Live data from Hacker News

Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

news.dyne.org

131–140 of 486 posts

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#131
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 conveniently omit the fact that they broke up 5 years before he was first convicted. And? It doesn’t change the reality of the original statement. The president of the United States was friends with the alleged ring leader of a large pedophile network.

>The president of the United States was friends with the alleged ring leader of a large pedophile network.

You're making some leaps logic here here. If someone's outed as a pedophile, everyone who's friends with him should be assumed to be a pedophile? Surely not, given that pedophilia is considered taboo, we'd expect them to hide it, and therefore at least some friends might not be in the know. That's not to say there's no conspirators, but "he was friends with a pedophile therefore he's a pedophile too" is just guilt by association. What you need to prove is that he knew, or ought to have known that his friend was a pedophile. A conviction works decently for this, because it's presumably public knowledge, although even that's questionable because most people don't do a background check on people they met. In the case of Epstien he also hired reputation management firms to suppress his conviction from showing up in the results, which weakens the case even more.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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 E…

I never accused Hillary or Biden of being implicated in the Epstein files. Those aren't corrections, those are non-sequitirs.

Bonus: at no point did I refute Trump being a pedophile or being in the Epstein files.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why is Meta lobbying for this? The bills they push move compliance onto the app stores. And Meta doesn't run an app store. I think the execs think its some sort of 4D chess move to put liabilities onto their competitors. I'm not sure it will work out that way. Seems like FB has a lot more to lose than they think.

They're pushing for an API at the system level, where they can query the age Such an API can then be extended to provide location data to "help the police find bad guys", track purchase histories to "prevent fraud"; all the stuff that Apple and Google blocked fb from sniffing from user devices It's circumvention of these privacy protections with added vengeance since now Google and Apple will be sitting with the cost…

>Such an API can then be extended to provide location data to "help the police find bad guys", track purchase histories to "prevent fraud"; all the stuff that Apple and Google blocked fb from sniffing from user devices

/s?

In case this is serious, why do they need an age API to ask for a location backdoor API?

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#134

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 |…

It's curious that you've omitted California (Democrats) and Colorado (Democrats) from your list.

[deleted]

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#135

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 |…

It's curious that you've omitted California (Democrats) and Colorado (Democrats) from your list.

I thought the Colorado bill died.

https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb25-201

Looks like the CA bill went through though.

https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1043/id/3269704

I updated the list. Still looks rather tilted to me!

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#136

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…

I truly share your concerns, especially as someone belonging to a minority.

At the same time, we have to be real: Online anonymity has significant, real-world drawbacks. I don't think it's reasonable to keep dreaming of the 90s or 00s when the internet was a comparatively innocent place. As society is more and more digitized, the stakes become much, much higher. An information leak 30 years ago was bad, but it had a fairly limited impact radius. Today it can lose you your house, your savings, your relationships, and even your life ("swatting" comes to mind).

This extremely ill-advised legislation across various jurisdictions cannot just be brushed off as a global turn towards fascism. It is that, but there are also real, legitimate concerns that need to be addressed, and the tech world has not leveraged its expertise to come up with any solutions so far. Sticking our head in the sand crying "git gud" while millions get scammed out of their life savings... It's not great.

(Children getting into trouble is honestly the least of my concerns here. Don't let your child go online unsupervised. The internet is not for them. You wouldn't let them roam free in a red light district or an underground illegal weapon's market either, even though they are unlikely to come to any harm.)

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure it’s possible to have different priorities without being stupid or ignorant of history. Once you concede a certain right, such as a right to privacy, you rarely if ever get it back. Most people seem not to care about this, despite ample evidence that it’s something worth caring about. Stupid is the obvious term for it, though obtuse could work as well. Of course, I don’t blame them. They haven’t lived in…

I have the right to my own senses, my own observations, my own memories. I have the right to photograph what I can see with my eyes, and to write down what I can remember. Unless enjoined by a specific duty of care (doctor/patient, attorney/client, security clearance, etc) I have the right to discuss my memories with others. This obtains even when using electronic tools and even when working in association with other…

I'm actually fine with that; so long as that is restricted to your own senses, observations, and memories; and doesn't somehow spill over and somehow pertain to mine. Basically the typical freedom to swing your fists ends at the tip of my nose argument. This is probably a solvable problem between reasonable people; give or take.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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 E…

>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.

Who was in charge when Epstein got the sweetheart deal on his first conviction?

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#139
post #61
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…

I might be misreading you, but are you saying that the whole Qanon thing isn't a baseless conspiracy theory?

Qanon is absolutely a baseless conspiracy theory.

The overall idea that far too many of those in power politically and economically are involved in CSA isn't though, it seems.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their real goals are even worse than that. Some of these groups have admitted they're also about suppressing LGBT+ content. As the Heritage Foundation admitted: > Keeping trans content away from children is protecting kids. No child should be conditioned to think that permanently damaging their healthy bodies to try to become something they can never be is even remotely a good idea. https://arstechnica.com/tech-polic…

I mean, I don't disagree with the sentiment of keeping trans ideology away from kids, in exactly the way I'd want to protect them from any kind of religious indoctrination.

Firey take there, but I know a few people who are trans and neck deep in the kool aid. They will tell you that 25-30% of population is trans, and just haven't been liberated/are in denial.

Look, it's cool to be trans, no problem. These women I know are good people and net contributors to society. But they are off the ideological deep-end, and would happily spend 3 hours at the family BBQ lecturing an impressionable 13 year old about how those weird body feelings are very likely gender dismorphia. They're just as drunk on their flavor of delusional social media as any other religious nut is crazy about God.

Post reply on HN