261–270 of 750 posts
There's an angle everyone misses. Mandatory age surveillance everywhere is only going to result in massive, normalized ID fraud. You thought fake and stolen IDs were a problem before? You haven't seen anything yet. And half of it will be from adults trying to avoid privacy invasion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> fine sites not participating into oblivion. That would also amount to compelled speech.
That would also amount to compelled speech. I disagree. The legal requirement to apply a warning label is a well known, understood and accepted process that is applied to a myriad of hazards to children and adults . As just one example businesses in some states, most notably California are compelled to add warning labels to foods and other products that could cause cancer.
> If you love your family, you must stop online age verification. > If you want the best for your children, you must stop online age verification. > Your children are being targeted. The infrastructure being built under the cover of child safety is designed to enslave them for the rest of their lives. Jumped the shark on that one, and really off-color. I'm less inclined to listen to guy, not because of his actual poi…
Do you actually have an argument to make? He’s 100% correct. For a start, child are parents responsibility, and the state should stay out of that as much as reasonably possible. Nothing more would need to me said on the matter if that’s as far as it went, but it isn’t. There can be no free speech if the state can imprison you for what you say, and they know everything you say. I dropped the word ‘online’ from the abo…
And not distributing porn to children is a porn company's responsibility.
You are repeating a very common talking point but its not a good one.
Age verification laws make it possible to hold services providers liable for breaking the law (it's already illegal to distribute porn to minors in many places, like the US).
It's both true and completely irrelevant that parents should do a better job protecting their children from harmful services online.
If you don't use X/Twitter anymore, XCancel makes it possible to read threads when not logged in: https://xcancel.com/GlennMeder/status/2049088498163216560
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, it's more than that. I _want_ to protect kids' right to be part of the human connectome. The "protect the kids" (by disallowing them their freedom of thought on the internet) is just naked ageism.
So do you want 5 year olds driving on the highway and 8 year olds doing shots of tequila or are you ageist? Or perhaps protecting kids isn’t really ageism at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> fine sites not participating into oblivion. That would also amount to compelled speech.
That would also amount to compelled speech. I disagree. The legal requirement to apply a warning label is a well known, understood and accepted process that is applied to a myriad of hazards to children and adults . As just one example businesses in some states, most notably California are compelled to add warning labels to foods and other products that could cause cancer.
The one and only method I will participate in is server operators setting a RTA header [1] for URL's that may contain adult or user-generated or user-contributed content and the clients having the option to detect that header and trigger parental controls if they are enabled by the device owner. That should suffice to protect most small children. Teens will always get around anything anyone implements as they are alr…
Servers can then infer user’s ages by whether or not the client renders pages given those headers or not no? See if secondary page requests (e.g images, scripts) are made or not from a client? A bad actor could use this to glean age information from the client and see whether the person viewing the page is a small child. That should be scary
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This doesn't address the wider array of age-verification related problems that people want to solve, like social media where age verification is needed to police interactions between users.
I could be misunderstanding the context but to me that sounds like a moderation issue assuming we even want small children on social media in the first place. There should probably be a dedicated child-safe social media site that limits what communication can take place for small children and has severe punishments for adults pretending to be children for the purposes of grooming.
This isn't hypothetical, by the way. There are adults catfishing kids into producing CSAM [0], kidnapping and assaulting minors [1], [2], and in the most extreme case, there's a borderline cult of crazy young adults who do terrorize people for fun [3].
It is a constant game of whackamole by moderators/admins to keep this behavior out of online spaces where kids hang out.
I recognize that this is a "think of the children" argument, but indeed that's the point. The anonymous web was created without thinking about the children, just like how all social media was created without thinking about how it could be used to harm people. Age verification is the smallest step towards mitigating that harm.
Now I disagree very strongly with the laws proposed (and indeed, I've been writing/calling/talking with state reps about this locally, because I don't want my state's bill passed). But the technical challenge needs to address the real problems that legislators are trying to go after.
[0] https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdnc/pr/discord-user-who-catfis...
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kidnapping-roblox-rcna2...
[2] https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/nebraska-man-charged-wit...
[3] https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/boston/news/ope...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For a start, child are parents responsibility, and the state should stay out of that as much as reasonably possible. Yes That's why stores let kids buy alcohol and tobacco, of course, because no responsible parent would let them buy that, right? That's why any kid can go watch any movie in the cinema right? Yes it's the parents responsibilities. Do you think a middle class single mother has the resources to keep th…
> That's why any kid can go watch any movie in the cinema right? Yes. At least in the U.S., the federal government does not regulate that, it is voluntary by the MPA (formerly MPAA) and theaters. A kid can buy a ticket for a PG movie and walk into an R-rated movie. > Do you think a middle class single mother has the resources to keep their kids entertained and out of social media for the whole day? Mine did. While no…