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

Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds

queue.acm.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 285 posts

Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds

#11

Post by failuser »

busterarm wrote: post #8
Scaled wrote: post #6

Didn't know ACM was anti-privacy. Glad I haven't paid dues in who knows how long if they're spending them to platform these noxious opinions.

It's not anti-privacy to point out the obvious that privacy-advocacy is sometimes at odds with governments and the will of voters at large. Privacy is being abused by criminals to victimize people at scale. Just because privacy is a moral good doesn't mean you are morally off the hook for enabling criminals. Governments are so aware of this they're passing sweeping laws against it. This is your new reality -- you can…

The laws they pass do nothing to stop the criminals. Do you think an “age verification” law can stop any criminals?

Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds

#12

Post by Scaled »

busterarm wrote: post #8
Scaled wrote: post #6

Didn't know ACM was anti-privacy. Glad I haven't paid dues in who knows how long if they're spending them to platform these noxious opinions.

It's not anti-privacy to point out the obvious that privacy-advocacy is sometimes at odds with governments and the will of voters at large. Privacy is being abused by criminals to victimize people at scale. Just because privacy is a moral good doesn't mean you are morally off the hook for enabling criminals. Governments are so aware of this they're passing sweeping laws against it. This is your new reality -- you can…

Age verification is not the will of the voters. It is the will of large political donors (specifically tech companies and religious censorship groups). It is certainly not the will of adult citizens who use adult websites, who have overwhelming shown in their usage patterns they will abandon any website that tries to do age verification.

Parental controls remains the right way to do age gating. It works today and has no privacy impacts.

Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds

#13

Post by busterarm »

failuser wrote: post #11
busterarm wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not anti-privacy to point out the obvious that privacy-advocacy is sometimes at odds with governments and the will of voters at large. Privacy is being abused by criminals to victimize people at scale. Just because privacy is a moral good doesn't mean you are morally off the hook for enabling criminals. Governments are so aware of this they're passing sweeping laws against it. This is your new reality -- you can…

The laws they pass do nothing to stop the criminals. Do you think an “age verification” law can stop any criminals?

The laws not stopping the criminals isn't the point. People are calling on their governments to do something and thus governments are going to do what they are going to do.

It's a mix of what they can do and what they're likely to do. They just have to be able to go back to voters and say they're doing something.

If you think that the fact that they did the wrong thing is an argument for not doing anything, you clearly are blind to politics & history.

And age verification being the wrong solution to the "privacy problem" doesn't remove privacy from lawmakers' crosshairs.

Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds

#14

Post by failuser »

schaefer wrote: post #9

From TFA: > In this last Bikeshed in acmqueue, I will ponder the far future of free and open source software (FOSS), hoping to upset so many readers that... > During the past couple of decades, rampant neoliberalism and “globalism” allowed... And I’m out. I guess congratulations to the author. Mission accomplished. But I’m disappointed that the article took a turn towards partisan politics.

I don’t even know which party he champions. There is no pro-privacy party in America. That quote can come from either side of the establishment. Both increased surveillance.

Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds

#15

Post by fzeroracer »

There are some incredibly strange equivalences going on in here that make me think the person in question is indeed quite out of date.

The people pushing for the destruction of privacy and attested software integrity ARE the tech bros. I'm sure there are people here that will vehemently disagree with me, but we see the biggest tech companies pushing for age verification and we see founders and rich folk gleefully giving up their earlier pro-privacy stances in favor of supporting locking down identity. They're building up their moat in real time because not only does it let them kill that pesky FOSS, but also it means they can legally gather even more data from individuals in question.

It also goes hand-in-hand with the increasingly authoritarian bent a lot of those same people have taken and these resources will absolutely be used to crack down on minorities and things they don't like.

I think your head would have to be firmly planted deep underground to somehow not connect the two dots. As another poster here said, they're literally lobbying for these age verification laws because it benefits them.

Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds

#16

Post by failuser »

This is a very strange read. If that was posted on a random blog, I would have dismissed it. I didn’t know that that cell (anti tech bro, anti big tech, pro age verification laws) in the alignment chart is populated by actual people. And by intelligent people even.

Also the fact they call it “age verification” when they clearly build an identity verification and we just accept their language is crazy.

Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds

#17

Post by WarmWash »

busterarm wrote: post #13
failuser wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The laws they pass do nothing to stop the criminals. Do you think an “age verification” law can stop any criminals?

The laws not stopping the criminals isn't the point. People are calling on their governments to do something and thus governments are going to do what they are going to do. It's a mix of what they can do and what they're likely to do. They just have to be able to go back to voters and say they're doing something. If you think that the fact that they did the wrong thing is an argument for not doing anything, you clear…

People are calling on governments or Meta is calling on governments to preemptively deflect punishment onto everyone else for their own misdeeds?

Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds

#18

Post by ToucanLoucan »

schaefer wrote: post #9

From TFA: > In this last Bikeshed in acmqueue, I will ponder the far future of free and open source software (FOSS), hoping to upset so many readers that... > During the past couple of decades, rampant neoliberalism and “globalism” allowed... And I’m out. I guess congratulations to the author. Mission accomplished. But I’m disappointed that the article took a turn towards partisan politics.

You should've kept reading:

> During the past couple of decades, rampant neoliberalism and “globalism” allowed the U.S. tech industry to capture almost the entire European IT market, including all “social media.” This has recently proved to be a ghastly mistake, and now the EU, along with its member states and companies, are scrambling to claw back their digital sovereignty.

This is not a partisan political statement, it's a factual one. It is simply a statement of fact that neoliberal world markets have permitted hyperscalers to cross national boundaries and provide the same services at scale to governments worldwide, and like, without even going into any U.S. politics at the moment, isn't that... really weird? Like many EU governments had essentially put their ability to function as states in the hands of a foreign actor. That's WILD.

Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds

#20

Post by close04 »

busterarm wrote: post #8
Scaled wrote: post #6

Didn't know ACM was anti-privacy. Glad I haven't paid dues in who knows how long if they're spending them to platform these noxious opinions.

It's not anti-privacy to point out the obvious that privacy-advocacy is sometimes at odds with governments and the will of voters at large. Privacy is being abused by criminals to victimize people at scale. Just because privacy is a moral good doesn't mean you are morally off the hook for enabling criminals. Governments are so aware of this they're passing sweeping laws against it. This is your new reality -- you can…

The guy’s logic is “if only we had allowed a small backdoor from the start they wouldn’t be forced to install a large backdoor now”. Other technologies that were open to the law were endlessly abused for surveillance.

His theory is bunk, there is absolutely no middle ground to be had with the people who want a backdoor. There are no small backdoors.

Post reply on HN