Age verification is just a precursor to automated attribution of speech • Hacker News Board

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

#491

Post by ShinyLeftPad » Mon, Jun 29, 2026, 3:22 PM UTC

drtgh wrote: post #301

ShinyLeftPad wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you acknowledge that for many people and practically e2ee and crime are connected? e2ee is a very useful tool for crime and combined with crypto useful tool for monetizing crime. Criminals used to speak in code, meet clandestine, use burner phones and websites were easy to shut down. Now they don't need to. The solution to privacy problem is not to shout while closing your ears but to make it clear that you see th…

> But chat control and age verification are different things. Although they appear to be different different things at first sight, they share the same agenda and objective, mass surveillance and identification of the citizens. Once the door is opened, it can be expected that things will not end there; Politicians and their patrons will exploit this data under "committees" (and of course be excluded from such surveil…

Well, here's a case when police did their work. A massive international bust happened because the police was able to trick gangs to use an app that was not actually e2ee. And chances that it happens again are almost zero.

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

#492

Post by ligne » Mon, Jun 29, 2026, 3:23 PM UTC

Rebuff5007 wrote: post #340

usrnm wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is the scale and centralization of information. Let's imagine that every bar has to not only check the id of every customer but do it automatically: every time you enter a bar anywhere in the country you must have your id scanned by a government-issued system. Are you still ok with it?

Sure why not. How is that any different that what already happens at airports?

I reckon if you applied an airport level of surveillance to go out for a drink, you'd destroy the hospitality industry in under a week.

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

#493

Post by afiori » Mon, Jun 29, 2026, 3:25 PM UTC

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…

Well people that have been hearing of the slippery slope fallacy their whole life might end up biased against such an approach

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

#494

Post by ligne » Mon, Jun 29, 2026, 3:26 PM UTC

bluegatty wrote: post #171

dv_dt wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My local librarian did not restrict my books to the kids section when I was a kid. Also librarians have fought civil legal battles to keep reading activities anonymous. Libraries are unlike the restrictions and risks of the proposed legislation being discussed for social media

? --> Your local library fought for your right to read literature of some kind. ---> They did not fight for your right to gang up on others and call them the n-word, to spread lies and slander about people, to harass children and expose them to creeps and pedophiles, to inundate children with hyper-targeted advertising, or 'Andrew Tate 'how to beat women' seminars'. Nobody is pushing for a ban on social media so that…

The past few years have seen attempts to get The Diary of Anne Frank pulled from libraries, along with any mention of LGBT or Black people. What makes you think that this will be used to protect kids from racial, sexual and misogynistic abuse, let alone predatory businesses?

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

#495

Post by thinkingtoilet » Mon, Jun 29, 2026, 3:26 PM UTC

rTX5CMRXIfFG wrote: post #467

cdrini wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there are many arguments for and against this type of regulation. Good arguments on both sides take into account nth-order effects. But both sides have different priorities, and have different weighing of the trade-offs. Calling one side effectively "thick" isn't really taking part in the debate. (And cause and effect are taught pretty early on in school; not sure you need to learn "systems thinking" to under…

Violation of rights to privacy — age verification ties an identity to the request, so if you’re surfing porn or browsing controversial threads, you could be flagged by law enforcement or the other third parties that the state might be sharing data with, such as insurance companies that might infer the wrong things about you. You could be blackmailed, too. And then there’s also the leakage of those data points to riva…

What right to privacy do you have online? For the record, I am fully against this but people just throw the word "right" around. In another thread here people had a "right" to Anthropic's latest model. It almost becomes a joke. You have a right not to use the internet, but if you do the government can make laws, however shitty, if they want to. Relying on "rights" as an argument fails quickly in my opinion. You have a right to buy a gun, but a lot of places require verification. You have the right to be alcohol or porn, but that requires age verification. What right do you have to go online without providing verification? If you can't provide a legal basis, come up with a better argument because yours is easily dismissed.

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

#496

Post by afiori » Mon, Jun 29, 2026, 3:27 PM UTC

abecedarius wrote: post #481

pc86 wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that "the authoritarians" (read: almost every politician at every level of government, but a drastically increasing percentage the higher you go) only need to get something passed once then it is there forever. Every law should have an automatic sunset period of 1-10 years that requires it to pass the entire legislative process again, or at least both full chambers + signing.

Increasingly wishing for this from a fictional constitutional convention: > I note one proposal to make this Congress a two-house body. Excellent — the more impediments to legislation the better. But, instead of following tradition, I suggest one house of legislators, another whose single duty is to repeal laws . Let the legislators pass laws only with a two-thirds majority... while the repealers are able to cancel a…

This looks like something only a libertarian would like

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

#497

Post by CJefferson » Mon, Jun 29, 2026, 3:29 PM UTC

philipallstar wrote: post #299

romankolpak wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So do we get rid of all laws which distinguish children? Why bother with limiting selling alcohol to children if we can just let the parents do it?

My problem is I don’t think anyone is (seriously) suggesting we get rid of the laws protecting children in the physical world, and having nieces and nephews, they nowadays spend more time in the virtual world than the physical world, often with their friends so it’s hard to track what they do.

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

#498

Post by cosmic_cheese » Mon, Jun 29, 2026, 3:29 PM UTC

ccppurcell wrote: post #400

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…

I agree with your broader point but I'm always skeptical of the claim "we should teach xyz in schools!" Because, well, choose your least favourite subject at school. A language, history or geography, mathematics perhaps. How much do you remember? The reason you don't remember is because you weren't motivated to learn, since you didn't, at the time, think it worth learning. If you think kids are champing at the bit to…

To me classes being boring and forgettable has more to do with the method of teaching than the subject. Just about anything can be made interesting with the right approach, and often that approach isn’t the typical textbooks, tests, and rote memorization.

Perhaps I’m biased, though. I learn best when provided with working practical examples and hands-on exercises that allow me to develop my own internal models. They can make a concept “click” where I’d be beating my head against a wall with traditional methods for a much longer period of time to achieve the same revelation.

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

#499

Post by cosmic_cheese » Mon, Jun 29, 2026, 3:30 PM UTC

rTX5CMRXIfFG wrote: post #469

ccppurcell wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your broader point but I'm always skeptical of the claim "we should teach xyz in schools!" Because, well, choose your least favourite subject at school. A language, history or geography, mathematics perhaps. How much do you remember? The reason you don't remember is because you weren't motivated to learn, since you didn't, at the time, think it worth learning. If you think kids are champing at the bit to…

And I agree with the commenter’s well-meaning, but we are technically teaching systems theory already in schools. If you’ve had classes in any of the natural sciences, you’ve had systems thinking. If you don’t remember a whit, well then, proves your point—it’s probably not that great of an idea afterall.

The question however is if students are ever challenged or encouraged to apply their learnings beyond the classroom and in daily life. In my experience, the answer is usually “no”.

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

#500

Post by vladms » Mon, Jun 29, 2026, 3:34 PM UTC

AgentOrange1234 wrote: post #460

speff wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would add though that the opinion is not entirely irrational.

For many people the state is inefficient, illogical, evil and goes after them without any reason (ex: think COVID restrictions). Then why do you care about another way to label you, if you think they already do it, but randomly.

I feel that the privacy discussions do not acknowledge at all there are many other structural society issues. Sure it would make an evil-intelligent government have a harder time, but will not improve at all life with an evil-idiot government, and to me it seems those are a bit more prevalent (note: idiot = implementing solutions that will not solve the problems they claim they do, while them honestly thinking they do solve them)