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

291–300 of 663 posts

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

#291

Post by lopis »

onion2k wrote: post #52
NoPicklez wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well we teach people the health benefits of physical activity school but many don't continue with it.

Sorry, this is going to be a rant. :) Admittedly it's a long time since I was in school, but when I was there the notion of teaching the benefits of physical activity was limited to being told to run about for some 'sport', and absolutely nothing about why that's a good idea. Everyone was expected to do the same thing with no consideration for ability, disability, or motivation. Kids were punished with detentions for…

I was in school for 12 years and for 11 of those years I was told I was bad at sports. It was only in the last year of high-school that I finally had a PE teacher that actually tried to teach us that sports is about doing what we like and moving our bodies. I had top grades that year and finally learned that I liked (some) sports. Turns out I was just bad at football (soccer) which was what we were forced to do 90% of the time.

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

#292

Post by Ouman »

RachelF wrote: post #41

Age verification is just one part of this crackdown. Device attestation is another - making sure you're using an unmodified government approved operating system and apps linked to your ID.

Age verification is the visible, easy-to-sell layer. Device attestation is the more structural one...

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

#293

Post by AnthonyMouse »

xinayder wrote: post #205
lelandbatey wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there such a thing as "unbiased public opinion" at all though? The memetic effects of language and communication means propaganda and similar tools of rhetoric and leveraged communication will always work, with or without an internet. There's no "solution", only "good enoughs". Direct democracy is cool, but also impractical. I do not want to vote on every counties appropriations for road maintenance. So what's a l…

The Swiss succeeded in this, maybe we should look at their model and improve.

Switzerland is a country with a total population approximately the size of the state of New Jersey. This being too centralized for most things, they then further divided that population into 26 cantons ranging in size from approximately the size of New Hampshire at the high end to "that number of people would be classified as a town rather than a city" at the low end.

The median size looks to be around 200,000 people, so maybe start by dividing the US population into cantons of around that size and doing most of the rulemaking at that level.

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

#294

Post by stymaar »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #272
stymaar wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 tha…

> 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.

Businesses are always going to favor the cheapest options, but that's why regulation exist.

> 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?

You don't need to guarantee that. It's like saying you can't have an alcohol consumption ban on teenagers without spying on them all the time. It's technically true but it doesn't matter: having teenagers consume way less booze due to the rules than they would without it, and that's fine for most people, societies don't need to enforce an absolute 100% ban of things for bans to deliver the expected outcome.

> 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.

It's much less about what their children are allowed to consume, but what are businesses allowed to sell to their children. It's exactly like alcohol restrictions: the government don't raid houses to check if parents are letting child drink whine and beer at home, but it aggressively enforces that bars don't sell booze to teenagers.

> Finally, "protecting the children" is obviously a pretense.

Not from the electors. Most people are favorable to these things, and that's why these laws are voted. Obviously intelligence agencies are always trying to get access to more data whenever they can, but that's not the reason why these laws are voted, and the representatives routinely could vote for a version of that which doesn't serve any intelligence purpose.

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

#295

Post by boomskats »

I'm honestly amazed that people are only just figuring this out.

I know that reads like I'm being snarky, but I'm not trying to be. Within the last decade in the UK we have had (among others):

- the 2016 Snoopers' Charter

- the 2022 Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act

- the 2023 Public Order Act

- the 2023 Online Safety Act

- the 2024 Addendum to the 2016 Snoopers' Charter

Couple that with the whole push to repeal the 1998 Human Rights Act and withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, and the fact we've started imprisoning pensioners for holding up signs, and it's really difficult to _not_ see exactly where this leaves us.

I wish I could look away and get on with my life, but I can't - and I'm starting to realise that that is also part of the design. The increasing reluctance to express controversial opinion online isn't an accidental side effect of all of this legislation. It is intended behaviour, the desired outcome.

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

#296

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

coldtea wrote: post #254
lelandbatey wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there such a thing as "unbiased public opinion" at all though? The memetic effects of language and communication means propaganda and similar tools of rhetoric and leveraged communication will always work, with or without an internet. There's no "solution", only "good enoughs". Direct democracy is cool, but also impractical. I do not want to vote on every counties appropriations for road maintenance. So what's a l…

> Is there such a thing as "unbiased public opinion" at all though? Doesn't really matter except philosophically. There's something close enough to unbiased public opinion when there are no government propaganda campaings, censorship, press owned by conglomerates, and corporate messaging.

In most political systems the two functions of government are rationing and ideological control for the poor and profiteering for the rich. The media provide marketing and propaganda support for both.

It's very hard to have truly independent media.

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

#297

Post by thrance »

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…

That's by design. Bringing up any kind of systemic issues, or applying a materialist reasoning to anything will get you taxed with communism. This is a classic strategy of the capital class, and is at the foundation of neoliberalism. In Thatcher's own words:

> There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families.

They have to keep the population blind to any kind of systemic thinking to rob them blind.

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

#298

Post by romankolpak »

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…

What’s the alternative? How do you solve the problem of not allowing children into online spaces where they shouldn’t be allowed in?

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

#299

Post by philipallstar »

romankolpak wrote: post #298
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…

What’s the alternative? How do you solve the problem of not allowing children into online spaces where they shouldn’t be allowed in?

We should assign one or two adults to children who provide for them, and prevent various dangers, including online ones, from reaching them. It sounds like a lot of effort, but it is also the most important task on the planet.

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

#300

Post by Telaneo »

bluegatty wrote: post #253
Telaneo wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

[flagged]

> So you prefer the internet be censored to be as civil as the library?

Given that I can find books that aren't civil there, sure.

> This is 4Chan [1] , and your library does not contain stuff like this.

Finding dick pics at my local library isn't hard, if you know where to look. Ditto 4chan.

> Your library does not contain books or films showing 'rape voyeurism'.

That'd be because it's illegal. Hence my comment about that.

> It's made by PURDUE PHARMA, dispensed by doctors, and has caused a vicious national epidemic affecting millions of lives - and is the leading cause of death for ages 18-45 !!

I'm glad I don't live in the US, where doctors are lobbied (this doesn't seem like the right word, but you get the idea) to push opiates or whatever other drugs on patients, only to then get away with it. Preventing things like that is also included in 'a world where we can have that regulated'. For instance:

> The 'world you need to imagine' is one where we actually are able to restrict fentanyl, definitely restrict doctors from handing out entire bottles, and are able to afford actual rehab for those how need it.

I agree we should restrict doctors from pushing opioids! And rehab should be state sponsored! That too is harm reduction.

> Singapore, which takes a very aggressive and authoritarian 'zero tolerance' approach has less than 1% of the deaths.

Ah, yes, sterile Singapore. I guess 30 years in prison is better than dying.

I'll refrain from commenting on the rest of your post. Have a good day. I know I won't.

Post reply on HN