Live data from Hacker News

Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

news.dyne.org

141–150 of 486 posts

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Congrats. Keep it that way.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They haven’t lived in a context where they need to care. You might believe you don't need opsec, and then new laws are passed, or your national supreme court overturns the case that gave you your rights, or someone invades; and now suddenly you're wanted for anything from overstaying a visa, outright murder, or simply existing. USA, right now, peoples lives are being destroyed because the wrong people got their dat…

There is no world where a totalitarian government’s law enforcement ambitions on some object-level question are thwarted by the same government’s enforcement of privacy law. Countries with GDPR that are thinking of rounding up and kicking out the refugees know perfectly well who and where the refugees are.

You're not entirely wrong; ultimately if they put enough resources towards it they can probably catch quite a number of people. But governments have limited resources and really don't track everyone all the time. Not even in 2026 are they able to do that yet. It helps if you maintain some level of opsec. If they really want to get you, they can get close, but see eg Ed Snowden; who managed to stay ahead of the US government just long enough to reach relative safety (FSVO).

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't see how this "child protection" enforcement would help in case of small obscure websites with porn and gore? No way their admins gonna comply. I doubt ISPs would go that far to DNS whitelist compliant websites only.

I never said this would help... in fact, I’m against this kind of measure, at least the way it’s being done. But I wouldn’t be surprised if Brazilian ISPs are forced to block this sort of thing (just look at what happened with Twitter (X) the year before last).

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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 |…

This table seems suspect. I spot checked Texas, and while the party affiliation is correct, the dates are not. You put Sept 19, 2023 as the date for Texas, but Wikipedia[1] says it "Enacted September 1, 2024" and "Enacted June 13, 2023". Looking at the other dates, I'm not sure how you got Sept 19, 2023, even through a typo.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCOPE_Act

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#145
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.

It's not about gutting moderation. They want you to dox yourself to get online. It's a pro-censorship authoritarian-friendly move. I don't believe the narrative that Meta is behind it all either. If they are, they are probably serving someone else.

Here are just some of the things you can do with tracking:

- Dox, coerce, blackmail, and ruin political candidates, powerful CEOs, and wealthy people. If they watch a category of porn that is embarrassing or have an affair, suddenly you have leverage against them. You can parlay that to accomplish lots of things.

- Make it impossible to talk about certain things and eventually eliminate those things. Porn today, abortion tomorrow. LGBT, women's rights ... it's a tool to start enforcing an ideology. Eventually these things can be disappeared entirely, not just the discourse. You just cordon off and begin washing it away bit by bit, year by year. Once the control mechanisms are in place, it cannot be stopped.

- Kill anonymous communication. This can pin identities to online comments. You can then punish people of the ideology you don't like by denying them jobs, auditing them, etc. This has a chilling effect on political opposition. This also makes it much harder to leak or report information safely and harms the ability to whistle blow.

- In general, this also pushes society into more religious, more conservative views. With it comes a lack of skepticism and a greater appreciation for authority.

- Ultimately, this is a step into 1984. If we go down that route, we will eventually be owned in whole by the authoritarian powers at top. This entire conversation will be memory holed.

Once a right is lost, we will not get it back. Then it's just one step after another into hell.

We must fight this.

Our lives, our freedom, our future - depend on it.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#146
Controlling access to certain websites, i.e., so-called "social media", is not "internet access control". The web is not the internet. Nor are these laws limiting access to _all_ websites. Third, not all operating systems are controlled by corporations like Apple, Google, etc. and used to protect and promote corporate interests

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#147

Am I the only one that simply disregards everything that follows an AI slop image?

Is there something wrong in particular with that image? The composition fits in well with the content of the article, and the art seems pretty well down. I'm only seeing one error that would make me think "a human probably didn't draw this" and took a while to notice that.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#148

I was a kid with unrestricted, unsupervised internet access, and it definitely affected many things in my life. If I happen to have a child in the future, they won't go through that. The Brazilian government passed a law requiring age verification for every site categorized as 16+. It can't be self-declared, so companies usually resort to facial scans and ID verification. I DO NOT want photos of our Brazilian childre…

I guess the opposite case might not be as interesting to many, but I achieved basically unfiltered internet access as a child, and it has been immensely helpful for me as a person. Everything I am today -- a programmer, technically literate, a founder of a startup with momentum, I am because I had freedom and autonomy as a child (which was not granted to me, rather achieved by me). Many of the people of my age who grew up with strict controls and supervisory parents seem kind of lost and uninformed to me, now that they are turning into adults. I feel this narrative is surprisingly rarely heard on HN, but I cannot be the only one?

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#149

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.

The idea that even a single person in the world is trans because of "trans ideology" is what's absolutely insane here.

If you think you could be convinced by anyone that you're not living out your true gender identity, I have news for you... Most people, children too, are not having those thoughts unless there's actually a journey waiting for them.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

25 states isn't cherry-picking :) geeeeeeeeeeez!

I was talking about the party. This shit is and always has been pushed from both parties. Even democrat states like California and Colorado are on board. See also, the OS age verification legislation.

TBH California one doesn't require age verification (while many other states do). It only requires the OS to provide a mechanism for the user to indicate their age group and apps should use the information (instead of asking for PII themselves). It's a fake one, but somehow drew most attention.
Post reply on HN