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

571–580 of 663 posts

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

#571

Post by delusional »

HerbManic wrote: post #159
delusional wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know systems thinking, and am in favor of a version of these types of legislation. Give me your best argument from systems thinking, and I'll give you a thoughtful reply.

The argument usually is that it is a slippery slope. Something that is introduced in the name of virtue ends up being co-opted into a system of control as those in power and peoples attitudes change with subsequent layers of normalization.

Sure, maybe that's true. Who knows, maybe it will also actually just work and solve the problem. There's no argument there.

The argument that touches on "those in power" must also contend with "those in power" just abusing that power anyway, no matter what legislation is passed. People in power are usually pretty crafty.

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

#572

Post by delusional »

ball_of_lint wrote: post #201
delusional wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know systems thinking, and am in favor of a version of these types of legislation. Give me your best argument from systems thinking, and I'll give you a thoughtful reply.

A significant part of the cultural value of the internet comes from free anonymous expression. As a key example, look at 4chan - anonymity taken to it's extreme has resulted in on one hand yes a lot of disgusting stuff, but also a cultural hotbed. Age verification is de facto identity verification. Eff says it well: > But no matter the method, every system demands users hand over sensitive and immutable personal info…

> A significant part of the cultural value of the internet comes from free anonymous expression.

That's a value judgment. I'm sure it's true for some on this website, and certainly most on 4chan, but I would caution against broadening that into the general public. For my mom, the value of the internet is sharing dog pictures and clubhouse opening hours with people she known in real life. For my dad it's browsing web shops that have physical presence. None of those things offer any sort of anonymous expression.

I would also argue that presenting 4chan as more interesting than it is troubling or disgusting is pretty telling. The internet would not be culturally poorer for 4chan shutting down.

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

#573

Post by ShinyLeftPad »

buellerbueller wrote: post #562
ShinyLeftPad wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it complicated? Having to do these things made crime difficult. There's higher barrier to entry and cost to pay. It's more difficult to scale across borders. Not having to do them makes it easier.

The internet makes crime easier; should we ban it too? Before cars, you could only steal what you could carry--maybe we should abolish cars too. "Barrier to entry for crime" is not a useful metric, because it encompasses so many things. Or do you want a police state?

You forget that internet makes police work easier too and there's processes for shutting down a dark market website for example

With e2ee though it's not like that

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

#574

Post by dopidopHN2 »

triceratops wrote: post #14
dopidopHN2 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you been to a city council meeting lately ? Ever? I'm trying to push for surveillance regulation where I live. I'm there monthly. Calling your representative is the best way to realise that they don't give a fuck. Yesterday I was editing a clip of one of them lying overtly. It will be a minor inconveniences. what we call democracy is a dog and ponies show. So maybe cryptography is not that ridiculous, after all

> Calling your representative is the best way to realise that they don't give a fuck That just means not enough people did it. > So maybe cryptography is not that ridiculous, after all Until they make that illegal. What'll you do then? It. Doesn't. Scale.

> That just means not enough people did it.

Indeed. When enough people call that when they switch the meeting time and change the voting rules. ( we suing for that )

They still don't give a fuck. They really want to have more surveillance. Its like their is a vested interest ?

> Until they make that illegal. What'll you do then?

OK, let's make numbers illegal. Land of the free!

Also, what does "making encryption illegal" entail, exactly? Does that encompass HTTPS?

What does not scale exactly about using encryption at rest and point to point ?

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

#575

Post by febusravenga »

pprotas wrote: post #252
febusravenga wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not about saying illegal things. It's mostly about saying things that can get you canceled in future in future culture. Dark jokes and strong opinions are example - you something filthy - let's say dark Holocaust/Nazi joke but funny in situation In group that accept it and it's ok. But if it's recorded, it'll stay forever and will surface in most unexpected moment, like job interview or some other screening by go…

Are you arguing that Holocaust/Nazi jokes should be accepted socially, as long as you only deliver them to people who respond positively to Holocaust/Nazi jokes?

