451–460 of 598 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meta is publicly posting ads in Europe promoting age verification, so yes Meta is a part of the problem.
What does Meta get out of enacting mass surveillance of the entire Western world (not even for their personal benefit)? That they can avoid spending 6 months implementing ID checks like porn sites have done? Also can I see an example of those ads? Google isn’t surfacing anything relevant
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
You may have skipped over the part in my comment where I pointed out that this "problem" is ostensible at best, and is literally, intentionally presented in a way for you and others to remain engaged with that problem, talking loudly about it while others are trying to actually discuss the real problem being buried underneath:
Our corporate neoliberal authoritarian fascist governments are closing in fast to secure the surveillance state and consolidate their power through an unprecedented level of State control over our lives.
Again, "The children" is not the problem. That is literally the trojan horse being delivered to you through a type of propaganda which has already been well-documented.
> you are arguing this as: we don’t need to regulate alcohol or drugs because experiences, for everyone, will be better in the end…
I never made such an argument, or implied such an argument. What you've done here is present a complete straw man argument instead of critically engaging with the actual argument I've just made, which is that you're falling for corporate and government propaganda and taking up space serving their goals, instead of trying to serve the goals of your own society; and that's the twisted part, you think that you're doing exactly that by entertaining and fueling the "Think of the children" argument.
But in order to not be a sucker, you have to harness that desire to do the right thing and peel back the layers of deception. Fighting the right fight. And not misconstruing valid arguments by saying, "Oh well you just don't want anything to be regulated at all, do you! You want kids to be able to freely access heroin?"
Which, ignoring the fact that ~100 years ago you could go buy a heroin tincture at the pharmacy for your children, this is just a false dichotomy. The options are not between "require children (And adults! That's the point!) to show ID before freely accessing information" and "let the kids shoot up heroin".
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. 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right but if we could kill that business model by making platforms chose between age verification and non-targeted ads, that would be a win right? That's not so say I'm in favor of age verification, just pointing out the silver lining.
You're assuming that platforms that tried age verification in order to show people targeted ads would lose enough users to make that business model no longer viable. While I would fervently like to believe that's true, I'm not so sure it is. I think there might well be enough people who will hand over their personal identifying info without a second thought in order to continue to use targeted ad-supported platforms,…
We are such a smart species.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 d…
I think there are many ways to limit that. E.g. Google Android parental control https://support.google.com/families/answer/7103028?hl=en#zip...
I understand technological advancements can be overwhelming for older people. But that does not warrant giving up on kids...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> If you're a concerned parent: set your children's ages in their device accounts. And if you're a concerned government, make OS vendors support it and make parents criminally responsible for not setting it.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Parental controls are extremely weak on all the major platforms. So pass laws and enact regulations that require them to be made strong. Not only does this moot the demands for capture of photo ID, beefing up the parental controls that already exist in every major OS means that -say- adults caring for their dementia-damaged parents can restrict those adults' access to things that could be very dangerous to them and…
> So pass laws and enact regulations that require them to be made strong. No, please dont. More regulation is not the answer. Any more restriction which is imposed on kids becomes the thing they focus on getting around. Just dont buy your kids phones until they are older, and send them outside to play. Thats all the parental restriction you need on phones.
There's no one-size-fits-all pitch, but my starting point would probably be time limits per day on a smart device, killing all notifications on it, and telling them that these things are because it has bad consequences if they don't have limits, so if you catch them getting around the limits, the privileges of such things will be temporarily or permanently removed.
I don't love it, but unless someone comes up with a wonder drug to dampen addictive effects of things in humans and we're all somehow convinced this is a great idea to give to everyone, all you can do is avoid the parts that are a race to the bottom of gamified attention and focus, until they're old enough that they hopefully have an informed opinion and are the ones making the choice to drink the poison chalice or not.