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

451–460 of 663 posts

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

#451

Post by graemep »

j16sdiz wrote: post #378
graemep wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An alternative would be to select representatives by lot. It would get rid of a political class, would automatically be representative (so no arguments about whether women, minorities, whoever are fairly represented) and not select for people who want power and it would mean people have the same amount of time as those in the current system.

Look at how the American hate jury lottery, I doubt this would be welcomed in the state. It may work in some other country..

Juries are unpaid and obscure. I think most people in the UK would be delighted to sit in Parliament for the a £100k an year salary + expenses (what MP's currently get) plus a lot of prestige and the experience. It would be a pretty good thing to have on your CV!

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

#452

Post by graemep »

DrScientist wrote: post #331
graemep wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An alternative would be to select representatives by lot. It would get rid of a political class, would automatically be representative (so no arguments about whether women, minorities, whoever are fairly represented) and not select for people who want power and it would mean people have the same amount of time as those in the current system.

I heard this idea, or variants of it, quite a lot recently. Some of the examples I've seen it tried - I've seen the people setting it up trying to fix the outcome by carefully choosing the question, then providing expert advice on options scoped by the question. Framing of the question is a powerful tool to promote the outcome you want, and avoiding ever asking certain questions is another. Not saying it doesn't have…

Did you reply to the wrong comment? The idea I just put forward does not involve questions, it involves replacing one group of people with another doing the same job.

Framing questions is already a problem with legislation. You can frame "do you want to increase online surveillance" as "do you want to protect children" very successfully!

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

#453

Post by rini17 »

mpalmer wrote: post #437
jklowden wrote: post #432

Count me among those who think publishers should always know who they’re publishing. When law enforcement comes knocking, a warrant should be all they need. Meta can’t shrug and say they don’t know who Batman1964 is. There’s nothing new in publishing anonymously, just ask George Elliot. What’s new is the notion that publishers have no liability. Social media companies do not claim to speak for themselves. They have n…

Freedom of expression is inseparable from the right to privacy. Should journalists be forced to reveal their sources if the subject of a claim sues for defamation?

Freedom of expression is not absolute and never was.

Should everyone just shrug off anonymous hoaxes and hate speech?

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

#454

Post by recursive-call »

harshreality wrote: post #307
philipallstar wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A generation of kids have grown up with just such assigned adults, who overwhelmingly did not apply sufficient oversight to the kids' use of social media. In large part that's because, if they'd done so, the kids would've been socially isolated from their peers, at least the most normal ones with the most normal parents, which are the kinds of friends most other normal parents want their kids to have. It's a collecti…

>In large part that's because, if they'd done so, the kids would've been socially isolated from their peers, at least the most normal ones with the most normal parents, which are the kinds of friends most other normal parents want their kids to have.

I never had any of the popular social medias when I was growing up, and I wasn’t isolated from anybody aside from the one bloke who insisted on doing all his texting via instagram. I’m in uni now and people kind of laugh when I ask them for a phone number, but if anything it’s improved my social status.

>And also, giving kids social media interaction devices is a convenient form of babysitting. It reduces up-front effort of parenting.

This is the real issue to me. Parents are overworked and exhausted because you can’t support a family on one salary, so there’s no more stay-at-home parents. I was extremely lucky in that my mom’s firm got bought out when I was in 5th grade and she retired on the severance package. Parenting is a full time job and society needs to treat it like one. If stay-at-home parents got a salary from the government, 90% of what’s wrong with kids would be solved (and the falling birthrate issue too).

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

#455

Post by intended »

MaKey wrote: post #448
intended wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That Reddit post is feeding more conspiracy thinking than helping. The facts listed also match the actions of a firm aiming to ensure that the burden of verification does not fall on it, for a legislative process that they know is coming. Red flag after red flag has been raised on child outcomes and social media, for a decade. The internet is great for people here on HN, who know enough to avoid getting screwed. The…

How did you come to the conclusion that advocating for privacy is at odds with protecting users? I'd argue the opposite is true.

Because the entire reason we are here is due to the fact that harms to kids are on the other end of the scale.

There is no “win” here, which doesn’t have the issue coming back.

Dismissing the harms only makes privacy advocacy irrelevant to voters.

Defending privacy effectively means plugging the root cause it is being encroached.

This is being articulated as a defense of privacy when it originates from social media harms to kids.

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

#456

Post by analog8374 »

friendzis wrote: post #166
roenxi wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

When you think about it, the idea of a representative democracy is rooted in the technical difficulties of implementing a direct democracy: both spread of information/discussion to the masses and organizing the votes. In this day and age, probably with a relatively tiny investment into public access points, we could very reasonably have a technically functional direct democracy. The legislative cycle is already authe…

2 ideas about direct democracy.

Selling your vote becomes a nonissue when everybody is doing it.

An LLM informed by a reddit-style discussion tree might be a good way to implement the policy-creating part of a direct democracy.

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

#457

Post by raffael_de »

account42 wrote: post #446
raffael_de wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

surveillance of foreigners (particularly) with residence in a different country is a different issue from surveillance of own citizens.

And the neat part is that you can have agreements within a group of countries (say about five) to have them surveil your citizens and share what they find with you while you do the same for them.

or you do like EU and just hand over your own citizens' data to non-EU countries.

(for example: https://www.dw.com/en/eu-weighs-giving-us-data-for-fewer-tra...)

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

#458

Post by DrScientist »

friendzis wrote: post #439
DrScientist wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's implication, that representative democracy selects for a group with inherently higher average bandwidth allocated per proposal \ Eh? It's a representatives full time job to consider these things as oppose to the general public doing a full time job and then having to consider legislation. The difference between lobbying for representatives versus people directly is that representatives have to answer to the…

> The difference between lobbying for representatives versus people directly is that representatives have to answer to the people - whereas no-one loses their job as a citizen if they get persuaded by story tellers. I would not be so sure. What's the fundamental difference between convincing general public to vote certain way in a hypothetical direct-ish democracy and convincing that lobbied-for vote by representativ…

With humans bandwidth is pretty much always limited - however it's clear that a representative has a higher bandwidth for politics than the average person - because it's their job ( and note they normally have a team of researchers around them as well ).

In terms of persuasion - if a representative votes in a way that's at odds with the people who elect them, then there is a risk of the representative losing their job.

If you have a small group of citizen, selected at random for a particular decision, if they are bribed/lobbied/copted - they aren't at risk from an electorate down the line.

Obviously given that large scale persuasion is now cheap and automatable - even in a representative democracy you might well choose to set the political weather by directly targeting the electorate.

Right now this is a major threat to democracy - you only need a few people skilled int he dark arts, no morals and a sackful of cash to change the political weather currently.

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

#459

Post by LtWorf »

darkwater wrote: post #132
shevy-java wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> making sure you're using an unmodified government approved operating system Will be interesting to see if this leads to more Linux systems being deployed. Then again with systemd supporting age sniffing ( https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/40954 ), evading this becomes harder and harder.

Evading what exactly? If the age verification is a flag sent by the OS and you are the OS administrator, you can do whatever you want.

Sure, but your device won't be able to connect to anything useful.

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

#460

Post by AgentOrange1234 »

speff wrote: post #447
teiferer wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I suspect a lot of people don't mind/care that the list is expanded to those groups. That's really a big part of the issue. It's better framing, regardless though.

More than that. Who cares if the state can read your chats/etc, when you believe you aren't the kind of people the state wants to persecute. Why deny the state ever more tools to go after people, as long as you think it's going to use them against the people you want it to go after.
Post reply on HN