121–130 of 598 posts
call and email your congresspeoples, and tell them not to go through with this
Then donate millions in campaign contributions to ensure they actually care at all what you think!
Money matters but a popular movement is more powerful still in some places look up DSA
Oh for goodness’ sake, can’t the government (federal or states) create a service that will simply give out a token when someone has passed the age they want (eg 18), and provably goes through a multipart mixer, or just give you a zero-knowledge proof on the device of your choice, anytime you need? On a related note, if they will require a specific kind of ID to vote, can’t they just make sure everyone can receive tha…
It can't, because the government doesn't know shit about technology. Someone who knows tech, is close to the government, and isn't corrupt, would have to propose it and explain what this zorro-proof knowy doohicky is. The government knows ID checks because you get checked at bars.
Targeting the kids is so infuriatingly successful tactics. It gives the adults the option to be apathetic. In reality, anyone who is a kid now will never know any better. It just means we're the last generations that had the luxury of a world that remembered what privacy was.
You mean targeting with ads, sucking into feeds, making kids harm themselves and making money on this with lip service about corporate responsibility? Sounds about right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It can't, because the government doesn't know shit about technology. Someone who knows tech, is close to the government, and isn't corrupt, would have to propose it and explain what this zorro-proof knowy doohicky is. The government knows ID checks because you get checked at bars.
Horse shit. The government has extremely deep expertise in computer science readily available on their payroll and at their beck and call. They literally have DARPA, for instance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would probably also be illegal for the government to mandate a paywall. The issue is not that age gates are illegal, but that the government forcing people to use age gates is illegal.
But there are already laws that, for example, restrict children from buying pornographic magazines. These have been found by the Supreme Court to be constitutionally compatible. I don't see why this would be different with similar laws that apply to online services.
The government can ban the sale of those things to minors, generally. So the category of porn sites that require a credit card and pay gate the content might be regulateable.
But that's not how places like pornhub or xvideos operate
So, the mafia now reveals its evil face. It wants to censor young people's way to access information, without conforming to an "age check". This is the first step, the next is to require of this of everyone else. This is the biggest attack on personal freedom since decades. It is time to crush those lobbyists that push for this. By the way, even ignoring the propaganda by the lobbyists here, at which point did the "d…
> This is the first step, the next is to require of this of everyone else. This is the threat day one. They get both groups' information. Next, they'll start to purge information they don't like because it has been corralled off from the rest of the internet. If they get lucky to trap a politician or billionaire in their net (and they will), they'll use that information to control how they vote or fund interests. Nex…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We do not need to lose our rights to privacy because people want to control what their kids do and see. (I'm not even convinced this is true - this is likely just a convenient lie told by the politicians, because I don't see parents clamoring for this.) We're below replacement rate, so it's not like most people are even having kids, anyway. Yet we have to give up our freedom for other people to raise little Christian…
When did you grow up? The internet in 2006 and 2026 were nothing alike.
Fast forward to the 1990s and politicians were clueless about what the internet was doing or would do in future. So what is the correct response when every citizen has the power to, using the archaic term, "broadcast" to the world.
The genie is out of the bottle and needs to be managed for the common good, which is always going to piss off some individuals. It's going to be interesting watching nation states fight over how best to do this.