631–640 of 663 posts
What is illegal immigration?
I think it's funny that most people who scream about freedom only mean their own freedom. "Age verification" is nothing more as a new law, from a state. You all so naive that the state would stop by their "own" citizens, because... because why?
At least in the case of the EU, this is not the case. The age verification is performed anonymously based on the eWallet.[0]
[0] https://ec.europa.eu/digital-building-blocks/sites/spaces/EU...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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!
> It's the parents' job and vast majority of parents do it fine.
This is a thought terminating cliche, and it creates bastions of wilfull ignorance on what reality is.
The only reason I can think of this happening is because its easier to dismiss parents, than it is to engage with the issue.
That doesn't change the issue though!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A generation of kids have grown up with just such assigned adults, who overwhelmingly did not apply sufficient oversight to the kids' use of social media. In large part that's because, if they'd done so, the kids would've been socially isolated from their peers, at least the most normal ones with the most normal parents, which are the kinds of friends most other normal parents want their kids to have. It's a collecti…
>In large part that's because, if they'd done so, the kids would've been socially isolated from their peers, at least the most normal ones with the most normal parents, which are the kinds of friends most other normal parents want their kids to have. I never had any of the popular social medias when I was growing up, and I wasn’t isolated from anybody aside from the one bloke who insisted on doing all his texting via…
This is a natural consequence of women joining the workforce en masse. This isn't a social comment, but rather an economic one. It made couples have much more buying power, so they could bid massively more. They they worked stressful jobs for the next 30 years to pay the bank back, while the older person they sold it to got loads of cash.
And single women (or mums), who this was supposed to help, now instead of working extra hard to compete economically against single-income households, now have to compete against two-income households.
Techies have a real blind spot here. This stuff is very popular, like bipartisan support popular. Yes, it's a precursor to terrible things and they will happen but you have to convince people the the harms outweigh the benefits. Just asking "Why can't they tell the point of this" is not helpful or true. "The point of this" is decided by those pushing it, those pushing it are not politicians, they're parents and they'…
A table will be leaked with your child’s name, birthday, pattern of online access, and brand of phone. To protect your child is to fight that leak. Your representative might say, “oops, cybersecurity so hard, who could have seen this coming?” but his party shields pedophiles.
Someone posting nasty comments online gets to enjoy anonymity. My kids, who know better than to comment at all, still end up on that table.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'd argue that the fiefdoms within parties come primarily from their corporate likeness. Since the ultimate goal of any party is to capture power and remain in power, the structures that emerge serve this goal first, everything else second. If this is true, which doesn't seem that unreasonable, then the crucial factor then becomes what are the key factors in terms of staying in power - responsiveness to the elector…
It's 100% the money. Tests "would you vote the same as you favorite politician/party" routinely show parties to be way less aligned than the electorate tends to believe. The several few "high steaks" issues get amplified to exhaustion on captured media while the rest of politics go undisturbed. News channels are generally more subtle about it, but are still quite egregious. Look at e.g. debates. The questions are car…
It's not hard, or a new problem. For example in the UK paid for political campaigning on radio and TV has been banned pretty much since the dawn of those mediums. In terms of print, you can have media pluracy rules, to stop the concentration of power.
Any kind of election spending, at the local and national level, is regulated and capped.
Now people have been using less visible targetted online ads using dark money to try and get around this - in my view this is an extremely serious offence and people should go to prison.
You could go further and make it illegal to spend money on online ads for any kind of political campaign whether it's aligned to a party or not ( ie single issue ) - with penalities for the companies hosting those ad campaigns as well as the people running them.
You could include astroturf botnets as part of this definition.
Sure these things can be worked around - but the point is the risk of being caught breaking the rules, and the political damage as a result, will make people think twice.
One of the problems at the moment is people are getting away with a slap on the wrist - in my view undermining democracy is a serious offence - and it's about creating a culture where that's the prevailing view.
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.
1. Self-attestation
2. Government ID scan
3. Face capture, AI age estimation
4. Cryptographic age token
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I have some faith in the lack of wisdom of (most) criminals. Most of them aren't geniuses, aren't super sophisticated, aren't good at following technical rules with 100% discipline. So it's likely to work again - not as often as a law-abiding citizen would like, but not never.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I follow your comment, then a politician who is elected based on how they look while eating a bacon sandwich[1] is better at synthesizing third-order effects of a legal proposal because they are a politician? (i.e. Politicians are selected from average people, often on things like appearance, charm, charisma, voice, snappiness, being less-bad than the other candidates, standing for the voter's preferred party, etc…
Why would you think I'm making that completely different argument? If the current scenario is bad, and someone says "we should do this other thing that would be even worse," pointing out that the other thing is worse isn't an endorsement of the current (bad) scenario.
Your point was that people are , on average, not smart enough to make these decisions. Parent post points out that it's unclear that such a situation would be a downgrade from current.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
The last time this happened (in the 1990s), it didn't even take that much.