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

121–130 of 486 posts

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#121

Post by gruez »

foltik wrote: post #105
gruez wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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...

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

1. "alleged"

2. I'm not sure what you're trying to refute. I specifically quoted a passage saying that they broke up in 2004, which implies they were together prior to that.

3. For the specific claim that Trump's a pedophile, a "drawing of a curvaceous woman" is hardly proof. At best it's a proof that he's a womanizer, but we hardly need proof of that given the "grab her by the pussy" quote.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#122

Post by wetpaws »

Velocifyer wrote: post #119
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.

Which island?

[dead]

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#123

Post by jadamson »

Velocifyer wrote: post #119
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.

Which island?

Little St. James

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#124

Post by Velocifyer »

GeoAtreides wrote: post #79
smartmic wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s only too late when we stop fighting back and accept it as a given. Don’t underestimate civil disobedience and the hacker spirit.

UK showed how to deal with civil disobedience (fast tracked judicial process). Hardware attestation will deal with the hacker spirit. Above all, the LLM panopticon will watch us all. Technology will not save us. Nothing will save us but ourselves and we're busy making rent and doomscrolling.

[flagged]

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#125

Post by rustyhancock »

Quite mind boggling to me that a nanny state can exhurt such a large amount of global control.

It's darkly comedic that the single most toxic experience since the pop up ad - the cookie consent popup was similarly imposed.

The solution is simple. Websites and services (including ISPs) become governed by the country in which they operate not the whims of foreign entities.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#126

Post by wa7dj229de6 »

catapart wrote: post #59
gruez wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The people pushing for "child protection" went to the island. What does this even mean aside from a thinly veiled accusation that such efforts are being pushed by a shadowy cabal of pedophiles elites? I'm sure you can find some overlap between people who want to push age verification laws and people who went to the island, but what about everyone else pushing for the law but who didn't go?

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

Zuckerberg?

https://mashable.com/article/tech-ceos-epstein-files-musk-ga...

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#127

Post by owisd »

yalogin wrote: post #102

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 wi…

If the end goal was user identification then the digital ID + zero knowledge proof age verification methods would be disallowed, which they aren't. https://blog.google/products-and-platforms/platforms/google-...

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#128

Post by smallmancontrov »

anonym29 wrote: post #112
smallmancontrov wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and many people have an extreme incentive to retreat to that framing because * In 2024, they had a choice between pedophiles and not pedophiles and chose the pedophiles. * In 2020, they had a choice between pedophiles and not pedophiles and chose the pedophiles. * In 2016, they had a choice between pedophiles and not pedophiles and chose the pedophiles. There was plenty of evidence of this association in 2016 (b…

[flagged]

Couple small corrections:

Hillary has not been implicated by the Epstein files. Not today and not by evidence available in 2016.

Biden has not been implicated by the Epstein files. Not today and not by evidence available in 2020.

Bonus: not only was Trump implicated in the Epstein files both today and by evidence available in 2016, he was also in charge of every federal prison and every US spook agency in 2019 when Epstein died under mysterious circumstances.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#129

Post by udhottuhao »

hei-lima wrote: post #93
deadbabe wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What did it affect in your life? Ultimately something with affect a kid’s life.

I mean... access to adult content at that age is really, really bad. It really messed up my brain. Gore videos, chatting with adults, etc. But I learned many good things, too. It's a double-edged sword.

As a kid, I know that it is pretty easy to avoid those websites(because I do).

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#130

Post by tzs »

Diffusion3166 wrote: post #47

Given that it seems Meta is commissioning these laws, I wonder if a viral open source license that explicitly fails to grant Meta a license to use or modify the software would effectively deter future lobbying for regulations which are especially difficult for the open source community to comply with.

> Given that it seems Meta is commissioning these laws

That's not given. Someone found some good evidence that Meta was supporting (and even supplying language) for some of the earlier laws. Those were the laws doing age checks on websites and typically requiring uploading ID documents or face scans to those websites.

I've not seen anyone provide evidence that Meta has anything to do with the laws that are like the California one, which do not require providing any documentation or proof whatsoever of age. They just required that the parent of a child who uses a device be asked to provide a birthdate or age when setting up the child's account, and that the OS providing an API that apps on that device can use to get the age bracket of the child.

Post reply on HN