211–220 of 302 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not that I want my kids looking at porn or violent content, but I’m far more concerned about man-o-sphere influencers than that other stuff.
I had to Google "man-o-sphere". Is it particularly more dangerous or toxic than other identity-based activist communities? Genuinely curious to know
Still, I don't want to gate people based on age. Parents should at least be able to overwrite the age of their child, maybe selectively allow bypasses. My experience with a computer would have been completely different if I was blocked from half of the internet. Especially when I see which kind of content gets blocked.
I do. I’m going to take a wild guess that you are an old head like me, male, and lived your youth in the wonderful internet free of commercialisation of human interaction, free to roam and find new cool things and people, a wonderful library of Alexandria to learn and spend time in. Discuss what the experience was/is to zoomers and younger, especially girls. Did you try to play a silly online game with your friends w…
and even if you think kids dont understand it enough to make that choice for themselves you should let parents do it. if a family thinks their kids can have unlimited access the government should let them.
thats where the california bill comes in as the only reasonable option. it gives families a choice instead of forcing restrictions on everyone and theres no privacy problem because its using self reported age data that stays on device. and i know you might ask what about kids who secretly buy a unrestricted phone with their own money. i think at that point they deserve to have it.
It works for contract signing and payments, because there is a built in incentive there, but not for age attestation.
Lots of bias in this thread. But maybe we can have a technical discussion? I'm not into this topic, so maybe someone else can answer this: How "zero-knowledge" is this actually? As far as I understand, there are three parties here: 1. Me, the user; 2. The site I want to access; 3. The attestor (google? my government?). What do they know about each other? Does the site know who I am? Does the site know who my attestor…
I have some experience with zkp, so I’ll try to answer your question to the best off my ability. First on the terminology, the “attester” in this case I assume is whoever is anchoring the data or issued the credential you’re trying to prove. For the canonical example, let’s say you’re trying to prove age >= n via a government ID. 1. The site does not know who you are. This is the whole point. You generate a mathemati…
Can they map which places requests which person?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not that I want my kids looking at porn or violent content, but I’m far more concerned about man-o-sphere influencers than that other stuff.
I had to Google "man-o-sphere". Is it particularly more dangerous or toxic than other identity-based activist communities? Genuinely curious to know
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Theroux:_Inside_the_Mano...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a millennial-aged person I saw a fair amount of content I would not want the young people in my life to see, but it's probably not nearly as harmful as the non-age gated content that they will still have access to. There is a lot creepy youtube and tiktok content that isn't off limits but still unhealthy and my younger relatives are fascinated by it.
Not that I want my kids looking at porn or violent content, but I’m far more concerned about man-o-sphere influencers than that other stuff.
I think the basic error is that we're making a concession to obscene content and the sophists in our midst who have spent decades deploying the garbage of moral relativism and fallacious appeals to "freedom" to defend evil. The argument for age verification here is weakened if, instead, the production and distribution of pornography is outlawed.
That you cannot perfectly enforce the law doesn't mean the law has no value or function. The purpose of the law is not undermined by imperfect enforcement, and it isn't exhausted by enforceability. Law is a teacher. Anti-porn laws would still carry psychological and social weight. They are a declaration of what is not tolerated and what is not good and contributes to the stigmatization of bad things. That creates a higher hurdle in people's minds to seek out and engage in such activity and creates shame around such activities that itself dissuades.
I would also add that pornography and drugs have a history of being used in psychological warfare. Oligarchs ruining society? Allow pornography and it will absorb people's attention and cripple them emotionally and rationally to neutralize them. Or consider the recent loosening of drug laws or debate about loosing them - which I do not accept is coincidental - to give people another dulling and numbing agent and an escape. It is in the corrupt interests of an oligarchic elite to corral the herd. The police baton is painful and creates a dangerous indignation and resentment, but pornography and drugs do not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This can be used to have zero-proof knowledge of "over 18" or "not over 18". So they don't really get your age, except that you are in two broad ranges.
You only need about 33 bits of information to uniquely identify every human.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Manosphere content is toxic and harmful but the hyperviolence and desensitisation of the former should not be downplayed. That's where the mass shooters evidently come from.
> That's where the mass shooters evidently come from. Bollocks. European teenagers watch just as much porn and play GTA at age 10 and yet we don't end up having 12 children a day die from gun violence [1]. Note, I'm not an anti-gun nut, I think German and British anti-gun laws are ridiculously strict. But the American way of dealing with guns is equally bad. [1] https://www.sandyhookpromise.org/resources/gun-violence…
Note that this definition of "children" includes ages up 24 years old. Not that the US doesn't have a gun violence problem, but pretending 24 year olds are "children" in order to gain a better sound bite doesn't help anybody.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not that I want my kids looking at porn or violent content, but I’m far more concerned about man-o-sphere influencers than that other stuff.
I had to Google "man-o-sphere". Is it particularly more dangerous or toxic than other identity-based activist communities? Genuinely curious to know
But not "...without sharing anything else even when setting up your token."
Can I prove that some cryptographic token A) doesn't contain any PII and B) that the token itself can't be used as an ID tied to my identity in a Google or government database?
No and no. So, I do not support schemes like this.