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

#581

Post by triceratops » Mon, Jun 29, 2026, 8:13 PM UTC

dopidopHN2 wrote: post #574

triceratops wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ille…

> Its like their is a vested interest ?

By whom? This is veering dangerously close to a "democracy doesn't work" argument which makes me less sympathetic and likely to believe everything else you say.

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

Something like "we have to be able to read one of the ends of the pipe". HTTPS satisfies that definition already.

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

The fact that everyone has to use it for it to work everywhere. If the government tells big businesses "You can't use it" most of their users are automatically left unprotected for most of their activity.

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

#582

Post by AnimalMuppet » Mon, Jun 29, 2026, 8:13 PM UTC

rini17 wrote: post #580

itubaj wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And yet you said that. With no repercussions. Maybe you need to make up.

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

#583

Post by solid_fuel » Mon, Jun 29, 2026, 8:15 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…

> And if a law is disliked by as many as one-third is it not likely that you would be better off without it?

30% of Americans would surrender every right they have if it meant someone who looks different would suffer slightly more.

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

#584

Post by pseudalopex » Mon, Jun 29, 2026, 8:21 PM UTC

mwigdahl wrote: post #560

DrScientist wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It may work in some other country.. Jury service in the UK is generally seen in a positive light ( despite having far too much hanging around ). I suspect the US problems could be easily fixed by forcing employers to pay you while you are doing it.

Jury time is paid time off at my US company. And at least at the US Federal level there's a daily stipend for sitting on one. Lower level courts may vary on that.

Many people in the US do not work for your company.

Federal juror pay is $50 daily.[1] This would be 8 hours or less of minimum wage.[2] States pay from $0 to $50 seemingly.[3]

8 states and 1 district had any employer jury pay law. All other than Nebraska excluded small employers, excluded part time employees, allowed to pay under minimum wage, allowed to pay nothing after 5 days or less, or allowed to force employees to use paid time off.[4]

[1] https://www.uscourts.gov/court-programs/jury-service/juror-p...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_Sta...

[3] https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/jury-duty-p...

[4] https://www.workforce.com/news/jury-duty-laws-by-state

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

#585

Post by Cider9986 » Mon, Jun 29, 2026, 8:28 PM UTC

kgwxd wrote: post #322

microgpt wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's already too late for that but you can at least, by deleting now, reduce the chances they see it.

Not your HN account though. They even stopped replying to my annual emails asking if it's "possible" yet. They originally help me change the name, and scrub any replies that mentioned the original name. That's not enough though, thanks to old copies of the site data that still have my original name, linked directly to the real HN post it appears on, showing up in search results.

Dang removing your posts only hurts the flow of conversation and has zero benefit for your privacy.

All HN threads are archived by the IA and there's data dumps of the whole thing under 50 GB iirc.

Going back and messing with comments will not help. The only way to prevent your posts from being associated with you is to never post or associate them in the first place.

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

#586

Post by Nevermark » Mon, Jun 29, 2026, 8:41 PM UTC

jmyeet wrote: post #476

Nevermark wrote: post #379

Age verification starts the gating of Internet access by governments. Any site, with any concern about age of user liability, is likely to adopt the practice. Strong laws, sold on their face value safety benefits, will increase that liability. You won’t see any laws removing or limiting that liability. The trend will be many more sites becoming government-gated, than we are imagining now. Beyond surveillance, it’s a…

That might be an argument if it wasn’t already happening. US social media platforms already kowtow to domestic and foreign policy and you need look no further than the suppression by Google and Meta of content about Palestine. What’s fascinating to me of that there are people who win vehemently oppose age verification yet have no absolutely no problem with anti-BDS laws, Gaza suppression, etc. Or worse, they’ll suppo…

> US social media platforms already kowtow to domestic and foreign policy

That is an entirely different and less dangerous issue.

The issue is that when you give power of individual attestation to the government, over your ability to access age-gated sites, you have also given them the power to individually withhold or revoke attestation.

Age-gating will spread as sites limit their legal liabilities, and governments saber rattle.

Even child-friendly sites will age-gate to avoid liability issues, by confirming parents set up their child's account.

This isn't theory: Right now, Wikipedia is having to fight to avoid age-gating. [0]

This fine-grained government control over each citizen is an unprecedented expansion of power/control/threat to freedom. Whether used explicitly, or as a tool of fear that operates implicitly no matter who is in power.

[0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/07/we-support-wikimedia-f...

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

#587

Post by philipallstar » Mon, Jun 29, 2026, 8:53 PM UTC

CJefferson wrote: post #497

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.

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…

> Why bother with limiting selling alcohol to children if we can just let the parents do it?

Because children can be in the outside world, which has shops. It's not the same as parents choosing to buy their child a very expensive device.

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

#588

Post by pc86 » Mon, Jun 29, 2026, 8:57 PM UTC

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #503

abecedarius wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Increasingly wishing for this from a fictional constitutional convention: There's an interesting, one-time shakeup that we could actually accomplish. While it's true that there will never again be another constitutional amendment... there's already one out there that will never expire, partially ratified. Completely beyond Congress's ability to rescind it or cockblock it. Article the First. Were it to be ratified, n…

I have long thought that capping the number of representatives in the House is the single worst thing to happen, structurally, to the United States government. Representatives should be as close to the people as possible, and spending millions every two years to represent nearly 3/4 of a million people isn't even close.

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

#589

Post by pc86 » Mon, Jun 29, 2026, 9:00 PM UTC

thesz wrote: post #484

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.

> 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. Then you will have a lot of Constitution amendments. That's first. The burden of ever-changing law landscape will be carried by ordinary people, not by legislators. That's second.

> Then you will have a lot of Constitution amendments.

You say that like it's a bad thing?

> The burden of ever-changing law landscape will be carried by ordinary people, not by legislators.

The "burden" would also include, for the most part, being able to look up at any given point in time whether something violated the law without referring to hundreds of thousands of pages of other codes, administrative law, and agency rules.

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

#590

Post by dopidopHN2 » Mon, Jun 29, 2026, 9:07 PM UTC

triceratops wrote: post #581

dopidopHN2 wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ille…

> Its like their is a vested interest ? By whom? This is veering dangerously close to a "democracy doesn't work" argument which makes me less sympathetic and likely to believe everything else you say. > Also, what does "making encryption illegal" entail, exactly? Does that encompass HTTPS? Something like "we have to be able to read one of the ends of the pipe". HTTPS satisfies that definition already. > What does not…

> By whom?

By the company selling the product our cities are buying. In 2026, skydio DFR drones are a common example of blurry boundaries. Flock is another. Elected official "retiring" in the private sectors is common.

I'm engaging in the Democratic process. Are you ? Beside voting once a year ?

> If the government tells big businesses "You can't use it" most of their users are automatically left unprotected for most of their activity.

Absolutely. That's our near future. What does not scale in concern citizens and encryption hobbyist still choosing to use encryption from end to end?

If the US government make THAT illegal and actually enforce it.( djb style, like in the 90s ) Then I hope that technical folks would recognized that the Rubicon has been crossed.