[flagged]
Almost a good comment, just get rid of the unnecessary violence at the end to make your point without being flagged.
Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption
271–280 of 580 posts
Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
My gov id. I'm not saying that there's currently a registration online for voting, but that since you're required to register anyway, the system exists that can be extended to generating those tokens. And realistically, most people do have mygov id already.
> most people do have mygov id It was renamed myid, and less than half of all Australians use it. > no logging If you think that the AIC/NIC doesn't have its tentacles in there already, then I have a bridge to sell you.
It was almost exactly half last year. The number will only go up.
I'm not sure what you mean by the logging part. Yes they can either log or not log it. The system can be designed for either. If your default position is "government will always lie given the chance" that's fine I guess. But then you need to assume they're monitoring your ISP anyway.
Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption
#273I don't really understand why Youtube won't let me create a profile, on my paid family account that I'm paying $29 NZD a month for, which lets me whitelist channels. I'm happy for my kids to have free access to certain channels on youtube, but the mind numbing shorts, and shit they find on random channels just does my head in. And it seems to be getting worse, I'm not sure if its that they are getting older and able…
Is there perhaps a way to do some kind of person-in-the-middle attack to intercept youtube packets and drop channels you don't whitelist, so that the UI only ever shows the whitelisted channels?
Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption
#274At what point do we consider the internet too dangerous to exist?
Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption
#275Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the concern about how this will be implemented (e.g. selfie and ID submission) is well-founded. I also think that letting tech companies make billions by feeding our youth mental junk food is a problem. I'm not sure where the middle path is, but I think it'll need some real thought to figure out.
If you didn’t realize that making teens verify their age online meant that everyone had to verify their age and identity online, that’s just a dangerous level of stupidity. The issue is everyone wants some quick and easy solution when the truth is we’re going to need to get much more intentional as a society about this. Take phone bans. Everyone wants to ban phones from schools/classrooms, but the truth is in a lot o…
> If you didn’t realize that making teens verify their age online meant that everyone had to verify their age and identity online, that’s just a dangerous level of stupidity.
And it is completely unnecessary in many cases. There are many cases where a third party cannot give access to something to a minor, but the parent is able to give consent anyway. So give parents the tools they need to tell online services, "hey, this is a child so act accordingly" rather than having the government enter the loop. For example: a web browser can ask the operating system for an age verification token, then relay that token to the website. Given that most operating systems these days have the notion of privilege and most operating systems make it difficult for unauthorized users to gain administrative privileges, it should be reasonably secure.
Of course, there are going to be weaknesses in such a system. On the other hand, there are going to be weaknesses to any system. There are also going to be situations where that level of protection is inadequate, but we're talking about access to controlled substances levels of concern here rather than kids getting access to age inappropriate videos. And chances are it doesn't have to be 100% effective anyhow. It just has to be effective enough to discourage people from targeting minors with age inappropriate content.
Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you didn’t realize that making teens verify their age online meant that everyone had to verify their age and identity online, that’s just a dangerous level of stupidity. The issue is everyone wants some quick and easy solution when the truth is we’re going to need to get much more intentional as a society about this. Take phone bans. Everyone wants to ban phones from schools/classrooms, but the truth is in a lot o…
There are zero knowledge proof systems that nobody would have a problem with because nobody ever knows who is accessing the content, only that they are allowed or not. Ironic to call people aware of this stupid.
There's always smart ways to do things. The government will choose the cheapest and hire the most generic IT consulting firm to do it which won't get close. Or if they don't do it themselves, they'll just fine big companies unless they follow an overbearing and forever expanding checklist of requirements where the companies lawyers will be forced to choose the most extreme options or risk exposure.
Meanwhile kids will use VPNs, browser extensions, ID spoofing, piracy, etc will become the norm to bypass it and law abiding adults (including good parents and people without kids) will be burdened with the results.
Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption
#277Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you didn’t realize that making teens verify their age online meant that everyone had to verify their age and identity online, that’s just a dangerous level of stupidity. The issue is everyone wants some quick and easy solution when the truth is we’re going to need to get much more intentional as a society about this. Take phone bans. Everyone wants to ban phones from schools/classrooms, but the truth is in a lot o…
> If you didn’t realize that making teens verify their age online meant that everyone had to verify their age and identity online, that’s just a dangerous level of stupidity. And it is completely unnecessary in many cases. There are many cases where a third party cannot give access to something to a minor, but the parent is able to give consent anyway. So give parents the tools they need to tell online services, "hey…
It's only unnecessary if you assume the goal is actually protecting children, as opposed to entrenching even more data collection and identity tracking.
Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption
#278Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't really understand why Youtube won't let me create a profile, on my paid family account that I'm paying $29 NZD a month for, which lets me whitelist channels The answer is to this question is always: it is too niche a product feature for a giant corporation to prioritize. This product would require constant work to keep in sync as UIs and features change. It would be one more feature to regression test again…
That feature isn't what I think the parent comment is asking for. What you've linked to is specifically YouTube Kids, and it's groups of channels whitelisted by the YouTube team. What I think the parent comment is asking for, and I want too, is full availability of all YouTube channels, but the ability to block everything except whitelisted channels. I agree, it's too niche a product. But I often think that people wh…
Not only that, but YouTube kids whitelists a ton of content I never want my kids watching, while exempting a decent chunk of things I'd be tickled pink if my kids watched.
I don't want em watching cocomelon, I want them watching Steve Mould
Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption
#279A couple months ago, I saw people everywhere online (including HN) saying they love the idea of social media bans for kids. They love the idea of keeping people under 18 safe from the dangers of porn and mature games and other unclean things as well. Now governments around the world are acting in unison to happily give those people what they want, and people are suddenly confused and pissed that these laws mean you n…
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety
Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is everyone saying this doesn't exist? It's right there on the linked page! It's called "Approved Content Only" and I assure you that it exists, it's a real feature, it works just like you want, I use it myself, my kids watch Primitive Technology and Smarter Every Day and they can't watch videos I don't whitelist. It does have a few issues. It's not reliable in showing everything you allow, sometimes things are m…
Because it's YouTube kids. Not YouTube YT kids uses a separate app, with a different UI. It's branded as YouTube Kids. And once your kid hits a certain age, they do not want to be on the kids version. Another approach... Is to mark their kids account as a kids account or something, and have that just be on the regular YouTube website and app. Or what every parent really wants. To whitelist content your kid can watch…
> And once your kid hits a certain age, they do not want to be on the kids version.
Who's in charge here, you or your kids? Sure, maybe you could imagine a teen YouTube product you might like more, but you can't say the whitelist feature doesn't exist. It's there and it works.