101–109 of 109 posts
What is a good resource for reviewing the advantages and disadvantages of mandatory Real ID for Internet access? Aren't there sound reasons to support anonymous whistleblowing? Would there be critical feedback without pseudo-anonymity on the internet? But you folks just have to dom all the haters. What is their favorite thing: stuffed animal brand, candy, musical artist? But then wouldn't undercover ops be obvious? I…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think banning facebook/instagram/etc is one of the special cases where it makes more sense to be enforced by the site, because people use these out of mainly peer pressure and network effect. If a majority is kept off, the rest have little use for it regardless of their personal wishes. Heck, I'd reckon most kids don't actually want to use them all that much. Regardless of technical details, giving parents this con…
But why not both? I'm coming from a USian perspective here where I don't see much possibility of actual widespread bans of these types of products, rather just a retrenching to what can be supported by regulatory capture. Also, we're getting the locked down computing devices anyway - mobile phones as they are right now are a sufficient root of trust for parental purposes. So it seems pointless to avoid using that cap…
Why do you think there would be regulation to honor the "underage signal", but not explicitly ban social media sites for "unverified" users?
> seems pointless to avoid using that capability
It's not pointless, because relying on it will soon make these locked down devices mandatory for everyone under 18, and they will keep using it past 18. Everyone will lose general purpose computing, along with adblocking and other mitigations that protect you from various harms. It also leads to widespread surveillance being possible as parents will want to be able to "audit" their teen's usage.
> put an additional system of control front and center
The problem should be controlled at the source, not the destination, if feasible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But why not both? I'm coming from a USian perspective here where I don't see much possibility of actual widespread bans of these types of products, rather just a retrenching to what can be supported by regulatory capture. Also, we're getting the locked down computing devices anyway - mobile phones as they are right now are a sufficient root of trust for parental purposes. So it seems pointless to avoid using that cap…
> don't see much possibility of actual widespread bans Why do you think there would be regulation to honor the "underage signal", but not explicitly ban social media sites for "unverified" users? > seems pointless to avoid using that capability It's not pointless, because relying on it will soon make these locked down devices mandatory for everyone under 18, and they will keep using it past 18. Everyone will lose gen…
Our ancestor comment still has the direction backwards. This is the specific dynamic that makes sense to me: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47027738 .
This means any legislation should be aimed at directing device manufacturers to implement software that can respect content assertions sent by websites.
> relying on it will soon make these locked down devices mandatory for everyone under 18, and they will keep using it past 18
Okay, but in 2026 we're basically at this point. Show me a mobile phone that doesn't have a bootloader locked down with "secure boot." For this particular threat that we had worried about for a long time, we've already lost. Not in the total-sweeping way that analysis from first principles leads you to, but in the day to day practical way. It's everywhere.
The next control we're staring down is remote attestation, which is already being implemented for niches like banking. The scaffolding is there for it to be implemented on every website - "verifying your device's security" - I get that on basically everywhere these days. As soon as 80% of browsers can be assumed to have remote attestation capabilities, we can be sure they will start demanding these signals and slowly clamping down on libre browsers (as has been done with browser/IP fingerprinting over the past decade)
Any of these talks of getting the server involved intrinsically rely on shoring up "device security" through remote attestation. That is exactly what can end ad-blocking and every other client-represents-the-user freedom.
> The problem should be controlled at the source, not the destination, if feasible.
You've already acknowledged VPNs and foreign jurisdictions, which means "at the source" implies a national firewall, right?
