Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 598 posts

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

#541

Post by ben_w »

infinite_spin wrote: post #540
ben_w wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If sparking such interests is your goal, I'd pick hardware that's ancient and chunky, easy to see what bits it has and pull them out, put new ones in. Nothing newer than 1999. Such things can't run modern websites either.

this can be done purely with software: a browser with a vpn that cannot be changed without parental consent, which only connects to a network designated for children. The vpn provider could then limit access. High school computer labs already do something similar. We don't need to compromise here, this already exists and works pretty well.

First, no. A lot of things supposedly kid-safe have turned out not to be.

Also, further up chain, I was replying to:

> if we're willing to shift these costs and responsibility to ISPs, which could separate the internet into two networks, one for children and the other for the rest of us. This is technically just as feasible, and probably cheaper than requiring every website to process

What you suggest is not that.

Also also, what you suggest puts the hard problem (configuring software correctly) in the hands of normal people.

Software configuration is second nature to us nerds, so it's easy to forget that the average person probably only knows how to install pi-hole and one or two VPNs: https://xkcd.com/2501/

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

#542

Post by infinite_spin »

ben_w wrote: post #541
infinite_spin wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this can be done purely with software: a browser with a vpn that cannot be changed without parental consent, which only connects to a network designated for children. The vpn provider could then limit access. High school computer labs already do something similar. We don't need to compromise here, this already exists and works pretty well.

First, no. A lot of things supposedly kid-safe have turned out not to be. Also, further up chain, I was replying to: > if we're willing to shift these costs and responsibility to ISPs, which could separate the internet into two networks, one for children and the other for the rest of us. This is technically just as feasible, and probably cheaper than requiring every website to process What you suggest is not that. Al…

> First, no. A lot of things supposedly kid-safe have turned out not to be.

I'm not making a comment with respect to the actual safety these systems offer, just that alternatives exist, which would not all require modified hardware.

> what you suggest puts the hard problem (configuring software correctly) in the hands of normal people.

Pre bundled software, specifically browsers, exist. Colleges use them all the time to prevent cheating, e.g. the Lockdown Browser. Those don't require the student to configure anything, they just download the application and login.

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

#543

Post by saghm »

kulahan wrote: post #538
saghm wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh good, there have never been studies coordinated to come out to influence public opinion based on shoddy science before; just ask the tobacco industry

You realize in this scenario you’re actually defending the tobacco companies, right? Tobacco companies: “CIGARETTES ARE FINE!” Society: “we should regulate that.” Social media companies: “SOCIAL MEDIA IS FINE!” Society: “we should regulate that” You, apparently: “if the tobacco industry lied, it proves… social media… is being honest???? Or something???”

No, in this scenario I'm defending the idea that sometimes "a lot of studies" that come out "kinda at the same time" aren't necessarily due to robust science but can be pushed by a specific agenda. If you actually cared to include the specific factor that you cited as a rationale for regulation, you'd get this:

A bunch of studies: “CIGARETTES ARE FINE!”

Tobacco industry: "We don't need to regulate that"

A bunch of studies: "SOCIAL MEDIA IS DANGEROUS"

Government: "We need to regulate that"

Never mind that there's widespread scientific consensus on plenty of things that we're actively dropping the ball on (e.g. human causes of climate change) that nobody seems to feel the need to rush on as much as this.

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

#544

Post by pdonis »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #455
pdonis wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming that platforms that tried age verification in order to show people targeted ads would lose enough users to make that business model no longer viable. While I would fervently like to believe that's true, I'm not so sure it is. I think there might well be enough people who will hand over their personal identifying info without a second thought in order to continue to use targeted ad-supported platforms,…

I don't think it'll come down to people being too principled to participate. I think I'll come down to them being too lazy to bother completing the auth ritual.

Hm, yes, laziness is also a powerful force... :-)

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

#545

Post by saghm »

kulahan wrote: post #534
saghm wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forcing literally everyone else on the internet to give up privacy. No kids ever use my devices (there are no kids in my household), but in order to protect the non-existent children who theoretically would use my devices, I'd be forced to share information I don't want to and blindly trust that the process is done in a way that magically doesn't increase the ability to track me across websites.

