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

Never Give Them Your Face

nevergivethemyourface.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 468 posts

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#101

Post by shevy-java »

> It is not age verification. It is identity verification.

Very true. They are currently orchestrating the attack.

It is also why I call age sniffing age sniffing like that; "age verification" is the propaganda term. We need to look which actors are behind this push. I smell a trail of corruption money following these actors pushing for it. It is also fascinating to see how quickly democracies fall victim to this. Soon age sniffing will be mandatory everywhere. The free world wide web will be gone. Right now people think this is hyperpole. Well, we saw that with other technology too ...

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#102

Post by bethekidyouwant »

testing22321 wrote: post #65
fl4regun wrote: post #31

This is a little bit of a tangent compared to the post, but can someone explain to me why it's NOW that we have multiple countries (USA, Canada, UK, Australia, and probably others that I am not aware of) all looking at age verification for a technology (the internet and all the things it lets you access) has existed for over 2 decades, and has been mature for at least 10 years? You could buy illicit drugs and watch p…

Social media was unleashed onto the world with no harm studies or thought for the long term impact. Now we’re catching up and realizing how bad it is. For a similar case, see tasers in Canada after a handcuffed immigrant was killed by one. The question came up “how were tasers certified safe for humans?”. The answer was “they weren’t. A private company just started selling them to police forces who just started using…

Tasers are bad is your example? cops should go back to clubbing people over the head I suppose? - Remember all metaphors are bad.

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#103

Post by shevy-java »

harel wrote: post #44

It ends with "The platforms need you far more than you need them". And I think this is the misconception. No, they don't. The amount of people who will sign this, is a fraction of a fraction of a "platform"'s users. They will not care if they lose 50,000 users out of 2 Billion. A drop in the ocean. Not the target audience anyway. And that is the real shame. Because I don't want to have to give my face or do age verif…

It has never been about those platforms though. I could not care less if CIAbook or Instaspam or any of these other anti-social slop sites exist.

They want to force all operating systems to require age sniffing. That's the main angle right now. I am curiously watching how systemd will add more implementation details to this; probably as a first step only for commercial linux distributions.

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#104

Post by thechao »

andrewla wrote: post #92
fl4regun wrote: post #31

This is a little bit of a tangent compared to the post, but can someone explain to me why it's NOW that we have multiple countries (USA, Canada, UK, Australia, and probably others that I am not aware of) all looking at age verification for a technology (the internet and all the things it lets you access) has existed for over 2 decades, and has been mature for at least 10 years? You could buy illicit drugs and watch p…

I'm maybe a bit of an outlier here in that I do think that this is a genuine grassroots good faith effort to "protect the children" that does not have sinister ulterior motives. I know plenty of parents who have expressed enthusiasm for the idea of age-restricting websites. "Why now" I think is pretty obvious -- the age limitations that exist currently are easily circumvented, but have given enough of a plausible den…

I've been able to age restrict websites with my childrens' devices for years? Privately, on the device. The website side is pure moatism.

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#105

Post by harel »

munk-a wrote: post #64
harel wrote: post #44

It ends with "The platforms need you far more than you need them". And I think this is the misconception. No, they don't. The amount of people who will sign this, is a fraction of a fraction of a "platform"'s users. They will not care if they lose 50,000 users out of 2 Billion. A drop in the ocean. Not the target audience anyway. And that is the real shame. Because I don't want to have to give my face or do age verif…

You are correct that your data isn't particularly impactful for these platforms - but you're also overestimating the value that many of these services have. A fair few of them have competitors with better features and privacy offerings so the only reason you need them is purely for the network effect of everyone else using them.

If there is a substitute and I am not time constrained 100% i'm switching. But I've been in a situation already where a platform I'm using required me to face-up. I can't even remember which to be honest but I had no alternative or recourse to refuse. In addition, in the UK company directors are legaly required to face-up to Companies House and confirm their identity, so they have my face too. Ah, and so is every single CCTV camera around London. I don't know how to fight this particular battle.