Unless your goal is to undermine any solution on this topic? I'm sympathetic to this, I just don't see that being realistic in today's environment!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> don't see much possibility of actual widespread bans Why do you think there would be regulation to honor the "underage signal", but not explicitly ban social media sites for "unverified" users? > seems pointless to avoid using that capability It's not pointless, because relying on it will soon make these locked down devices mandatory for everyone under 18, and they will keep using it past 18. Everyone will lose gen…
> Why do you think there would be regulation to honor the "underage signal" Our ancestor comment still has the direction backwards. This is the specific dynamic that makes sense to me: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47027738 . This means any legislation should be aimed at directing device manufacturers to implement software that can respect content assertions sent by websites. > relying on it will soon make the…
In principle I agree with keeping some content away from children, but I don't think any of the implementations will work without causing worse problems, so I disagree with implementing those.
> in the day to day practical way
There's a world of difference between practically required and it being illegal to use anything else, even if initially for a small set of population. You still have a choice to avoid those now. Moreover there is a fairly large subculture of gamers etc opposed to these movements, and open computing platforms will take a long time to fizzle out without intervention.
If you mandate locked down devices for kids, it will very quickly become locked down devices for everyone except for "licensed developers", because no one gets a bunch of new computers upon becoming an adult, and a new campaign from big tech will try to associate open computers with criminals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why do you think there would be regulation to honor the "underage signal" Our ancestor comment still has the direction backwards. This is the specific dynamic that makes sense to me: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47027738 . This means any legislation should be aimed at directing device manufacturers to implement software that can respect content assertions sent by websites. > relying on it will soon make the…
I agree with controls on addictive/exploitative platforms like Facebook or Instagram. These can be feasibly controlled at the source. In principle I agree with keeping some content away from children, but I don't think any of the implementations will work without causing worse problems, so I disagree with implementing those. > in the day to day practical way There's a world of difference between practically required…
You kind of skipped over the distinction I made between "secure boot" and "remote attestation". Based on what you wrote here I'm not quite sure if you understand the difference between them. And in the context of locked down computing, the difference between them, and their specific implications, is highly important.
I'm not pointing this out to shoot down your point or something, rather I think you'd benefit from learning about this outside of this comment. But I'll be a little more explicit here to get you started:
The worry with secure boot was based around the possibility that all manufacturers would stop making non-locked-down devices. This has not really panned out - all phones basically have secure boot, there are many you can install your own OS image onto, and there are many escape hatches.
The worry with remote attestation is that website owners will be able to insist that you run specific software environment and/or hardware, and deny you access otherwise. On desktop web browsers, this is the WEI proposal that seems to have stalled. But on mobile, this is still going full speed ahead, both web and apps (SafetyNet).
The thing about remote attestation is that its restrictions take the same shape as current CAPTCHA nags, IP block based hassling, etc. When websites see that more and more visitors are compliant, they can crank up the pain. First it's invisible, then it's a warning, then it's a big hassle (eg lots of CAPTCHAs), and then finally it's a hard lockout. This can happen, led by specific industries (eg banking), regardless of any communities working to resist it. What you should picture is all of our old computers working just fine, but being able to access modern websites in a way that cannot be technically worked around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Better yet, require online services to send a 'not for kids' flag along with any restricted content then let families configure their devices however they want. Even better, make the flags granular: , , , 13+, profane language, user, text 17+, violence, self, video 18+, unmoderated content, user, text 13+, drug themes, self, audio and so on...
Just say the whole internet is not for kids without adult supervision and leave it at that. It doesn't even matter if you can get something that technically works. Half the "age appropriate" content targeted at children is horrifying brainrot. Hardcore pornography would be less damaging to them. Just supervise your damn children people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
resist
please help me find out how, im running out of reasons to be alive
When we devalue ourselves then things and people on the outside become relatively much more powerful and more significant. If we love ourselves - and you do deserve that - then they really don't matter. It's not that the world and life and events don't matter at all, but it's only a fraction of how it may feel now; it's a whole different perspective and experience. People have survived decades of oppression, prison and worse on that basis.
Turn off the social media and the news if it will help - that stuff is not important; you are. I could care less about all this stuff on HN if you, a real person, is ok. And talk to a professional, a therapist; you don't have to feel this way and it can change your life.
I really hope that helps you some.