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

221–230 of 486 posts

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#221

Post by gzread »

txrx0000 wrote: post #199
panzi wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Could be simpler for a start if 2) ensures that no web sites that send a special "over 18" server header are displayed. The header could be more detailed and the parent could select what things are allowed, but for a start make it simple.

Yes, that's even better. Make apps and websites provide an API that broadcasts the age rating of its content, then let the OS attest the apps and websites, not the other way around. edit: on second thought, there is a trap here. If hardware manufacturers lock down the bootloader, then we're basically still handing over parental authority to governments and companies in the long run. So I think for a start, we just im…

How would you make a website that can be over 18 or not, such as a social media feed? Would it become over 18 as soon as your following list contains a porn star (who may not have been one at the time you followed them), and then if you're under 18 you can't unfollow them because you can't load the page?

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#222

Post by gzread »

gruez wrote: post #156
tangotaylor wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their real goals are even worse than that. Some of these groups have admitted they're also about suppressing LGBT+ content. As the Heritage Foundation admitted: > Keeping trans content away from children is protecting kids. No child should be conditioned to think that permanently damaging their healthy bodies to try to become something they can never be is even remotely a good idea. https://arstechnica.com/tech-polic…

>they're also about suppressing LGBT+ content >> Keeping trans content away [...] Isn't it a stretch to round off "trans content" to "LGBT+ content"? I mean, from a pure logical point of view the statement is correct, because "trans content" is a subset of "LGBT+ content", and therefore "suppressing LGBT+ content" is technically correct, but it's at least misleading. The left's version of this would be something like…

[flagged]

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#223

Post by skybrian »

AJ007 wrote: post #208
skybrian wrote: post #197

Devices with child locks turned on really shouldn't have access to everything on the Internet. A simple protocol could let cooperating websites know when child locks are on, so they don't show inappropriate content. Whitelisting or blacklisting could handle the rest. This doesn't mean every device needs to implement child locks. It also shouldn't affect anyone using unlocked devices at all.

How does that even begin to make sense? I want to protect my child from X type of content -- one of many jobs of a parent, but I will trust all content to self report to be child inappropriate? "Inappropriate" is entirely subjective and can not be defined as some sort universal bool -- and that's before you get to the point of actively malicious actors like Meta and Tiktok actively exploiting children for their conte…

The idea is that society should have some common standards for what's inappropriate for children. For example, parents don't want their kids to buy cigarettes, but also, stores don't want to sell them cigarettes. When there's consensus on this, cooperation is possible. Parents have an easier time when they get cooperation from the rest of society.

But there isn't going to be consensus on everything, so content filters are still needed.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#224

Post by gzread »

Dig1t wrote: post #215
simonask wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe we shouldn't hide the information then, so they can make their own decisions. Imagine blocking all the information about "am I actually trans or just peer pressured?" but not blocking the peer pressure.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#225

Post by voidfunc »

ux266478 wrote: post #211
simonask wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Theres no putting that genie back and most people wouldn't want to.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#226

Post by gzread »

a-dub wrote: post #174
pembrook wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be a solution if the people pushing this actually cared about "protecting kids." But let's be honest, governments want a dragnet they can use to monitor/control all internet communication. The people running western democracies are equally as power hungry and zealously authoritarian (my ideas will bring utopia!) as the people running the CCP. The only difference is, the CCP has permissionless authority, so…

i'm only half joking. adding zkps to http requests is probably the correct privacy preserving technical solution that could be built into something sensible. the bigger issue is that lawmakers are thinking in terms of smartphones, tablets and commercial pcs as shrink wrapped media consumption devices with a setup step... not protocol level support that preserves parts of computing and the internet they don't even rea…

ZKPs don't buy anything, since an online service can sell them by the thousand and you're just trusting the client that it belongs to the actual user. You might as well just do "User-Age-Category: 18plus" then and save a headache.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#227

Post by gzread »

sfRattan wrote: post #72

It's irksome that these laws and bills in multiple countries are trying to put limits on the general purpose computer. It's the wrong solution and arguably put forward in bad faith. If you want access control, the appropriate point for regulation is with ISPs and cellular providers, and the appropriate mode of regulation is requiring these companies to provide choice and education for families, and awareness of liabi…

> filtering those devices' network requests at the network gateway, or filtering one hop up onto the provider's infrastructure

These things are not possible with any reliability, we spent two decades encrypting everything.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#228

Post by dmix »

taurath wrote: post #20
dmix wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution is always to constrain every level of government with more aggressive privacy laws. As long as they are allowed to do it then some private contractors will take the money to help make it ... or government will make their own in house tech teams. Relying on the morals of the general public to limit state surveillance is not a good strategy, but it is of course good when companies take a stand and the tech…

Companies create the environment - the government is supposed to be “small” - and it must remain small so the US “consumer” can be leeched from

The US government is very far from small. That said, I'd be open to rules on the data broker industry though considering it's scale and how the foreign governments can buy/hack them bypassing all of Tiktok-esque national security handwaving.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#229

Post by gzread »

skybrian wrote: post #197

Devices with child locks turned on really shouldn't have access to everything on the Internet. A simple protocol could let cooperating websites know when child locks are on, so they don't show inappropriate content. Whitelisting or blacklisting could handle the rest. This doesn't mean every device needs to implement child locks. It also shouldn't affect anyone using unlocked devices at all.

> a simple protocol could let cooperating websites know when child locks are on, so they don't show inappropriate content.

Isn't that literally the California law?

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#230

Post by gzread »

braiamp wrote: post #196

I fail to see why the "protections" that child data deserves, isn't also the same kind of protection that everyone deserve. In what way are children special, in a digital world, that adults shouldn't be protected the same way?

In this world where we are committed to not making laws affecting the freedom of an adult in any way, even to be forced to consent to things.
Post reply on HN