Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Arizona Bill Requires Age Verification for All Apps

reclaimthenet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 186 posts

Re: Arizona Bill Requires Age Verification for All Apps

#151

Post by notatoad »

advisedwang wrote: post #6

In my ideal world a law would: 1. Require device manufacturers to allow the device owner (which covers parents of minors' devices) to set policy for the device, including allow/blocklist for apps and sites, and allow/blocklists for content categories. 2. Require browsers to respect the device's policy for site allow/blocklist 3. Require browsers to set a certain header for allow/blocklist of content categories 4. Req…

i'm surprised to see this suggestion highly upvoted, because this is the solution that usually makes hacker news the angriest.

in reality this cannot be just a simple plain text header. that's way too easily forged and will not satisfy any of the parties pushing for age verification. the "device verifies your age" model means hardware attestation, so the source of that age verification can sign a cryptographically secure promise that the device software has not been modified in a way that would allow this header to be forged.

the app stores might be a less than ideal place to implement age verification, but it lets regulators sidestep all the messy issues around a distinction between device owner and device user.

Re: Arizona Bill Requires Age Verification for All Apps

#152

Post by ElectroBuffoon »

root_axis wrote: post #55
advisedwang wrote: post #6

In my ideal world a law would: 1. Require device manufacturers to allow the device owner (which covers parents of minors' devices) to set policy for the device, including allow/blocklist for apps and sites, and allow/blocklists for content categories. 2. Require browsers to respect the device's policy for site allow/blocklist 3. Require browsers to set a certain header for allow/blocklist of content categories 4. Req…

I think it's a great proposal if we add a slight alteration. Rather than requiring parents to maintain block/allow lists, the OS should allow the parent to lock in a birth-date, and that birth-date is used by the system to generate a user-age header, from there, websites can be legally required to respect the header and maintain whatever restrictions correspond to the applicable laws. This gives sites the ability to…

We already have the tech, in multiple forms. First, tagging:

ASACP/RTA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Sites_Advocatin...

PICS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_for_Internet_Content_...

POWDER https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_for_Web_Description_R...

Second, all ISPs could offer in their basic service something like DNS4EU modes, just like they offered email and web space decades ago (optional, nobody was forced to use them).

DNS4EU https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS4EU#Public_resolver

Parents would only need to configure the account to "child". Laws could force companies to properly tag their pages and sites. And privacy would be preserved.

Instead we have to keep on fighting the Crypto Wars. The childs are just a decoy, the target is destroying basic rights.

Clipper chip war, eg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip#Backlash

Re: Arizona Bill Requires Age Verification for All Apps

#153

Post by JohnMakin »

hydrogen7800 wrote: post #91
JohnMakin wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been terminally online since the age of 7 and this would probably make me shut everything down and go outside. Maybe that'd be good for society, but I suspect most people will just shrug and go along with it.

"It can't be that bad if everyone else is also doing it." I'm not sure how principled I would be if/when it comes to that. I hope I will be.

Conceptually it’s difficult to explain to most people why this would not benefit them.

Like, I don’t maintain the delusion that I can’t be precisely identified by the apps I use. I just am vehemently opposed to it being tied to my government issued identity, which could be arbitrarily revoked and controlled by people who dont have pure profit as their motive. A lot of people probably find that overly paranoid.

Re: Arizona Bill Requires Age Verification for All Apps

#154

Post by bluebarbet »

notatoad wrote: post #151
advisedwang wrote: post #6

In my ideal world a law would: 1. Require device manufacturers to allow the device owner (which covers parents of minors' devices) to set policy for the device, including allow/blocklist for apps and sites, and allow/blocklists for content categories. 2. Require browsers to respect the device's policy for site allow/blocklist 3. Require browsers to set a certain header for allow/blocklist of content categories 4. Req…

i'm surprised to see this suggestion highly upvoted, because this is the solution that usually makes hacker news the angriest. in reality this cannot be just a simple plain text header. that's way too easily forged and will not satisfy any of the parties pushing for age verification. the "device verifies your age" model means hardware attestation, so the source of that age verification can sign a cryptographically se…

Punctuation would make your ideas easier to understand.

Re: Arizona Bill Requires Age Verification for All Apps

#155

Post by LoganDark »

jonhohle wrote: post #35
LoganDark wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember: Advertisers cry with money .

They’ve proven themselves to be bad actors with no moral compass. No different than street drug dealers, casinos, traffickers, or any other predatory industry. They should’ve regulated as such. I don’t have any problem with old-timey “Dishsoap Brand Dishsoap sponsored this content. They want you to know that a dish isn’t clean unless it’s Dishsoap clean!” Type ads. Much beyond that should no longer be tolerated.

> I don’t have any problem with old-timey “Dishsoap Brand Dishsoap sponsored this content. They want you to know that a dish isn’t clean unless it’s Dishsoap clean!” Type ads. Much beyond that should no longer be tolerated.

I think the only advertising I've knowingly listened to was a Privacy.com sponsorship on The Modern Rogue. Now been a paying customer for years and they have been mostly great. I think that sponsorship was back in, like, 2015 or 2016. Oh how times have changed.

