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

241–250 of 486 posts

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#241

Post by Aurornis »

simonask wrote: post #236
Aurornis wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An information leak 30 years ago was bad, but it had a fairly limited impact radius. Today it can lose you your house, your savings, your relationships, and even your life ("swatting" comes to mind). So you are afraid of minor information leaks getting you killed, but you’re also trying to tell us that online anonymity is a bad thing? Come on. This argument isn’t even coherent from paragraph to paragraph. > I don't…

[flagged]

> I neither believe nor did express any of the opinions you accuse me of.

I directly quoted your beliefs that minor information leaks on the internet can lose your house and get you killed, as well as your claim that the internet was significantly more innocent in the past.

These were the points you were putting forward along with your insistence that we have to “be real” about the problems of anonymity on the internet.

Its hard for me to believe that you don’t recognize the dissonance between the two points you were putting forward.

Your silly “Are you an American” attempt at an insult or rebuttal reveals the level of conversation you’re having, though.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#242

Post by simonask »

signalfour wrote: post #178
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.

Is it really insane? In the detrans community, it's not uncommon for people to see their transition as ideologically led, see e.g. https://lacroicsz.substack.com/p/by-any-other-name .

OK, sure, there’s going to be confused and vulnerable people making mistakes. As I understand it, the detrans community is a tiny fraction of an already tiny fraction who ever in their life identified as trans.

This isn’t an actual risk to anybody, and I can’t believe I have to say that.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#244

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#245

Post by Aurornis »

remcob wrote: post #205
mindslight wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You got suckered by the marketing. Google's "zero knowledge" approach requires devices locked down with remote attestation, which prohibits end users from running their own code (when interacting with websites that prevent it, which as time goes on under this plan will be everywhere). The only actual difference here is that this is Google's desired approach to destroying anonymity and personal computing.

Why is that required? The whole point of zero knowledge proofs is that it can run on untrusted devices.

Because true “zero knowledge” proofs are actually useless for age gating purposes.

Conceptually, if a proof was truly zero knowledge and there were no restrictions on generating it, there would also be nothing stopping someone from launching a website where you clicked a button and were given a free token generated from their ID. If it was truly a zero knowledge proof it would be impossible to revoke the ID that generated it, so there is no disincentive to freely share IDs.

So every real world “zero knowledge” proof eventually restricts something. Some require you to request your tokens from a government entity. Others try to do hardware attention chains so theoretically you can’t generate them outside of the approved means.

But the hacker fantasy of truly zero knowledge proofs is impossible because 1 hour after launch there would be a dozen “Show HN” posts with vibe coded websites that dispense zero knowledge tokens.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#246

Post by Aurornis »

gzread wrote: post #212
ivanjermakov wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The admins of sites like that DGAF about anything or anyone. They enjoy the chaos and shock.

If you expect admins of edgelord websites to respect the laws of different countries or even care about kids, I suggest checking out 4Chan’s response to various attempts to regulate them.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#247

Post by Cider9986 »

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.…

That was almost 5 years ago. Lately, though, I see more people have stopped tolerating these attacks on freedom. See pewdiepie, louis rossman, deflock, piracy ressurection. Uk petition against digital ID becomes one of the largest petitions in history.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/730194

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#248

Post by chinabot »

gzread wrote: post #213
bigyabai wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

big opportunity here for therealhackernews.com

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#249

Post by gzread »

skybrian wrote: post #237
gzread wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Not which law you mean, but I think there's a distinction between "disallows children under 16 from creating an account" (which apparently requires age verification) and "disallows creating or logging into a social media account from a device with a child lock on." (Which doesn't.)

The California law is the one where parents select how old their child is and apps must respect that as a child lock.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#250

Post by nandomrumber »

drnick1 wrote: post #58
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.

Absolutely, but this can only happen if we refuse to run nonfree software on our machines. Even if the maintainers of a Linux distro decided to somehow implement some anti user feature like age attestation, it would be trivial to patch that out from the source or to remove it from a running system with root access. The real danger here is devices that are not fully owned by the user, such as iPhones.

And the overwhelming majority of anything running Android.
Post reply on HN