That’s an extremely small negative. We’ve had nearly zero privacy for all of human history. A lockable door in your own home was an enormous revolution. There was a brief period where you could do super secretive things in your own home in America because it was the culture to move out the millisecond you can in order to live on your own, and roommates are viewed as an unfortunate obstacle. Now that the 70-ish year e…

> We’ve had nearly zero privacy for all of human history. A lockable door in your own home was an enormous revolution. There was a brief period where you could do super secretive things in your own home in America because it was the culture to move out the millisecond you can in order to live on your own, and roommates are viewed as an unfortunate obstacle.

The timeline you present is backwards because you misunderstand privacy as a binary. For most of human history we were extremely private to almost everybody in the world, and that's only changed relatively recently. There's a huge difference between my family or close neighbors knowing what I'm doing because of physical proximity and having to broadcast information about myself in order to take part in the way society has evolved to expect for mundane services.

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

#546

Post by qball »

nonethewiser wrote: post #527
HDBaseT wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kids need private spaces. If we overprotect them in the real world, and overprotect them in the digital world children will fail to explore all sorts of things.

By definition everyone agrees we should't overprotect kids online. It's in the word "overprotected." The claim I'm making is that they are underprotected online. I think you are concerned about the pendulum swinging too far in the other direction but I don't think I said anything that suggests that should happen. Unless perhaps you think the current amount of protection is already the maximal amount that is useful?

>The claim I'm making is that they are underprotected online.

Yes, and not only is it wrong (they are protected sufficiently), but giving an inch to the same moral impulses and people that resulted in them being overprotected in the real world will naturally result in them taking a mile.

The ideal number of human beings that do stupid shit and pay for it is not zero, nor can it be in any functioning society.

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

#547

Post by noosphr »

none2585 wrote: post #153
noosphr wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money is a poor substitute for people who care. The only people who think otherwise are terminally online losers who have never organized anything larger than a birthday party.

Maybe in your country but not in the hellhole that is the US.

An excuse to do nothing.

The local dog catcher had more impact on your daily life than the president.

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

#548

Post by noosphr »

verisimi wrote: post #142
noosphr wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money is a poor substitute for people who care. The only people who think otherwise are terminally online losers who have never organized anything larger than a birthday party.

Are you talking from experience? What legislation have you organised?

I got new bike lanes installed around the neogboirhood after I wrote to the local city representative about it, then went to a city where I did a PowerPoint presentation of all the places that you could get killed if the driver wasn't paying attention.

It took a month from first letter to new bikelanes.

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

#549

Post by Amezarak »

ethbr1 wrote: post #435
Amezarak wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This has been true ever since the creation of the internet and web. It's true that some have always seen it this way, but it's become much more salient in the current political context. The average politician 30 years ago was barely aware of what the Internet was - it wasn't a major concern. For a brief period, the prevailing (but not only, as you mention with encryption) attitude was that the information superhigh…

I think the slide towards control rather than freedom on the internet is more subtle than that. 1. Increased centralization (FAANG et al.) 2. Larger tech entities willing (and able) to strike deals with government in exchange for favors 3. All governments always wanting more power over citizens 4. Today This isn't a left vs right thing, as both sides have come up with kooky internet-control schemes. It's a 'centraliz…

I don’t think it’s left vs right but establishment vs “populist”.

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

#550

Post by kulahan »

saghm wrote: post #543
kulahan wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize in this scenario you’re actually defending the tobacco companies, right? Tobacco companies: “CIGARETTES ARE FINE!” Society: “we should regulate that.” Social media companies: “SOCIAL MEDIA IS FINE!” Society: “we should regulate that” You, apparently: “if the tobacco industry lied, it proves… social media… is being honest???? Or something???”

No, in this scenario I'm defending the idea that sometimes "a lot of studies" that come out "kinda at the same time" aren't necessarily due to robust science but can be pushed by a specific agenda. If you actually cared to include the specific factor that you cited as a rationale for regulation, you'd get this: A bunch of studies: “CIGARETTES ARE FINE!” Tobacco industry: "We don't need to regulate that" A bunch of st…

I know what point you were trying to make, but I’m pointing out that your argument works against you much better than it works for you.

The last point you make is just lame whataboutism.

Post reply on HN