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#107

Post by brandensilva »

ekall wrote: post #81
harel wrote: post #44

It ends with "The platforms need you far more than you need them". And I think this is the misconception. No, they don't. The amount of people who will sign this, is a fraction of a fraction of a "platform"'s users. They will not care if they lose 50,000 users out of 2 Billion. A drop in the ocean. Not the target audience anyway. And that is the real shame. Because I don't want to have to give my face or do age verif…

I think this kind of comment where you share the sentiment that you will ultimately admit defeat emboldens the factions that are hoping for people to be like you. I also think these kinds of comments may also bring doubt to people considering resisting these kinds of concessions. In other words I think the people pushing these kinds of "identification" methods would love you for spreading their silent message of this…

I find it strange for these people to accept such a defeatist attitude because I'm the opposite.

I mean I will just not use the service and I'll seek out alternatives that are open source or create my own. I'll do anything possible until I'm the last one standing if that's what it comes down too.

I tried to sign up to Telnyx and they had the same crap from an unreliable data-breach and being-litigated persona identifier. I passed on that.

I've already been going down this road as I've abandoned Google and some of the big cloud providers in favor of smaller companies who aren't pushing these policies.

It isn't hard to click cancel. It's just people favor convenience over their own freedom because they have never experienced not having freedom like our founder's did 250 years ago. The problem is once freedom is gone, getting it back requires blood spilled and political reforms and revolutions based on what history teaches us.

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#108

Post by shevy-java »

fl4regun wrote: post #31

This is a little bit of a tangent compared to the post, but can someone explain to me why it's NOW that we have multiple countries (USA, Canada, UK, Australia, and probably others that I am not aware of) all looking at age verification for a technology (the internet and all the things it lets you access) has existed for over 2 decades, and has been mature for at least 10 years? You could buy illicit drugs and watch p…

> can someone explain to me why it's NOW that we have multiple countries

Because there are actors pushing for this. And they let money flow, so the lobbyists work.

People think lobbyists don't do this? Well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_corruption_scandal_at_th...

These lobbyists were dumb. You can be certain that some lobbyists are so efficient that detecting them reliably is very difficult. Even more so when private media is controlled by a few billionaires who are "in" on the system.

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#109

Post by idiotsecant »

ekall wrote: post #81
harel wrote: post #44

It ends with "The platforms need you far more than you need them". And I think this is the misconception. No, they don't. The amount of people who will sign this, is a fraction of a fraction of a "platform"'s users. They will not care if they lose 50,000 users out of 2 Billion. A drop in the ocean. Not the target audience anyway. And that is the real shame. Because I don't want to have to give my face or do age verif…

I think this kind of comment where you share the sentiment that you will ultimately admit defeat emboldens the factions that are hoping for people to be like you. I also think these kinds of comments may also bring doubt to people considering resisting these kinds of concessions. In other words I think the people pushing these kinds of "identification" methods would love you for spreading their silent message of this…

I think the kind of comment you're making here is wishful thinking. Raging into the void and then getting mad when everyone doesn't do the same is not an effective way to force change. It's just an effective way to make you feel good.

Re: Never Give Them Your Face

#110

Post by shevy-java »

supriyo-biswas wrote: post #62
fl4regun wrote: post #31

This is a little bit of a tangent compared to the post, but can someone explain to me why it's NOW that we have multiple countries (USA, Canada, UK, Australia, and probably others that I am not aware of) all looking at age verification for a technology (the internet and all the things it lets you access) has existed for over 2 decades, and has been mature for at least 10 years? You could buy illicit drugs and watch p…

It's all caused by a Meta lobbying initiative across multiple countries as documented in https://tboteproject.com/ (sadly, the website is down right now), but you can find references e.g. https://www.jwz.org/blog/2026/03/the-tbote-project/

It's not only Meta though. People need to stop assuming Meta controls everything via its CIAbook. You see several actors behind that; which one contributes the most is an interesting detail, but ultimately it can be simplified to them planning Evil against The People.
Post reply on HN