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

Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

news.dyne.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 486 posts

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#101

Post by wakawaka28 »

jjk166 wrote: post #24

The people pushing for "child protection" went to the island. It's not even about control, it's about shifting liability away from platforms so they can further gut moderation, reducing their expenses and getting away with doing nothing to stop the actual bad actors.

It's not about gutting moderation. They want you to dox yourself to get online. It's a pro-censorship authoritarian-friendly move. I don't believe the narrative that Meta is behind it all either. If they are, they are probably serving someone else.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#102

Post by yalogin »

The big issue isn’t even age verification. The end goal is verified user identification. They want every transaction on the internet to be associated with the exact identity of the user. No more anonymity.

In the short term the way it will be implemented is this — age verification will not be a binary, it will also want to push your DoB, name, location etc and they say “the choice is with the user” but the default will be to send everything. Very soon there will be services that require DoB or name or something else to gate new or existing functionality. That is the slippery slope it will be built as and that is how they win the game

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#103

Post by wakawaka28 »

smallmancontrov wrote: post #83
catapart wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like who? Name some names of people pushing for this, and we can dissect their motivation.

These laws were passed almost exclusively by the party of self-proclaimed free speech warriors led by Epstein's best friend. State | Effective Date | Legislature Control ------------------+----------------+---------------------- Alabama | Oct 1, 2024 | Republican Arizona | Sep 26, 2025 | Republican Arkansas | Jul 31, 2023 | Republican California | Jan 1, 2027 | Democratic Florida | Jan 1, 2025 | Republican Georgia |…

[flagged]

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#105

Post by foltik »

gruez wrote: post #76
girvo wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> shadowy cabal of pedophiles elites Its a shame that this used to just be a conspiracy theory one could mostly ignore, but we simply can't pretend that there isn't rampant CSA by those in power, because we've had proof of it despite their best efforts. Without wanting to get into politics, the leader of the United States right now was friends with the supposed ring-leader... > but what about everyone else pushing fo…

>we simply can't pretend that there isn't rampant CSA by those in power, because we've had proof of it despite their best efforts What's "rampant"? The news coverage provides no shortage of people, but ringing off 100 (or whatever) people that are in the files doesn't say much, even if we make the questionable assumption that inclusion in files implies guilt. I'm sure that everyone would prefer the amount of pedophil…

You sure are giving them quite the benefit of the doubt. Why?

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/see-the-alleged-tr...

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#106

Post by bdangubic »

wakawaka28 wrote: post #103
smallmancontrov wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These laws were passed almost exclusively by the party of self-proclaimed free speech warriors led by Epstein's best friend. State | Effective Date | Legislature Control ------------------+----------------+---------------------- Alabama | Oct 1, 2024 | Republican Arizona | Sep 26, 2025 | Republican Arkansas | Jul 31, 2023 | Republican California | Jan 1, 2027 | Democratic Florida | Jan 1, 2025 | Republican Georgia |…

[flagged]

25 states isn't cherry-picking :) geeeeeeeeeeez!

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#109

Post by wakawaka28 »

bdangubic wrote: post #106
wakawaka28 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

25 states isn't cherry-picking :) geeeeeeeeeeez!

I was talking about the party. This shit is and always has been pushed from both parties. Even democrat states like California and Colorado are on board. See also, the OS age verification legislation.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#110

Post by gruez »

bigfatkitten wrote: post #87
gruez wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about the first country to ban social media for kids, Australia[1]? So far as I can tell the PM/party leader was not in the files. Of course, if you make your inclusion criteria absurdly wide (eg. anyone who voted or advocated for age based restrictions in any shape or form), you'll probably find some pedophiles or even epstien island visitors from sheer luck alone. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Safety…

This has been on Labor’s agenda, in various forms for many years. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-09/government-abandons-p...

That doesn't change the conclusion, unless you're trying to imply the entire party is full of pedophiles.
Post reply on HN