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

171–180 of 186 posts

Re: Arizona Bill Requires Age Verification for All Apps

#171

Post by nobody9999 »

mindslight wrote: post #169
nobody9999 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 sp…

I understand the mechanism. I agree that removing section 230 today would have an even more centralizing effect. We've already got huge tech companies that would happily shoulder such liability, and lots of small sites that would find themselves in an uncomfortable position. My point was that if we never had section 230 to begin with, then we would have kept the strong incentive against setting up sites revolving aro…

>My point was that if we never had section 230 to begin with, then we would have kept the strong incentive against setting up sites revolving around centralizing speech in the first place.

Where did you get that idea? Section 230 never provided any preference or privilege to large organizations over small ones.

In fact, it did exactly the opposite for reasons I discussed. You say that without Section 230:

   ...lots of small sites that would find themselves in an uncomfortable 
   position.
That doesn't even come close to covering it. Without Section 230, your aunt would take down her knitting pattern discussion website/chat room/mailing list/whatever within half a day, with whoever it was posting something objectionable (or just off topic) and when your aunt deletes it, file a lawsuit claiming censorship.

How long is your aunt going to keep the completely free and volunteer site up when she has to pay lawyers $5-10K every week? And if she doesn't delete it, continue to flood the site with garbage until it's unusable, turning a knitting discussion site into 4/8chan.

All while doing nothing to stop the big boys from creating a dystopian hellhole because they have legions of lawyers on staff.

In fact, without Section 230, $BigCorp and/or other bad actors wouldn't even need to buy out their competition or wage costly efforts to destroy them, just post oceans of objectionable/off topic stuff, sue if it's taken down or wait for it to go under because its awash in garbage they posted there to make it unusable.

If we never had, or got rid of Section 230, your preferred candidate or issue advocacy group could trivially be taken down through these tactics, stifling free expression. Think fake DMCA take downs, but without recourse except through $500/hour lawyers and the courts.

Not sure where you got the idea that Section 230 ever was some sort of "giveaway" to big companies to encourage centralization. It was not, and even today it primarily protects the little guy, just as it did 30 years ago.

Do you have your mind made up and no amount of actual evidence will change it?

If not, feel free to check out the following:

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46751#_Toc155275791

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod....

https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...

https://www.propublica.org/article/nsu-section-230

https://theconversation.com/law-that-built-the-internet-turn...

There's lots more of that to be found, but don't believe me. Check it out for yourself. Thanks to Section 230, among other things, you can.

Re: Arizona Bill Requires Age Verification for All Apps

#172

Post by zamadatix »

hekkle wrote: post #142
zamadatix wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm much more convinced Microsoft wants to do stuff like sell cloud subscriptions at the click of a button in the desktop than Microsoft gives a crap about those subscriptions being tied to a consistent account ID. The latter certainly sounds evil, but not in a way that particularly helps Microsoft over their competitors. Uncle Bob probably would probably need to do a decent amount of work to figure out how to purcha…

> I'm much more convinced Microsoft wants to do stuff like sell cloud subscriptions at the click of a button in the desktop than Microsoft gives a crap about those subscriptions being tied to a consistent account ID. The latter certainly sounds evil, but not in a way that particularly helps Microsoft over their competitors. Bless your cotton socks, you had it in the first part MS wants to sell stuff, but then you fai…

Edge (and the entirety of ad tech for the last few decades) does this today without needing a Microsoft account at all, let alone your real legal identity.

Re: Arizona Bill Requires Age Verification for All Apps

#173

Post by TiredOfLife »

agentifysh wrote: post #40

Curious, what is driving this "you need permission to use the internet" bills suddenly ? Really miss the old internet.

Look at any HN thread about social networks. It's the good old "why won't anybody think of the children" thing.

Re: Arizona Bill Requires Age Verification for All Apps

#174

Post by mothballed »

anonymous908213 wrote: post #25
mothballed wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> when a guy with an AK lit up on cops during the BLM riots. It is certainly a bold choice to use this wildly misleading framing when you link to a news article that directly contradicts it. A more accurate framing would be "when a guy returned fire against a gang of thugs who were firing on random passerby from an unmarked van". Court documents and transcripts reveal a far different story than the one officers told…

This is hilarious, because we agree completely about the situation and verdict, but because I didn't phrase things in a way that spoon fed your delicate baby sensibilities you decided to go on a tantrum (despite the fact everything I said was 100% true), and possibly even flag it despite you're the one that initiated breaking the rules here by straight up accusing me of lying when I have told the truth.

Also please look up what a "draco" is because it looks you look like a moron when you say it's improper to characterize it as an AK and tips the hand that everything else you're saying was just equally misguided hate.