If you're telling dirty jokes, there are many flavors and those ive' mentioned are not special.

This is example. There are _bad_/_hard_/_dark_ jokes about women, grandmas, blacks, whites, east-asia. They have place - unless you're harming someone they are _ok_ for situation.

But only for situation. When recorded, stored and reheard years after it's not longer that situation. By recording, you're basically extending every private situation to infinity.

People in private situation, in close groups behave in ways they consider private - they cross boundaries, they "challenge" authorities/boundaries and it's ok.

It's not ok to take this freedom by assuming you can't say anything controversial in any setting.

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

#576

Post by delusional »

jchanimal wrote: post #158
delusional wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know systems thinking, and am in favor of a version of these types of legislation. Give me your best argument from systems thinking, and I'll give you a thoughtful reply.

The only reasonable solution shape I've seen is the one that trusts the parents to set an operating system setting that says whether or not the user is allowed to access adult content. And so it doesn't actually verify age, it just verifies parental intent.

I would not be opposed to that solution. If that's what we can get passed, I'd be happy.

Personally, I'm more in favor of a version that integrates with a government issued digital id that attests a user can legally see the provided material. The publisher would have to implement the check, because my version also includes the technical capability to disregard the law. You then just have to be ready to be charged with a crime.

I think the reason I prefer this is that my country almost already has the infrastructure for this system.

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

#577

Post by dopidopHN2 »

rockskon wrote: post #32
dopidopHN2 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you been to a city council meeting lately ? Ever? I'm trying to push for surveillance regulation where I live. I'm there monthly. Calling your representative is the best way to realise that they don't give a fuck. Yesterday I was editing a clip of one of them lying overtly. It will be a minor inconveniences. what we call democracy is a dog and ponies show. So maybe cryptography is not that ridiculous, after all

Not every lawmaker is the same and there's more than one way to get a lawmaker's attention. Get more people with you. Or convince a group that's previously established trust in your jurisdiction to join you in speaking out. Or find out what causes the policymakers do care about and think of a compelling way to frame arguments against age verification in those terms. Heck - if you can get a local government agency to…

I should have clarify, I'm part of a local group, itself part of a network of groups.

We don't do politics, we do privacy and security advocacies. It means we work with DSA, MAGA, Libertarian.

Allies that normie would known: ACLU, EFF. I talk with those folks weekly. (they talk a lot, themselve )

>There's more to politics than just going to town hall meetings or sending emails or making phone calls!

I should have clarify that I despite those circus so much that its our last resort. Its when we need to get them on the recort saying something. 1on1 meeting are always more productive.

> if you can get a local government agency to officially back you up, all the better.

I should have clarify sorry: I live in the US. That seems unlikely, to say the least.

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

#578

Post by simontheowl »

Honestly, I don't know why this is such a big deal for people. There is no right for anonymous free speech, just free speech. The idea that you should be able to do everything anonymously is certainly nothing that I've seen in the constitution.

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

#579

Post by rini17 »

nosyke wrote: post #530
rini17 wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By painting everything so black and white you're doing propaganda too, are you aware?

come on dawg, maybe 10 seconds of critical thought and even you will realize that is a bunch of nonsense.

Yep, pretending we have anonymity online is a nonsense.

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

#580

Post by rini17 »

itubaj wrote: post #514
rini17 wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom of expression is not absolute and never was. Should everyone just shrug off anonymous hoaxes and hate speech?

Yes. If, unfortunately, I need to live in only one of two scenarios, i.e.: 1. I need to identify myself for everything on the internet because of said "hoaxes" and "hate speech"; 2. I don't need to identify myself anywhere on the internet, and let go of said "hoaxes" and "hate speech", but can have the right of saying anything that I need to say without fearing for my safety and the safety of my relatives due to the…

You don't have the right to say anything NOW already. Please wake up.
Post reply on HN