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

Meta Platforms: Lobbying, dark money, and the App Store Accountability Act

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 1001 posts

Re: Meta Platforms: Lobbying, dark money, and the App Store Accountability Act

#191

Post by inetknght »

gruez wrote: post #186
inetknght wrote: post #163

Age verification is merely the background task to set up infrastructure for OS to provide many many other signals about who's using the device. Age signals from the OS? Need to provide a channel of information available to applications. Applications already talk to servers with unchecked commonality. Biometric data? Today it unlocks your private key. Tomorrow it's used to verify you are the same person that was used…

>Age signals from the OS? Need to provide a channel of information available to applications. Applications already talk to servers with unchecked commonality. This is a non-issue because it's almost certainly going to be gated behind a permission prompt. There are more invasive things sites/apps can ask for, and we seem to be doing fine, eg. location. Moreover is it really that much of a privacy loss if you go on ste…

> This is a non-issue because it's almost certainly going to be gated behind a permission prompt.

lol.

> Moreover is it really that much of a privacy loss if you go on steam, it asks you to verify you're over 18, and the OS says you're actually over 18?

Slippery slope, but an interesting argument. While SteamOS is a thing, Steam isn't my OS.

> Given touch id was introduced over a decade ago, and the associated doom-mongering predilections did not come to pass, I think it's fair to conclude it's a dud.

Really? You think that things built decades ago can't be further built-upon in the now or the future?

Re: Meta Platforms: Lobbying, dark money, and the App Store Accountability Act

#192

Post by retrocog »

This discussion, being so timely and important, inspired me to draft an article that explains a possible third way that might not have been fully considered. I would be humbled and honored to receive any feedback:

https://www.robpanico.com/articles/display/presence-derived-...

(posting link because it would be too much for a comment)

Re: Meta Platforms: Lobbying, dark money, and the App Store Accountability Act

#193

Post by a456463 »

gruez wrote: post #186
inetknght wrote: post #163

Age verification is merely the background task to set up infrastructure for OS to provide many many other signals about who's using the device. Age signals from the OS? Need to provide a channel of information available to applications. Applications already talk to servers with unchecked commonality. Biometric data? Today it unlocks your private key. Tomorrow it's used to verify you are the same person that was used…

>Age signals from the OS? Need to provide a channel of information available to applications. Applications already talk to servers with unchecked commonality. This is a non-issue because it's almost certainly going to be gated behind a permission prompt. There are more invasive things sites/apps can ask for, and we seem to be doing fine, eg. location. Moreover is it really that much of a privacy loss if you go on ste…

I bet you are the same clown that also says that we don't need QA because there are no incidents in production

Re: Meta Platforms: Lobbying, dark money, and the App Store Accountability Act

#194

Post by xbar »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #8
simonebrunozzi wrote: post #3

Not surprisingly, Meta is possibly the worst "offender" behind funding of these campaigns.

I’m curious why Meta would benefit. Meta seems wholly unnecessary, the verification can be done at the OS level, completely in the hands of Apple/Alphabet and maybe Microsoft. If anything, Meta’s utility would seem to shrink if the OS handles proof of being a real person.

1. It deflects any obligation that would have landed on Meta itself to do age verification (which is what the regulators have long asked for). 2. It gives Instagram/Facebook/Messenger the ability to deliver the right ads to the right audience. It's free targeting data.

Re: Meta Platforms: Lobbying, dark money, and the App Store Accountability Act

#195

Post by ryandrake »

fivetomidnight wrote: post #76
himata4113 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes! This is the way, give parents the ABILITY to advertise the users age to browsers, apps and everything in between. Only target cooperations, do not target open source projects. Fine websites for not using this API (ex: porn sites). Assume an adult if not present.

No. This is not the way. > give parents the ABILITY to advertise the users age to browsers, apps and everything in between. Accounts and Applications to services that provide countent are set to a country-specific age rating restrictions (PG, 12+, 18+, whatever). That's it. None of the things you mentioned have any point to concern themself with the age or age-bracket of the user in front of the device. This can and…

Why should the applications get to decide if they are appropriate for a particular age? Shouldn't that be up to the parent? I shouldn't need to tell my kid: "Well, to use this compiler software, you need to set your age to 18 temporarily, because some product manager 3,000 miles away decided to rate it 18+. But, set it back to age 13 afterwards because you shouldn't be on adult sites." It's stupid.

