludicrousdispla » Mon, Jun 29, 2026, 9:46 AM UTC

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.

How do you "say something illegal" ?

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

#274

Post by ShinyLeftPad » Mon, Jun 29, 2026, 9:47 AM UTC

teiferer wrote: post #239

ShinyLeftPad wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you acknowledge that for many people and practically e2ee and crime are connected? e2ee is a very useful tool for crime and combined with crypto useful tool for monetizing crime. Criminals used to speak in code, meet clandestine, use burner phones and websites were easy to shut down. Now they don't need to. The solution to privacy problem is not to shout while closing your ears but to make it clear that you see th…

> Ordinary people do not care about e2ee. Gotta read the room. It's a matter of phrasing things. Moxie had this illustrative take: If your chat is not e2ee, it'a a group chat. It's you, your mom, every secret service in the world and some ISP employees as well. If we could clarify to our social circles and broader society that every non-e2ee chat can be browsed by some overpaid freckled 20-something borded out of his…

Tons of people use IG and I think they pretty much know that it's them, the other guy and whatever number of contractors monitoring chats. They just don't care.

Maybe one of the most helpful parallels is with mail. I think US and other countries have strict laws about mail communication privacy. Someone can in theory open your mail but it's strictly regulated and not done in a total way.

Also I do think talking about future malicious government prosecuting people based on what was collected previously is actually a good one. But just talking about privacy may be a little too vague.

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

#275

Post by Ouman » Mon, Jun 29, 2026, 9:53 AM UTC

The scary part is not "age checks today, secret police tomorrow". It is that once there is a convenient identity-verification layer for normal internet use, it will be very hard to keep it limited to the original purpose... Every future regulator, prosecutor, platform and "think of the children" campaign will have an incentive to expand it

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

#276

Post by ben_w » Mon, Jun 29, 2026, 9:53 AM UTC

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…

Having grown up through the early-ish days of the web, I'm still surprised the internet in general didn't get an 18+ age rating almost immediately.

Though I suppose that may have something to do with households in the early days having at most one internet connected device even if they were well off, so society could get away with blaming parents for not monitoring kids' use.

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

#277

Post by Nursie » Mon, Jun 29, 2026, 9:54 AM UTC

simoncion wrote: post #265

Nursie wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You use law and regulation? I mean, 'papers please' mechanisms are a type of law and regulation, we're arguing over what sort of law and regulation should be used, no? In Australia, platforms are being regulated, the regulation says they must not allow under 16s to have accounts. How they achieve this is up to them to a large extent. "Papers-please" then is their doing. It's certainly not the only way things can be…

> I mean, 'papers please' mechanisms are a type of law and regulation... Yes, they are. I still have no idea how laws of the form "You must honor the signals you get from Beefed-Up Parental Controls and we fine or jail you if you do not" fails to constrain the behavior of US-based businesses. You seem to have an understanding of how it won't, so do let me know what I'm missing? > An arms race to work around the contr…

> "You must honor the signals you get from Beefed-Up Parental Controls and we fine or jail you if you do not"

> If anything, I'd expect a client-side implementation to be far more robust...

You're not really describing a client-side solution, you're describing legislation of something like the old Do Not Track header, which is a server-side solution, and fines for services which don't respect it. In such a situation I would expect 'smart' firms like Meta to start finding just-this-side-of-legal ways to get kids hooked on their services. But I suppose the same is likely to happen with server-side-verified blocks on kids using services, Meta can spin up new services that don't quite meet the definition and try to work around it. I guess this is orthoganal to the method of blocking kids.

> from a civil-liberties perspective Australia has been a shithole for a long time now. They can very safely be ignored by US parents and US lawmakers.

Even though what they are doing is less "Papers please" and more "Services must verify, how it's done is up to you", which seems lower down your evil scale than the US states you're up in arms about?

Interesting take.

But again, this is fine, it's an exchange of ideas. You don't seem to be against age verification in principle, you're acknowledging that people want something done. The article and many commenters here are immediately writing off everything in this area as effectively a distraction from full monitoring of everything everyone does on the net.

So while we may disagree entirely on how to go about effecting any sort of solution, and we may not (honestly I'm not entirely averse to the parental controls idea), you're not dismissing the problem out of hand, and in general I have no quarrel with you or your approach.

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

#278

Post by Findecanor » Mon, Jun 29, 2026, 9:55 AM UTC

pprotas wrote: post #252

febusravenga wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not about saying illegal things. It's mostly about saying things that can get you canceled in future in future culture. Dark jokes and strong opinions are example - you something filthy - let's say dark Holocaust/Nazi joke but funny in situation In group that accept it and it's ok. But if it's recorded, it'll stay forever and will surface in most unexpected moment, like job interview or some other screening by go…

Are you arguing that Holocaust/Nazi jokes should be accepted socially, as long as you only deliver them to people who respond positively to Holocaust/Nazi jokes?

The world is not black and white and simple. Things could be taken out of context, and people tend to project.

People have got into trouble for having retold a controversial joke that they had heard, when the reason they retold had been because they themselves had been upset about it.

I too don't think that holocaust jokes should be accepted, but sometimes people say things because they don't know better at the time. There have been cases of people retelling "dog whistles" without having understood their contextual meaning for certain groups. I've even seen politicians use the phrase "Works sets you free" without understanding why it is inappropriate. People learn and change, but old posts can linger on the Internet for a long time.

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

#279

Post by epihelix » Mon, Jun 29, 2026, 9:59 AM UTC

teiferer wrote: post #242

chii wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stupid things like brexit was put to a vote, but really important things such as age verification and mass surveillance are never put to any vote.

In what way was Brexit a stupid thing? It was an extemely important decision, directly affecting everybody's life. If asking people about anything then isn't that what it should be? You might not like the outcome (I don't) but I consider the question of Brexit important.

Should we also have a referendum on reducing the tax rate to zero? It would also be an extremely important decision, directly affecting everybody's life. If asking people about anything, then isn't that what it should be?

Not all referenda that might win a "yes" vote are sensible to propose.

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

#280

Post by lopis » Mon, Jun 29, 2026, 10:00 AM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #29

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…

In fairness, the evidence is that people already pretty firmly against things like chat control and the will to push it through tends to come from the political circles more than popular belief it is a good idea. I expect that if the measure itself went to a general vote, the majority would be against it once they have to deal with a specific proposal. It takes repeated pushes by the authoritarians looking for an opp…

> the evidence is

I don't believe this. I believe us more tech oriented people live in a dangerous bubble that reassures us that obviously people are against it. But that's very likely not true.