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

441–450 of 598 posts

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

#441

Post by jvvw »

wcarss wrote: post #353
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?

Attestation of age should suffice; no one in a building somewhere needs to verify my age. If I tell you to treat me like a minor, you do it. Operating systems and browsers can work together to send this as a header. If you're a concerned parent: set your children's ages in their device accounts. Done. This alternative solves the whole problem and it's been brought up a million times, but it doesn't matter, because th…

I don't agree with age verification, but there isn't anywhere 'set your children's ages in their device accounts' that limits their access to inappropriate content and social media.

You can set age in Google Accounts, but they can access pretty much anything when they reach age 13 (which is about the age a lot of these things start to become a real problem) and as a parent you don't have any way to limit that. They don't even need to ask to install new phone apps.

Children also use computers as well as phones and you don't want to stop them using a web browser! You also obviously can't supervise them every moment they are online even if you wanted to.

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

#442

Post by soulofmischief »

LunicLynx wrote: post #429
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?

Maybe this is about time. It’s pretty clear that the internet as such is not and never has been for children. But the way it is done is weird for sure. But how do you do it in a way that it isn’t a burden on the parents or peer pressure the issue that breaks the intent? Or is your point that the internet should be used by children? If so how do you propose restricting the harmful content? From my point of view we are…

You're engaging with the wrong argument. "Think of the children" is meant to confuse and diffuse discourse around what is happening. The argument which actually reflects the true intention of your politicians and lobbyists with respect to this issue is an argument of free access to information by anyone, including children.

I was raised in am extremely oppressive and abusive religious household. I would not be who I am today if I didn't have access to opinions outside of those shoved down my throat. I couldn't even listen to radio stations that weren't corporate soft rock or Christian music.

The internet was the only free space I had. Without it, I would certainly have killed myself as a child, rather than continue to submit to violent physical and religious abuse.

If we would stop blindly reacting with short-term thinking to each issue in turn that Corpgov presents us, and actually think deeply about what kind of future we'd like to build for those after us, it becomes radically clear that both the problem and solution as presented to us are actually detrimental in the long term.

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

#443

Post by Tade0 »

patrickk wrote: post #432
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?

https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1rshc1f/i_traced_2_b...

I originally read it as EVIL/UPDATE.

Anyway, Meta, really? Just to have more of our data? For the absolutely pedestrian explicit purpose of providing more information to advertisers?

This is why I don't buy into conspiracy theories. The truth is typically really boring and predictable - evil corporations will evily corporate.

I half wish for a more exciting villain that would give people a noticeable reason to stand up against - not just annoying people with intrusive ads.

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

#444

Post by engeljohnb »

LunicLynx wrote: post #429
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?

Maybe this is about time. It’s pretty clear that the internet as such is not and never has been for children. But the way it is done is weird for sure. But how do you do it in a way that it isn’t a burden on the parents or peer pressure the issue that breaks the intent? Or is your point that the internet should be used by children? If so how do you propose restricting the harmful content? From my point of view we are…

> But how do you do it in a way that it isn’t a burden on the parents

You make it a burden on the parents, like all parenting always has been.

In my opinion, US culture losing sight of this is part of why our country is spinning down the drain. Combining Ipad kids with "what do you mean my child is failing? Isn't it your job to fix that?" I suspect has lead to a populace that can't think for themselves.

Being willing to give up your online anonymity to be surveiled online and not only beliving it's not a problem, but really thinking it's to protect children is another result of this.

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

#445

Post by kerridge0 »

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.

Yes! I was just thinking that - what if they become conditioned.. still I think it's worth considering, as a thought experiment in light of what seems to be happening - you get the same chains when you come of age instead, although they are virtual....

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

#446

Post by LunicLynx »

soulofmischief wrote: post #442
LunicLynx wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe this is about time. It’s pretty clear that the internet as such is not and never has been for children. But the way it is done is weird for sure. But how do you do it in a way that it isn’t a burden on the parents or peer pressure the issue that breaks the intent? Or is your point that the internet should be used by children? If so how do you propose restricting the harmful content? From my point of view we are…

You're engaging with the wrong argument. "Think of the children" is meant to confuse and diffuse discourse around what is happening. The argument which actually reflects the true intention of your politicians and lobbyists with respect to this issue is an argument of free access to information by anyone, including children. I was raised in am extremely oppressive and abusive religious household. I would not be who I…

I don’t disagree with what you are saying but it isn’t a solution to the problem. And the problem is about the children.

Without trying to offend you, but you are arguing this as: we don’t need to regulate alcohol or drugs because experiences, for everyone, will be better in the end…

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

#447

Post by dev_l1x_be »

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?

They read the Epstein files and reacted quickly.

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

#448

Post by cultofmetatron »

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.

> Once of age, no need, come of age, can remove.

children don't tend to object to losing rights they never had in the first place.

get them used to livign with less rights and a lower standard of living and they wont' know what was taken away from them.

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

#449

Post by lebuffon »

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #133
lebuffon wrote: post #130

I like to look back in history for parallels. In 1912 the USA required that all radio transmitters be licensed. There were classifications established for commercial and amateur stations. So at that time Feds understood the power of giving citizens the ability to communicate with the masses. Fast forward to the 1990s and politicians were clueless about what the internet was doing or would do in future. So what is the…

There's a limited amount of radio spectrum, so it has to be managed. Though technically not unlimited in the strictest sense, internet communications don't have a real limit on how many people can communicate with each other, except limits artificially created.

It's not a technology limitation as you say. The issue is a psychology problem. How do you keep a nation all playing on the same team, so to speak, when there are an infinite number of contradictory voices screaming at them?

My observation is that a society is based on some common ideas, many times myths, but without those common threads you can't make a civilization. This is why dictatorial regimes shut down open internet access rather quickly. They know it will undermine and/or destroy their control of the masses.

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

#450

Post by LunicLynx »

spicyusername wrote: post #434
LunicLynx wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe this is about time. It’s pretty clear that the internet as such is not and never has been for children. But the way it is done is weird for sure. But how do you do it in a way that it isn’t a burden on the parents or peer pressure the issue that breaks the intent? Or is your point that the internet should be used by children? If so how do you propose restricting the harmful content? From my point of view we are…

I don't think it's a given that this can't be partly or mostly policed by parents if they were provided good tools to do so. As it is all of the parental controls on all devices, apps, and services are extremely lackluster. So I'd argue legally required, granular, parental controls and empowering parents would be a much better start to resolving this issue compared to blatant government privacy overreach.

I could accept that there shouldn’t be content for children on the internet, at all, to make this an easy sell.

Parents will not solve this. They would need to first care and then to be as tech savvy as the people in this forum. And then all the content would need to be attributed correctly. If if if, and here we are

Post reply on HN