  The Draco is a popular Romanian-made AK-47 variant, imported by Century Arms, characterized by its compact, stockless, pistol-sized configuration chambered in  . It features a 6 to 12.25-inch barrel, accepts standard AK magazines, and is often used for close-range shooting or, increasingly, as a "truck gun" due to its portability and power. Prices typically range from approximately $800 to over $1,200 depending on the model, such as the full-size, Mini, or Micro Draco.
Of course this whole thread is an exercise in idiocy. "No 2A rights for people of the wrong persuasion" then I point to a notable that happened in the same state and city as Pretti also with unmarked thugs (hope I've used the right delicate terminology now) rolling around and the guy was acquitted rather recently, but we can't have facts getting in the way of the narrative so we just flag it.

Re: Arizona Bill Requires Age Verification for All Apps

#175

Post by mothballed »

15155 wrote: post #16
mothballed wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adults can buy a gun with no ID, no problem in AZ, fully legal. If you prefer that comparison, to an adult being carded to buy an app. I do feel I was making a good faith comment here. --------- re: below due to throttling --------------- >Adults can sell each other property with no ID and without the state getting involved, who knew. Yes and it's legal. Should be for apps too. Headline says all apps. ---------------…

Adults can sell each other property with no ID and without the state getting involved, who knew. If you mean at a store, a regulated vendor, you are incorrect.

Yes private sales have no background check, obviously I was referring to the "correct" case since that is part of "all" sales and the headline here is "all" apps. Why would I be referring to the incorrect case?

If you want to force a condition in which I'm wrong, in bad faith, then I can play that fuck fuck game with you too. I can walk into a "regulated" store and buy a perfectly functional and accurate 1889 Schmidt–Rubin bolt action cartridge rifle with absolutely no background check no ID -- so *ha ha ha you are incorrect!*.

Re: Arizona Bill Requires Age Verification for All Apps

#176

Post by mothballed »

thinkingtoilet wrote: post #32
mothballed wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adults can buy a gun with no ID, no problem in AZ, fully legal. If you prefer that comparison, to an adult being carded to buy an app. I do feel I was making a good faith comment here. --------- re: below due to throttling --------------- >Adults can sell each other property with no ID and without the state getting involved, who knew. Yes and it's legal. Should be for apps too. Headline says all apps. ---------------…

Is it legal to sell a gun to a child in Arizona? Or are you responsible for age verification? You continue to argue in bad faith.

If you want to go down the bad faith rabbit hole I can play that fuck fuck game with you, then yes Midway USA will literally sell a gun to basically any child in the country in the country in two boxes, the first as a black powder revolver and the second as a cartridge replacement cylinder. Once both boxes are in proximity it legally becomes constructive possession of a firearm.

Of course in some states (I think North Dakota is one) there is no restriction on transferring a gun privately to a minor. So yeah in North Dakota you can straight up sell a gun to a kid.

But what I was referring to was that adults don't have to be carded or have age verification in AZ to privately buy a gun, not that it is legal to sell a gun to a child.

Re: Arizona Bill Requires Age Verification for All Apps

#177

Post by ericmay »

iamnothere wrote: post #146
ericmay wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, and it required a Constitutional amendment to remove it. Yea but I can think of lots of other examples. You are missing the point. > You’re welcome to try and push through an amendment to limit free speech rights, but it won’t pass! I'm in favor of free speech so I wouldn't want to limit it. > I doubt it! The media is mostly dead or coopted, and the powerful won’t willingly set up a system where you can rat th…

> Maybe you shouldn't say things that result in you needing private security? It's no different than walking down the street yelling vulgar or offensive things. You might get punched. Maybe you shouldn’t have spoken up. Maybe you shouldn’t have walked down that street. Maybe you shouldn’t have worn that dress. Done with this convo, I think this says enough.

This is one of those things that sounds really nice and makes you feel morally good/superior, but it misses the point and the analogy fails. Speaking up, isn't offensive. Walking down a street, isn't propaganda. Wearing a dress, is your right as a person and it doesn't offend anyone. This isn't what's being discussed.

But, let's say you are right and we should maintain anonymity on social media platforms.

I don't think that kid who was wearing a t-shirt or sign or whatever supporting ICE should have been punched or face any consequences whatsoever. He should be free to exercise is right to free speech and/or protest, face no repercussions in public or private life, and when he goes home he should be allowed to hop on TikTok or Facebook or whatever, and post the most vile, hate-filled stuff he can think of, anonymously.

That's the world we live in today, and the status quo you are advocating that we maintain. Don't you think that warrants further discussion? I do.

