151–160 of 750 posts
Ok, maybe that’s a silly thought, but… couldn’t this be provided by Apple/Google anonymously? When you set up kids devices in your family they ask you to provide the birthday anyway. I’m keen to see the arguments against this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I believe every government disenfranchises young people because they are young. 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.
—
After posting, I questioned whether political speech is special. Like should fifteen-year-olds who love film be able to make videos about them and get lots of followers… but I couldn’t be thought police. So maybe-
The platform just has to be designed non-addictively.
Is this accurate?: In reality, Facebook was so powerful the regulators could never make them stop at any turn. Now that they finally got sued big time, we finally educated ourselves enough as constituents to raise enough of a stink to trigger straight up bans. (educated ourselves, or politicians legislate based how bad headlines are, or it was so egregious it genuinely ticked them off… …)
> 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…
It's important to remember that they're targeting your children. You grew up with freedom from surveillance and constant identification. You were able to communicate anonymously and without the content of your speech being sold to Walmart and the cops. They are putting in effort to make sure that your children will never have that reality as a reference point. The idea of the government and a dozen corporations not knowing everything that they are doing at all times, and not using and selling that information freely, will sound like the ramblings of a delusional old fool.
It's important that you engage with that. Denial is not something to brag about.
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.
I just flag all the AI complaints. Perfect example of the guideline about “don’t complain about tangential issues” or whatever the wording is.
HN's guidelines were written under the assumption that submitted articles about [thing] would be written by people who care about [thing] and made a good faith effort to write something interesting about [thing], so it's only fair that any comments would be expected to respect the author's effort and discuss the article in equally good faith.
This assumption completely falls apart when you add AI generated submissions into the mix. If the "author" didn't care and thus couldn't be bothered to write about [thing] themselves, choosing to instead outsource that work to an LLM while they supposedly did something they deemed more valuable with the time they would've spent writing, then why should commenters be expected to dedicate more effort into their discussion of the article than the author dedicated to writing it? It's a bit unfair towards the commenters, don't you think?
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.
I just flag all the AI complaints. Perfect example of the guideline about “don’t complain about tangential issues” or whatever the wording is.
We don't have to live like this. We don't have to accept it. We don't have to upvote it even if we agree (as I do) with the explicit point. The medium is the message, and the message that this poster is putting out here is that online age verification isn't actually worth getting that worked up about.
> 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…
> 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…
Private entities being frontrunners in AI Fear either means that these companies have too much unchecked power or that they have are covert instruments of governments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
So do you want 5 year olds driving on the highway and 8 year olds doing shots of tequila or are you ageist? Or perhaps protecting kids isn’t really ageism at all.
There is a sudden concerted international push for online age verification, and we do not know where this push originates from. That is the scariest thing about it.
It's not _completely_ shrouded in mystery - it started after Facebook got slapped by the EU for irresponsible handling of underage users, and since began a heavily funded lobbying push to drag competitors down with them. https://github.com/upper-up/meta-lobbying-and-other-findings... Of course, it's probably also been coopted by the neverending stream of nanny-state political power grabs in both the US and EU.
The push for online age verification started gaining momentum globally, with several countries implementing regulations. Here's a brief timeline:
- 2022: The European Union introduced the Digital Services Act (DSA), establishing a framework for digital services accountability and content moderation.
- 2023:
- *France*: Passed a law requiring age verification for social media and porn websites.
- *UK*: Enacted the Online Safety Act, requiring "highly effective" age assurance for platforms accessible to children.
- *Australia*: Announced plans to ban social media for under-16s.
- *Italy*: Implemented mandatory age verification for sensitive content websites.
- *Denmark*: Proposed banning social media for under-15s.
- *Malaysia*: Required social media platforms to ban users under 16. - *EU*: Rolling out digital age verification across member states.
- *Norway*: Proposed banning social media for under-15s.
- *Spain*: Announced plans to ban social media access for under-16s.