Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift' • Hacker News Board

Re: Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'

#261

Post by lambertsimnel » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 9:50 AM UTC

azalemeth wrote: post #249

How do we fight back against this? I don't want my face scanned on a smartphone to use goods and services. Kyc checks for banks are bad enough. I miss the internet of the early 2000s.

I don't think there are any easy answers to the question of how to respond to this but you might consider:

- voting with your feet

- contacting your elected representatives

- contacting media outlets

- becoming a member or donor of civil liberties campaigns

- listening to people who don't yet get it and trying to ensure that they can switch to your view without losing face

Re: Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'

#262

Post by Loic » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 9:56 AM UTC

stavros wrote: post #251

ndriscoll wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was, in fact, what COPA mandated in the US in 1998, and SCOTUS struck it down as too onerous in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, kicking off the last 20 years of essentially completely unregulated Internet porn commercially available to children with nothing more than clicking an "I'm 18" button. At the time, filtering was seen as a better solution. Nowadays filtering is basically impossible thanks to…

[flagged]

I suppose you do not have children. I am open-minded, mid 40's. The level of violence in porn you can get access to with just one click, has no comparison with what I could get access to as a kid (basically nothing).

With the net, you get access in one click to the worse and the best. It is a lot of work as a parent to educate the kids about that.

As kids, teenager and even as 20 something, if we wanted to do some experience, we had to physically access the media or be physically present. This was not on-demand over a screen.

So, I filter the access at home while also trying my best to educate. This is not easy and I can understand that non tech savvy people request more laws, even so I am personally against.

The article is pretty well balanced, we have no silver bullet here.

Re: Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'

#263

Post by stavros » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 9:58 AM UTC

Loic wrote: post #262

stavros wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I suppose you do not have children. I am open-minded, mid 40's. The level of violence in porn you can get access to with just one click, has no comparison with what I could get access to as a kid (basically nothing). With the net, you get access in one click to the worse and the best. It is a lot of work as a parent to educate the kids about that. As kids, teenager and even as 20 something, if we wanted to do some ex…

Sure, but if the goal is to minimise access to violence, why did the GP say "they can access porn" instead of "they can access violence"? I doubt the two are synonymous.

Re: Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'

#264

Post by iteria » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 10:03 AM UTC

rapind wrote: post #217

Terr_ wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> trying to get everyone to filter We never needed everyone to filter, just parents busy lobbying the government to impose crap onto every possible service and website across the entire world. Instead, they should purchase devices for their kids that have a child-lock and client-side filters. All sites have to do is add an HTTP header loosely characterizing it's content. 1. Most of the dollar costs of making it all h…

There's a peer / social issue at play as well though. If you believe that smart phones are disastrous for kids (I happen to think so), and don't allow your 13yo daughter to have one, you are pretty much forcing her to be the odd one out. Maybe that's OK for some parents, but you can't deny that this cost exists. Preventing your son from playing certain video games that all of his friends enjoy also has a social cost.…

So does being vegetarian or vegan. So does being not the dominant culture in any aspect of life. That's a decision for parents to make and honestly "they'll be left out" is such a crap parenting take. Especially since it's a bunch of parents together who don't want their kid to have access thinking this together. If they actually talked to each each or just made a stand so people could see, we wouldn't even have this so called social cost.

I'm seeing this as a parent in real time. I'm actually changing my kid's friend's parent behaviors by simply being like, "Cool. But my kid isn't/is going to do that" I don't know when parenting happened by social committee, but I don't believe in it.

Re: Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'

#265

Post by gurumeditations » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 10:15 AM UTC

They’re using the databases to go after illegal immigrants right now. Soon it’ll be using the porn databases to go after Gay people. They’re trying to use the healthcare databases to go after Trans people. All this verification is nothing but a way to commit genocide against minorities. Porn is so far down on the list of harmful things. There’s no pearl clutching over alcohol and other drugs like Americans have with porn. Nation of pansies.