Re: Meta Platforms: Lobbying, dark money, and the App Store Accountability Act

#196

Post by voidUpdate »

user_7832 wrote: post #180
voidUpdate wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"some"? It would hurt a lot of productivity lol. If all linux boxes turned themselves off suddenly, I think the internet would fall over pretty fast. I dont know how much of the internet runs on windows or apple (or others), but I cant imagine it's very much

> It would hurt a lot of productivity lol. I know. That's exactly the point. In such situations where one party (Meta) has enough money to lobby and is playing dirty, it's a massively asymmetric situation. In such cases, if you really want to make sure you're heard (which I'm not sure distributers want or care about tbh), you've got to play the game too. Malicious compliance, if you will. PS: For a "practical" varian…

Most hospitals I know of, at least in the UK, still use windows, its why WannaCry was such a big deal here

Re: Meta Platforms: Lobbying, dark money, and the App Store Accountability Act

#197

Post by ndriscoll »

MonkeyClub wrote: post #187
ndriscoll wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> App and website developers shouldn't be burdened with extra costly liability Why not? Physical businesses have liability if they provide age restricted items to children. As far as I know, strip clubs are liable for who enters. Selling alcohol to a child carries personal criminal liability for store clerks. Assuming society decides to restrict something from children, why should online businesses be exempt? On who…

> Physical businesses have liability if they provide age restricted items to children. Ok, suppose the strip club is the website, and the club's door is the OS. Would you fine the door's manufacturer for teens getting into the strip club?

The OS is not the club's door. The OS is unrelated. The strip club needs to hire someone to work their door and check ID, not point at an unrelated third party. They should have liability to do so as the service provider.

Re: Meta Platforms: Lobbying, dark money, and the App Store Accountability Act

#198

Post by throw8fasdffdf »

I'm surprised the "laboratory" of the globalist elite, India, hasn't implemented this yet.

Digital-ID (Aadhar) was heavily pushed by USAID and other US-deepstate associates; the same with digital-money and the "demonetization". Bill Gates's org actively tests out things on actual humans like guinea pigs, before globalizing the "solutions". These days all of this is kind of redundant since the phone-number + verification has become essentially a necessity to live in the city in any part of world today.

The prev. Govt. had considered doing this "login with your ID or no internet" scheme (to "protect" people no doubt) back in 2012s - there were explicit statements about disallowing people who would not authenticate with Aadhar, but it was shelved (likely because of their unpopularity).

If our current "Dear Leader" were to propose this, I think a significant population would opt-in simply because of a sense of belonging to a hero-worship-cult.

The state is determined to ensure that every human be their slave.

Re: Meta Platforms: Lobbying, dark money, and the App Store Accountability Act

#199

Post by whimsicalism »

tinfoilhatter wrote: post #182
pjc50 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The critical thing is not so much "Americans" as "big money". Big Russian money is also a threat. Big Chinese money .. well, there's a bit of that about, but it doesn't seem to have shown up at the legislation influencing layer.

You fail to mention big Israel money, when 98% of US congress members are taking donations from AIPAC. Strange omission on your part.

100% of AIPAC money is from Americans.

Re: Meta Platforms: Lobbying, dark money, and the App Store Accountability Act

#200

Post by jerf »

MonkeyClub wrote: post #187
ndriscoll wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> App and website developers shouldn't be burdened with extra costly liability Why not? Physical businesses have liability if they provide age restricted items to children. As far as I know, strip clubs are liable for who enters. Selling alcohol to a child carries personal criminal liability for store clerks. Assuming society decides to restrict something from children, why should online businesses be exempt? On who…

> Physical businesses have liability if they provide age restricted items to children. Ok, suppose the strip club is the website, and the club's door is the OS. Would you fine the door's manufacturer for teens getting into the strip club?

Dueling physical analogies is never a productive way to resolve a conversation like this. It just diverts all useful energy into arguing about which analogy is more accurate but it doesn't matter because the people pushing this law don't care about any of them and aren't going to stop even if the entire internet manages to agree about an analogy. This needs to be fought directly.
Post reply on HN