(I'm sure there are thousands of subconscious influences that I have no idea about, though. Maybe a few radio ads put a brand in my mind for something so I didn't search for alternatives. I don't listen to broadcast radio anymore though.)

Re: Arizona Bill Requires Age Verification for All Apps

#157

Post by ls612 »

j_w wrote: post #123
ls612 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rise of anti-Establishment politics led the Establishment to strike back, and they play for keeps. That said I still expect mandatory age verification/ID for the internet to fail legal challenges in the US as there is broad precedent for both anonymous speech rights and children’s speech rights under the first amendment.

The anti-Establishment people that were only anti-Establishment until they had power, then they are very much pro-Establishment. The writing has been on the wall for years with a desire among states to identify individuals using the internet. Whether or not we will continue to win the fight against it is up in the air.

Back in August SCOTUS declined to enjoin a similar law in Mississippi but for procedural reasons, and Kavanaugh wrote as part of the denial that he believed the law was probably unconstitutional. That makes me optimistic for the us on this matter tbh.

https://courthousenews.com/supreme-court-greenlights-social-...

Re: Arizona Bill Requires Age Verification for All Apps

#158

Post by advisedwang »

notatoad wrote: post #151
advisedwang wrote: post #6

In my ideal world a law would: 1. Require device manufacturers to allow the device owner (which covers parents of minors' devices) to set policy for the device, including allow/blocklist for apps and sites, and allow/blocklists for content categories. 2. Require browsers to respect the device's policy for site allow/blocklist 3. Require browsers to set a certain header for allow/blocklist of content categories 4. Req…

i'm surprised to see this suggestion highly upvoted, because this is the solution that usually makes hacker news the angriest. in reality this cannot be just a simple plain text header. that's way too easily forged and will not satisfy any of the parties pushing for age verification. the "device verifies your age" model means hardware attestation, so the source of that age verification can sign a cryptographically se…

I'm advocating for services being made to respect what the device owners decide, not that devices be made to request what the services decide.

Of course, you are probably correct about the political infeasability of what I want, and are correct that this can get twisted into the exact opposite of what a just law would do.

Re: Arizona Bill Requires Age Verification for All Apps

#159

Post by advisedwang »

mindslight wrote: post #101
advisedwang wrote: post #6

In my ideal world a law would: 1. Require device manufacturers to allow the device owner (which covers parents of minors' devices) to set policy for the device, including allow/blocklist for apps and sites, and allow/blocklists for content categories. 2. Require browsers to respect the device's policy for site allow/blocklist 3. Require browsers to set a certain header for allow/blocklist of content categories 4. Req…

You've still got it a bit backwards. Websites should be the ones publishing content suitability headers. Those headers are then legally-significant assertions about the content on the site - the type of content, age/moderation policies, etc. Browsers then implement the device's configured policy based on what headers the site returns. This requires locked down computing on the end device, but all of these proposals i…

That's a great solution

Re: Arizona Bill Requires Age Verification for All Apps

#160

Post by nobody9999 »

mindslight wrote: post #150
ericmay wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Facebook relies on real names, creating lists of bona fide friends, and can (could?) show you only posts from friends-of-friends, right? How does this differ from what you're proposing? If you're seeing Facebook posts from bots, you've either friended bots or Facebook is responsible for showing them to you, right? I think I am just more aligned with, for example, the French president on his criticisms: https://arch…

> I think this idea that social media companies are free speech platforms or should be treated as such, is incorrect and it's leading to bad outcomes. They are product companies selling you an experience of "being connected" and engaging with them is a matter of terms of service Yes I wholeheartedly agree with Macron's quote, and basically agree with your interpretation of it. Maybe you can see we have some common gr…

>The point is that the moral hazard created by sec 230 is precisely what has allowed the centralized social media industry to grow to the point it has.

That's exactly the opposite of what Section 230 has done.

Section 230 doesn't stop anyone from suing folks who defame or otherwise break the law. Rather, it specifies that those who say such things are the proper target, not the platforms that host such third-party speech.

And that's the important point. Section 230 covers third-party speech. Because litigation is expensive. As such, it mostly protects the little guy who doesn't have the resources to fight tens, hundreds or thousands of lawsuits because some folks don't like the restaurant/movie reviews or opinions about the quality of book plots or political speech or the Epstein Files or a myriad of other things that folks don't like and wish people would shut up about.

Nothing stops an aggrieved part from suing an individual for the things that individual says. But Section 230 says you can't sue the platform (say the website, Matrix or XMPP server you personally host) for the speech of a third-party who uses that platform.

In the absence of Section 230, huge, deep-pocketed companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter, et. al can pay for legions of lawyers to fight such lawsuits.

Do you have such deep pockets? Not all Internet content exists on those huge, deep-pocketed platforms. Many useful and interesting sites hosted by individuals or small businesses exist, but would be put out of business in a week if Section 230 didn't exist.

Getting rid of Section 230 would only cement the huge platforms' dominance and make them more unaccountable and powerful. Is that your goal? Not saying it is, but it's important to think through the impact of Section 230 beyond the (false and misleading) pronouncements of those who want to control you, your speech and the means of disseminating that speech.

Post reply on HN