Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds • Hacker News Board

Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds

#21

Post by SoftTalker » Sat, Jul 18, 2026, 6:36 PM UTC

Scaled wrote: post #12

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…

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…

Parental control does not work today, it's too fragmented and too difficult.

Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds

#22

Post by onraglanroad » Sat, Jul 18, 2026, 6:37 PM UTC

I tried to give this a fair chance but it's really an incoherent rant.

There is nothing of substance here. You don't like AI, I get. But it still exists and pretending that no-one finds it useful is utterly foolish.

Edit: I overuse the word utterly. Nice to identify one of my tells.

Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds

#23

Post by andix » Sat, Jul 18, 2026, 6:37 PM UTC

I don't think age restriction will impact FOSS in the long term. If there are some regulations that threaten FOSS now, they are going to be adopted in the long term.

Regulations for age restriction are understandable. A lot of modern technology is harming kids (and I don't mean dirty videos, social media seems to be much more harmful).

A sensible regulator would leave some responsibility to the parents, but require restrictions for consumer devices (smartphones, laptops). Maybe even enable age restrictions by default, block replacing the OS or the firmware, and only allow it once the age was confirmed.

I don't see a point of including all kind of OS or software into this regulation. Just the ones that are preinstalled on consumer devices, and commercially distributed to consumers. Once the age of the user was confirmed, the devices should be able to become as open as we know them now.

Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds

#24

Post by failuser » Sat, Jul 18, 2026, 6:37 PM UTC

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…

Governments can make effective laws, you know. There are tools that can solve this. Parental controls, separation of peer-to-peer communications from algorithmic feeds. The lawmakers are old, tech-illiterate people. You can tell them that a private Minecraft server is illegal and they will believe it.

Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds

#25

Post by failuser » Sat, Jul 18, 2026, 6:39 PM UTC

WarmWash wrote: post #17

busterarm wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Exactly. Voice of the people if very faint, sound of lobby banknotes makes lawmakers listen.

Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds

#26

Post by busterarm » Sat, Jul 18, 2026, 6:40 PM UTC

failuser wrote: post #14

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.

None of the ones you're thinking of. PHK is Danish. Danish politics and society at large leans pretty left. Even what you might call the rightwing party there consider themselves as bourgeois-liberal, or "not-socialist". The farthest they'd generally position themselves is center-right.

Except for shit like Stram Kurs, which nobody really supports or tolerates.

Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds

#27

Post by st3fan » Sat, Jul 18, 2026, 6:42 PM UTC

"LLM-assisted code review won't be a huge disruptor" is quite the prediction. Because it already is in a very big way. The take on LLMs seems incredibly out of date and out of touch with reality. (Which of course, has moved/advanced very fast the past months/year)

Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds

#28

Post by j45 » Sat, Jul 18, 2026, 6:44 PM UTC

Was it ever decided on what color the bike shed should be painted?

Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds

#29

Post by mapontosevenths » Sat, Jul 18, 2026, 6:44 PM UTC

Scaled wrote: post #12

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…

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…

Just for those who aren't aware, most of the recent push for these laws has been bankrolled by Meta. They wish to avoid legal responsibility for their attacks on democracy and human health by convincing governments that people don't need any right to anonymous speech, and thusly free speech, as much as Meta needs to not have to pay moderators.

Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds

#30

Post by chaps » Sat, Jul 18, 2026, 6:44 PM UTC

orf wrote: post #19

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.

Wow, you missed the entire point of the article.

Honestly? It's weirdly written and incredibly hard to understand what their point is. I can't tell if they hate or love privacy.