Re: Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'

#266

Post by nicbou » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 10:16 AM UTC

extraduder_ire wrote: post #170

nicbou wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add to this, some people might be left out because companies are not financially incentivised to verify them. In Germany, immigrants struggle to open a bank account because the banks require documents that they don't have (and that they can hardly get with a bank account). Russian, Iranian and Syrian citizens have a particularly hard time finding a bank that works for them. The most common video document verificat…

What is it about some Indian passports? Do they need to have a biometric chip to work? (just checked, and those were introduced in 2024) Banks worldwide regularly refuse service to people who have US citizenship, so I don't think you're far off on that point.

If I remember correctly there are a dozen variants, and most of them lack a basic feature. I think it's either a signature, latin letters or biometric features.

US citizens also had issues due to FATCA requirements although it seems to have improved since they were introduced.

Re: Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'

#267

Post by nicbou » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 10:17 AM UTC

BlueTemplar wrote: post #242

nicbou wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add to this, some people might be left out because companies are not financially incentivised to verify them. In Germany, immigrants struggle to open a bank account because the banks require documents that they don't have (and that they can hardly get with a bank account). Russian, Iranian and Syrian citizens have a particularly hard time finding a bank that works for them. The most common video document verificat…

Is banking not deemed a right in Germany ? Aren't there "banks of last resort" ? Or does that right somehow not extend to non-EU refugees ?

Yes, sort of. You can always force it, but it takes time, resources and knowledge that recent immigrants lack. Usually they get funneled towards more immigrant-friendly banks.

Re: Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'

#268

Post by graemep » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 10:17 AM UTC

Terr_ wrote: post #209

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has already come up before the Supreme Court, with the argument that filtering was a less invasive technique to fulfill the government’s legitimate interests back in the early 2000s. That ship has sailed. Even the opposition admits that trying to get everyone to filter is not going to work and is functionally insignificant. The only question is whether age verification is still too onerous.

> trying to get everyone to filter We never needed everyone to filter, just parents busy lobbying the government to impose crap onto every possible service and website across the entire world. Instead, they should purchase devices for their kids that have a child-lock and client-side filters. All sites have to do is add an HTTP header loosely characterizing it's content. 1. Most of the dollar costs of making it all h…

> just parents busy lobbying the government to impose crap onto every possible service and website across the entire world.

Its not parents, primarily.

IMO the pressure comes from a few lobby groups, media scares, companies with age verification products to sell and big tech - the last because it imposes compliance costs that removes competition, and new entrants in particular.

Re: Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'

#269

Post by graemep » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 10:18 AM UTC

9dev wrote: post #257

jgaa wrote: post #253

This is never about protecting the children. This is always about government overreach. People are less likely to criticize the government, or even participate in political debate, if their online identities are know by the government. Governments like obedient, scared citizens. The only ethical response to laws like this, is for websites and apps to terminate operations completely in countries that create them. Citi…

That’s a very strange take on governments, treating them as a singular entity. A government that deserves that name is first and foremost and elected set of representatives of the constituents, and thus like citizens that vote for them again, act in their interests. If the government is not working like that, you have an administrative problem, not a societal one. A state is its population.

I would say it is a realistic take, and yours is idealistic.

Re: Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'

#270

Post by Adverblessly » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 10:18 AM UTC

gertrunde wrote: post #125

I would like to think there there is a solution that can be engineered, in which a service is able to verify that a user is above an appropriate age threshold, while maintaining privacy safeguards, including, where relevant, for the age-protected service not to be privy to the identity of the user, and for the age verification service to not be privy to the nature of the age-protected service being accessed. In this…

Here is my solution:

Provide easy to use on-device content filtering tools so parents can easily control what their children can access (there are a few ways to do this through law, like requiring it from OS providers or ISPs or just writing these tools directly).

To make it easy, Discord can provide their services under both adults.discord.com and minors.discord.com so parents can more easily block only the 18+ version of Discord.

Require personal responsibility from parents to decide what is appropriate for their child.