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

591–600 of 663 posts

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

#591

Post by godwinson__4-8 »

dopidopHN2 wrote: post #570
godwinson__4-8 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course the system has a rather obvious remediation for that. You could also run for office or find a kindred spirit to support. Trying to one to one with a representative or a council just sends them a signal to not care. You're one of n constituents. Showing up to the city council meeting without bringing an exponential curve of people with you over a short enough amount of time in support of your cause simply co…

You are cute. I'm part of org working with ACLU, EFF and actual more important and active orgs that would would not know about. When I go to city council, its with 50 other peoples and 4 or 5 other speakers. Its when we need to have our representative on the record. Me and other folks in that loose network of org have forced our city to pass regulations, have our police force admit they use surveillance without overs…

You're cute too.

So you accomplished all these things and yet the country is broken?

I'm confused. Did you not get everything you wanted fast enough? How sad :(

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

#592

Post by stymaar »

nly wrote: post #445
stymaar wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did you write that then: > You then still need a trusted ID service or algorithm to capture an image of the user _at the time of use_ to compare that to. > Just having access to your digital ID credentials proves nothing

Because it's accurate? If I have access to your digital ID I shouldn't be able to impersonate you anymore than I should be able to fly using your passport. Your passport is useful not just because it's difficult to forge, but because border control is a thing.

> If I have access to your digital ID I shouldn't be able to impersonate you anymore than I should be able to fly using your passport.

If you steal my passport and I' don't signal it to the authority, you'll be able to sell it on the black market to someone looking approximately like me who will subsequently be able to use it to impersonate me (it actually happened to a cousin of mine).

Why do you require digital ids to have a higher security standard than an actual passport?

(Some countries like the US mandate biometry in passports, but you could add that to your credit card as well, there's no technical limitation here even though it's probably too expensive for too little benefits)

Some people may be able to fraud by stealing and reselling digital ids, but it's not a fatal issue if it's not a fatal issue for a passport. Again, the optimal amount of fraud is non-zero.

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

#593

Post by frogperson »

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'm not sure it really matters if the senate still exists. the money men will just move the bribes to the senators. winning a senate seat would mean you are a millionaire at minimum.

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

#594

Post by stymaar »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #538
intended wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One aspect is that you are pitting parents and developing brains against the most over-designed products humanity has created. A second order effect of this is that a small number of parents have the ability to manage their kids use of tech. A side effect of that is kids seeing their peers use tech. I’ve seen 9 month babies getting hypnotized by screens. This is excluding situations with an antagonist preying on the…

> Yes, in an ideal world, it would all go down to parenting. Since we live in reality, some of that work is shifting to ensuring defaults are in place. No, they aren't in place at all. It's the parents' job and vast majority of parents do it fine. Nobody wants the Nanny state you propagate.

> Nobody wants the Nanny state you propagate.

“You don't even exist, you don't count”.

Come on! Of course some people want it, you are literally arguing with a bunch of these very people right now!

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

#595

Post by stymaar »

ligne wrote: post #492
Rebuff5007 wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Only if you apply the same amount of bureaucracy. Most people don't care about the surveillance part at all as long as the UX is convenient (which is why the “I don't have anything to hide” is frustratingly so common).

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

#596

Post by klad_majoor »

“it's really just a precursor to attribution of speech, particularly attributing your words to your real identity.” How silly to remember that’s how mankind interacted and verified information and reliability for millennia, before Social Media made sockpuppetry trolling and lynch parties the favorite tools for social change. But I guess most Social Media users must be whistleblowers and/or living in totalitarian states.

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

#597

Post by rini17 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #582
rini17 wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Repercussions happen all the time. That nothing happened in this one case does not prove or disprove anything.

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

#598

Post by Terr_ »

pc86 wrote: post #338
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…

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.

> automatic sunset period

That's attacking the symptom rather than the cause. The deeper issue is that the legislature is not responsive to the people who don't actually want X anymore. Instead, how about:

1. Replace plurality votes and single-primaries with some form of ranked-choice voting. This reduces the spoiler effect and makes it easier for people to organize around their real priorities.

2. Remove the hard-cap on the House of Representatives, peg it to a number of constituents, and let them meet and vote virtually.

3. Instead of a single "winner takes all" for one region (much smaller regions, if the House is uncapped) allow multiple proportional winners for a moderate region.

4. It's not possible to amend how the Senate seats are per-state, but we can at least make it easier for large States to fission if they decide those rules are screwing over their residents. (Subject to conditions conditions I won't bore you with here. Yet.)

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

#599

Post by klad_majoor »

egorfine wrote: post #212
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…

> the evidence is that people already pretty firmly against things like chat control I'm not sure about that at all . All my normies friends have no problem immediately submitting their documents to any KYC service that requests it. And talking about chat control they happily parrot the propaganda points, which is something very normal given that they have no insight as we do. So unfortunately I believe that the laym…

Jonathan Haidt sure ain’t no layman and is very much against online anonymity

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

#600

Post by godwinson__4-8 »

pessimizer wrote: post #554
rockskon wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They'll just do that trick where they ignore you while the government starts investigating your tax history and some private contractor starts investigating and reframing your romantic history. Despite this, and despite the fact that all of your communications are monitored, you manage to get a crowd of people to a meeting - where you are allowed to "comment" (i.e. speak, while nobody is obliged to listen to you or r…

This has always been true buddy. No line suddenly emerged in this respect in the 50s. Politics and power are practically synonymous. Sorry you have to try harder before getting to play out your personal physical danger fantasy.

Just remember the threat works the other way around. History is riddled with people like you, so ready to get the chance to flip the table over until they realize flying cutlery comes in both directions.

We also live in a time were increasingly what one might call the "prevailing order and norms" are being challenged successfully. As of yet this has not been the result of overt threats to the personal safety of those they displaced. The end of history is now satire, and so on. Candidates that would have been considered fringe are increasingly mainstream. Really if anyone is humorously out of date here, it's you.

Pessimizer would be more interesting if you weren't so transparently pessimistic. Nice schtick though.

Post reply on HN