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

Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

news.dyne.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 486 posts

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#211

Post by ux266478 »

simonask wrote: post #136
yalogin wrote: post #102

The big issue isn’t even age verification. The end goal is verified user identification. They want every transaction on the internet to be associated with the exact identity of the user. No more anonymity. In the short term the way it will be implemented is this — age verification will not be a binary, it will also want to push your DoB, name, location etc and they say “the choice is with the user” but the default wi…

I truly share your concerns, especially as someone belonging to a minority. At the same time, we have to be real: Online anonymity has significant, real-world drawbacks. I don't think it's reasonable to keep dreaming of the 90s or 00s when the internet was a comparatively innocent place. As society is more and more digitized, the stakes become much, much higher. An information leak 30 years ago was bad, but it had a…

> As society is more and more digitized

How about this is actually the real problem? Online banking is not worth an omniscient global surveillance state, let alone the immense amount of leverage gained by this digitization.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#212

Post by gzread »

ivanjermakov wrote: post #113
hei-lima wrote: post #93

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.

Does the admin of the small website hypothetically agree that they don't want to show gore to children?

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#213

Post by gzread »

bigyabai wrote: post #32
smartmic wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s only too late when we stop fighting back and accept it as a given. Don’t underestimate civil disobedience and the hacker spirit.

I do underestimate the hacker spirit. HN's response to Client Side Scanning was disheartening, barely anyone could condemn Apple despite the obvious red-line being crossed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28068741 And once you step outside HN, forget it. You can save yourself, but there are thousands of people that do respond to the "think of the children!" nonsense and will call you a creep for objecting to it.…

HN is mostly for people with entrepreneur spirit, not hacker spirit - entrepreneurs who want to be known as hackers. The difference is vast.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#214

Post by superkuh »

Beestie wrote: post #104

Well age verification works so well to keep alcohol, tobacco and weed beyond the reach of minors so....

Here we see the danger of the lay perception that multi-media screens are the same as chemical drugs. They are not. Not even close.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#215

Post by Dig1t »

simonask wrote: post #149
abcde666777 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you believe that children are more impressionable than adults? There is a community of detrans people who talk openly about how they became trans because they were influenced by peers and authority figures in their lives.

Go read some threads on the detrans subreddit.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#216

Post by gzread »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #28
tqi wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it would be helpful to engage with the possibility that they are neither stupid nor ignorant, rather that they simply have different values and priorities than the early internet users.

I’m not sure it’s possible to have different priorities without being stupid or ignorant of history. Once you concede a certain right, such as a right to privacy, you rarely if ever get it back. Most people seem not to care about this, despite ample evidence that it’s something worth caring about. Stupid is the obvious term for it, though obtuse could work as well. Of course, I don’t blame them. They haven’t lived in…

There are many people rights people don't have and they're okay with that and even support not having the right to stab people, not having the right to steal from a store, not having the right to take nude pictures of children... What if this one is like that?

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#217

Post by gzread »

closeparen wrote: post #81
Kim_Bruning wrote: post #55

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.

The law is irrelevant in that case but the actual situation is not. If people have never put their personal information online, the bad government can't get it from online. A new phone coming out during the time of the bad government, that says the government requires you to enter your name and address, will not be received as well as if it comes out during good government times.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#218

Post by AJ007 »

NeutralCrane wrote: post #96
bilekas wrote: post #9

It's too late and never about children, simply deeper forms of data harvesting and surveillance. What makes me extremely sad and concerned is that more recent generations simply have no idea or expectation of privacy online anymore. There will never be more of a fight against all this Orwellian behavior.

I live in an area that has been declared among the safest in America. Two months ago a 17 year old girl from our city disappeared. Turns out she had been being groomed for a year over Discord and in Roblox by a 39 year old the next state over. He eventually convinced her to let him pick her up, after which he filmed himself having sex with her, killed her, and then dismembered her body. He apparently was grooming oth…

Discord & Roblox - no encryption, privacy, or anonymity on either of those platforms, by the way.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#219

Post by gzread »

zingerlio wrote: post #165
mattmanser wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go watch the newest Louis Theroux, into the manosphere. At points Louis and whatever absolute scumbag he's with walk around the streets while the guy is filming his own content. There are kids, literally 11/12 year olds, walking up to these predatory, evil, scammers on the street going "oh my god it's MC" or whatever their name is. Multiple times. And he hardly gets to spend any time with these men because they clock…

I share your observations and concerns. But I don't think the current erosion of digital privacy and the censorship creep were made to address those. There are better ways (even though they are not fully fleshed out yet) to minimize toxic/populist influence, but a blank cheque to sacrifice our rights isn't one.

Some of them clearly are - the one in California.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#220

Post by gzread »

txrx0000 wrote: post #191
tzs wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically parents set the child's age and apps rely on that if they need to know if the user is old enough? That's pretty similar to the California bill. Parents set an age when creating a child's account. The OS provides an API to get the user's age bracket from that, which apps that need to know the age bracket of the user can call.

The California bill gets it backwards. Rather than Internet services taking the user's age and deciding what content to serve, the Internet service or app should broadcast the age rating of its content to the OS (if convenience is desired), like how movie ratings work. The responsibility to decide what content is suitable for a child should rest in the hands of that child's parent, not the state or the corporation. e…

Would the content rating be per HTML element and the browser would delete the elements with bad ratings from the DOM, or how would it work?
Post reply on HN