121–130 of 750 posts
Mandatory age surveillance everywhere is only going to result in massive, normalized ID fraud. You thought fake and stolen IDs were a problem before? You haven't seen anything yet.
And half of it will be from adults trying to avoid privacy invasion.
> If you love your family, you must stop online age verification. > If you want the best for your children, you must stop online age verification. > Your children are being targeted. The infrastructure being built under the cover of child safety is designed to enslave them for the rest of their lives. Jumped the shark on that one, and really off-color. I'm less inclined to listen to guy, not because of his actual poi…
I’ve been noticing a trend among a lot of HN members where instead of contending with the arguments made in an article, they focus on the “off putting rhetoric” used by the author. Make no mistake you are engaging in your own form of rhetoric when you respond like this. You are in effect moving the discussion away from the subject at hand, and towards the perceived faults in the author’s communication style. This is…
If I were the author of the post, I'd value the feedback.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Basically every article on this site has a comment complaining that the article is AI. Who knows. Maybe “complaining about AI” is the new AI way of fitting in.
If everyone is complaining about the smell of shit, maybe it's because there's shit everywhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For a start, child are parents responsibility, and the state should stay out of that as much as reasonably possible. Yes That's why stores let kids buy alcohol and tobacco, of course, because no responsible parent would let them buy that, right? That's why any kid can go watch any movie in the cinema right? Yes it's the parents responsibilities. Do you think a middle class single mother has the resources to keep th…
> That's why any kid can go watch any movie in the cinema right? Yes. At least in the U.S., the federal government does not regulate that, it is voluntary by the MPA (formerly MPAA) and theaters. A kid can buy a ticket for a PG movie and walk into an R-rated movie. > Do you think a middle class single mother has the resources to keep their kids entertained and out of social media for the whole day? Mine did. While no…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's why any kid can go watch any movie in the cinema right? Yes. At least in the U.S., the federal government does not regulate that, it is voluntary by the MPA (formerly MPAA) and theaters. A kid can buy a ticket for a PG movie and walk into an R-rated movie. > Do you think a middle class single mother has the resources to keep their kids entertained and out of social media for the whole day? Mine did. While no…
Did social media exist when you grew up?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And they continue to act like opposition just wants a wild west/don't care about kids, which is the oldest trick in the book. We just don't want "protect the kids" leveraged to tear up our rights. It's addressing a real problem in a bad way.
I mean, it's more than that. I _want_ to protect kids' right to be part of the human connectome. The "protect the kids" (by disallowing them their freedom of thought on the internet) is just naked ageism.
Or perhaps protecting kids isn’t really ageism at all.
Age verification on Australian social media has loopholes. Underage influencers use an agency to manage their social media for them. So anyone with enough followers or money can continue using social media under the age of 16. If you are going to implement age controls, you should implement a ban on underage influencers as well.
How could one protect the, call it one in 1 million… the speech of the (young) Greta Thunbergs, for example? I bet there is a 15 year-old much smarter than me making political videos and I wouldn’t necessarily want them to be forced to stop. What if they’re on my “team”! ;) (I kid) Recalling how we had lots of political debates in high school: if some of those kids made videos and got really popular, and the law made…
Its not about intelligence. Else a whole lot of over-age-of-majority wouldn't pass either.
Theres also no old-age cutoff, when their mental faculties significantly decline.
Yeah, the voting majority keeps 'under age' from voting. But at least in the USA, we have children as young as 11 being tried as adults but with none of the benefits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve been noticing a trend among a lot of HN members where instead of contending with the arguments made in an article, they focus on the “off putting rhetoric” used by the author. Make no mistake you are engaging in your own form of rhetoric when you respond like this. You are in effect moving the discussion away from the subject at hand, and towards the perceived faults in the author’s communication style. This is…
"Disingenuous?" Just because someone finds the style irksome, and chooses to share that here, they're deceptively, calculatingly trying to derail the conversation? That's an extremely cynical and uncharitable take. If I were the author of the post, I'd value the feedback.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chrome, Android, and Gmail are optional to use.
So is social media.
Are you not alarmed at the possibility that a person's network access could be cut arbitrarily and at-will?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Back in the late 90s or so, there was a proposal to have sites voluntarily set an age header, so parents/employers/etc could use to block the site if they wish. People said it would never work, because adult sites had a financial incentive not to opt in to reduce their own traffic.
What, in the same way movie studios wouldn't comply with the Hayes Code, or comic book publishers wouldn't comply with the CCA, or games publishers wouldn't comply with the ESRB? The financial incentive is to police yourself, because government policing is much, much worse.