Re: Arizona Bill Requires Age Verification for All Apps

#178

Post by ericmay »

pibaker wrote: post #163
ericmay wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it wouldn't. Accounts would be identified right so you would know that some account is a China bot farm or Russian military or whatever. And then when Jane down the street starts talking about the need to kill "insert group here" well you know who they are and you can go down and have a talking to them or tell their employer, or whatever. If you say crazy stuff maybe there should be repercussions. Today there are…

> And then when Jane down the street starts talking about the need to kill "insert group here" well you know who they are and you can go down and have a talking to them or tell their employer, or whatever. This works the other way too. You tell others online "hey maybe we should stop killing X people" or maybe expose that X people are being killed without the public knowing and the people in favor of killing X people…

That's just the messy fundamentals of democracy. I think it comes down to perception of what the threat is. I think groups like white nationalists, Antifa, pro-Hamas, pro-Russia, &c. are a much greater threat now than the potential downside of supposedly silencing people who "speak up".

How valuable is speaking up anyway? It's all good to argue when you see the positive case or the one you agree with, but do you also give sympathy to folks who are "speaking up" about white replacement theory or "speaking up" about avoiding COVID-19 vaccines, or other such nonsense?

Re: Arizona Bill Requires Age Verification for All Apps

#179

Post by ericmay »

trhway wrote: post #149
ericmay wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't support any chilling effects. > leads exactly to thriving of bots and propagandists while suppressing dissenting voices of regular people. This is the current state, today, with anonymity. > Just look at any country where it is already fully or partially implemented. Which ones?

>This is the current state, today, with anonymity. whatever the current state, removing anonymity will remove dissenting voices of regular people. > Which ones? Russia for example. The sites where verification is implemented has become pro-government bot cesspools. Here you mentioned LinkedIn - it is where pro-Russian propaganda runs free (especially if compare to for example HN where people freely respond to it), an…

> whatever the current state, removing anonymity will remove dissenting voices of regular people.

I don't think so. It may moderate them, which given our political environment is likely to be a good thing.

> Here you mentioned LinkedIn - it is where pro-Russian propaganda runs free (especially if compare to for example HN where people freely respond to it), and it is exactly where my even pretty mild response to it got me almost banned, and so I don’t engage it there anymore.

Well I don't know what the specific example is. I've seen pro/anti all sorts of things on LinkedIn and when I do I unfollow or find another way to hide the content. But it's also not super engaging. Why is that? Because, well, firstly LinkedIn is a heaping pile of garbage, but also because money, careers, and more are at stake. If you find a pro/anti anything post and start saying really crazy stuff, yea someone might tell your employer about it. How LinkedIn moderates its discussions I think is a separate issue, and, frankly, is yet another demonstration that these platforms are simply not "free speech" and using them means you agree to the terms of service which allows them to moderate how they see fit.

When folks complain about these algorithms or the wrong group buying their favorite platform, there is a very easy and simple solution which is to just stop using them and delete your account. Then, nobody is policing your speech.

> I wonder how do you square your de-anonymity of speech position with anonymity of voting, or do also think that voting should not be anonymous?

I think voting should be anonymous, but you should have identification for voting issued by the state. It's an exercise of your constitutional right, and there are plenty of mechanical and morally good reasons for it. Yelling the most obscene shit imaginable on TikTok is not even in the same ballpark and is not exercising a Constitutional right.

Re: Arizona Bill Requires Age Verification for All Apps

#180

Post by mindslight »

nobody9999 wrote: post #171
mindslight wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the mechanism. I agree that removing section 230 today would have an even more centralizing effect. We've already got huge tech companies that would happily shoulder such liability, and lots of small sites that would find themselves in an uncomfortable position. My point was that if we never had section 230 to begin with, then we would have kept the strong incentive against setting up sites revolving aro…

>My point was that if we never had section 230 to begin with, then we would have kept the strong incentive against setting up sites revolving around centralizing speech in the first place. Where did you get that idea? Section 230 never provided any preference or privilege to large organizations over small ones. In fact, it did exactly the opposite for reasons I discussed. You say that without Section 230: ...lots of…

You're still missing where I'm coming from.

> Without Section 230, your aunt would take down her knitting pattern discussion website/chat room/mailing list/whatever within half a day, with whoever it was posting something objectionable (or just off topic) and when your aunt deletes it, file a lawsuit claiming censorship.

I don't want "my aunt" to be running a knitting pattern discussion website! I want "my aunt" to only be publishing/hosting what she herself writes, while her discussion partners each publish/host what they themselves write. I then want all of these messages stitched together to form a cohesive presentation on each person's computer, by software that represents their interests.

There was the better part of the decade after the CDA passed that the tech community was still focused on protocols that worked this way. Section 230 immunity made sites that centralized user content feasible rather than legally radioactive. Centralized sites then took off because they were easier to develop, and investment-wise they caused Metcalfe's law power to accrue to the entity running the site rather than to an abstract protocol.

I do agree that in the current context, there is a strong path dependence here - neutering section 230 would not rewind the clock. And the present political push is from a movement that wants to censor speech even harder than corpos already currently do. I'm talking about what could have been.

Post reply on HN