Live data from Hacker News

The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

eff.org

501–510 of 598 posts

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

#501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Politics works that way sometimes. It could be a fad. It could be the culmination of years of the intelligentsia, political, and corporate benefactors finding this to be the right time to move forward. There has been a lot of propaganda since the mid teens targeting the social and psychological impacts of social media. It is certainly plausible that some group or the aforementioned entities had a big part of this. Re…

[flagged]

who decides what are bad/problematic/unacceptable books?

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

#502

I just listened to a radio program on my local NPR station about the topic of kids and social media. From what was presented, the research shows (longitudinal study) that there is very little evidence of social media impacting mental health--which is shocking because a majority of adults think there is a connection and the politicians are pushing that narrative. I have not personally vetted the research. Has anyone e…

There's quite a lot of statistics saying currently teens struggle with mental health even more than is historically normal for teenagers. [1, 2] Young people are also spending less time with friends, drinking less, and having less sex than ever before. Obviously it's difficult to pin a 20-year trend on a single cause. But most parents have the sense their teens spend too much time on their phones; and with social med…

> Young people are also spending less time with friends, drinking less, and having less sex than ever before.

Two of those three are probably better outcomes.

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

#503
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?

I am really starting to think that the Very Smart People (pejorative) holding power think that they can just copy the Chinese mass surveillance and social control model without changing anything else about the economic or cultural models of the U.S. and Europe, and that's going to somehow allow us to compete with them. I'm sure there will be massive exceptions for anyone wealthy and connected, so the panopticon is just a way to whip and threaten the common folk. That's also why it probably won't work. In a way it just reeks of desperation and reaching straight for the most authoritarian approach.

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

#504

In many states, children under some age are prohibited from using firearms. There is substantial evidence to show that firearms pose a real and present harm to individual children and large groups. An excellent rider to the KIDS act would be to mandate the installation of age (that is, identity) verification to all firearms in order to disable the safety.

Fun fact: Most firearms don't have a manual safety that you disengage.

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

#505
post #162
post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One cannot use a handwavey "organized" and "coordinated" without a subject. Who specifically do you propose is ordering this?

If Facebook, in light of the 2021 "Facebook Papers," believed the legislation inevitable, what kind of legislation would maximize its advantage? Noteworthily, the legislation moves age verification from individual apps to app-store operators [Apple, Google] which reduces Facebooks legal exposure for inaccurate/incorrect age verifications.

Context: https://youtu.be/4KyiLyOxux8

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

#506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parental controls are extremely weak on all the major platforms. Apple, Google, Amazon, etc. they all have them so they can check the box but they are not good and certainly not a solution. That said, it is better than nothing, but that’s about it.

You can control which apps children can install, how much time they are allowed to use those apps a day, decide if they have access to the web, which web sites they can visit, and decide who they are allowed to communicate with. What features are missing that makes everyone giving up their privacy a better option?

I have an Android. I want to let my kid use the phone, but without a separate account. I basically want to say "Enable Kid Mode", and I specify what apps he sees. To get out of Kid mode I need a PIN.

This is basic level protection.

How do I do this?

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

#507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh my God, this. Kids are safer today.

Safer from shock images? What about the psychological manipulation stuff, you know, the actual dangerous stuff? If a preteen sees a horse fucking a human they won't even know what that is. Notice you didn't answer the question btw

I'm 13 and what is this?

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

#508
post #396
post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that not all parents are "concerned parents" and children dont deserve to be taken advantage of by trillion dollar corporations for the crime of having bad parents.

That's the classic question of when the state should step in to correct bad parenting, and when it should leave well enough alone. I'm sympathetic to the idea that this is one of the "step in" times, but I think the negatives for doing so seem far too costly. At any rate, with age verification, un-concerned parent will likely just want their kid to shut up, and will verify using their own details to give the kid the…

> That's the classic question of when the state should step in to correct bad parenting, and when it should leave well enough alone

Well, no, this is the slightly different classic question of whether, in order to prevent (or, more realistically, on the pretext of preventing) bad parenting, the state should impose a universal totalotarian papers-please approach to basic life activities which requires everyone to prove identity to refute the assumption that they are a child so that it may impose its own (also bad, because totally one-size-fits-all and corcumstance blind) parenting on every child, without regard to the imposition on the liberty of every adult necessary to do so.

Stepping in to correct bad parenting happens when there is a system to identify bad parenting requiring correction and intervene only where such is identified, not when you are imposing a universal regime on everyone on the justification that without it, some will act as bad parents. While both are approaches frequently proposed, they are different and should be distinguished.

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

#509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not for the kids. That’s just the excuse. In order to validate kids, they really need to identify everyone. That’s the real play.

the effort is being driven by a handful of tech and social media companies who have suddenly realized they cannot close the pandoras box of AI. without a meaningful headcount of real users, advertisers will begin to push back on cost or even reduce and eliminate spending on social media altogether. by proactively identifying real humans, you prevent the collapse of major social media outlets. by tracking their age an…

I hadn't heard this take before but I find it very compelling. The supply of raw materials for their product pipeline has become contaminated and they need to weed out the adulterant.

No shady agenda about killing public discourse is necessary if you view the push for identify verification in that light. (That doesn't mean it won't kill public discourse, but that's an unintended consequence.)

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

#510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not for the kids. That’s just the excuse. In order to validate kids, they really need to identify everyone. That’s the real play.

Yes, but do you have any specifics? No one seems to have any specifics. I don't mean "plausible explanations of what the government might wish to to" -- I mean "specific actors pushing specific agendas."

Even if they aren’t pushing it yet, as soon as everyone is identified and characterized, the data exists and can be used for anything.
Post reply on HN