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

271–280 of 486 posts

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#271

Post by fc417fc802 »

ndriscoll wrote: post #74
Levitz wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what would those values and priorities be? Because it doesn't seem to me that they align with what they actually do. For example, it seems to me there is a whole lot of worry around megacorporations, often related to capitalism and the inequalities it brings. In that context, if you don't place privacy as a priority, how are you not either stupid or ignorant? Is my premise just wrong?

You can be in favor of privacy while simultaneously thinking porn, gambling, and advertisers shouldn't be targeting children. The age verification bills I've read have steep penalties for retaining information, so that seems fine since that's literally more protection than you get in person. It's really more just concluding that those corporations should be liable for their behavior. It also has nothing to do with "t…

If you implemented that simple solution the expected outcome is businesses collecting ID at the door. But unlike the age verification bills there'd be no prohibition of or penalty for misuse of the collected information. It's a strictly worse outcome.

You can make intentional targeting illegal without criminalizing the accidental. And mandating self categorization of content by service providers would enable standardized filtering that was broadly effective.

The above won't get kids off of social media and it won't serve the purposes of the surveillance state but it will meet the stated goals of those pushing these measures.

Keeping children off of social media is a much trickier problem. I think we'd be better served by banning certain sorts of algorithmic feeds.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#272

Post by Auracle »

simonask wrote: post #242
signalfour wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It’s weird to say in the same comment “it happens but as far as I know it’s rare” and “this isn’t an actual risk to anybody.”

I do wonder how many would detransition if it wasn’t too embarrassing for them or because they’re effectively stuck that way if they did bottom surgery. Certainly I’m sure there are many more that quietly do it and not be a part of a community around it - I know of one person who did.

I’m sure there are many reasons people transition. For instance, there used to be a subreddit that collected (many) trans people commenting on how much them transitioning or being the other gender turned them on (Reddit being Reddit, it was banned). Some might do it because it feels like a way to get a new start. Some might do it because it’ll get them attention. Some, I’m sure, do it because they genuinely feel like they have the wrong body.

All of those could (of course) be affected by social interactions, with only the last one being positive. Unfortunately it would be really hard for us to ever know the true statistics, as that sort of thing is hard for even the person experiencing it to suss out.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#273

Post by abracadaniel »

totetsu wrote: post #269
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…

It’s not very soon, it’s already the case that if one wants to enable the latest models in the OpenAI api you have to submit your details to their “identity provider”.

Which is why it’s important to be able to run models locally. Which also might explain the strategy behind buying all of the memory that is or will exist for at least a year out. Maybe we’ll eventually see AI safety be used to prevent people from running local models.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#274

Post by fc417fc802 »

nandomrumber wrote: post #256
gzread wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law is irrelevant in that case but the actual situation is not. If people have never put their personal information online, the bad government can't get it from online. A new phone coming out during the time of the bad government, that says the government requires you to enter your name and address, will not be received as well as if it comes out during good government times.

> will not be received as well as if it comes out during good government times. What bearing does that have on anything .

Making the point that people tend to engage in short term thinking. The reception of the same law, product, or practice will be colored by the current government as opposed to potential future ones.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#275

Post by RajT88 »

Aurornis wrote: post #241
simonask wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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 intern…

He was definitely trying to make a point, and then immediately undercut it. It is not just you.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#276

Post by Spivak »

_moof wrote: post #240
gruez wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Hi, I've been openly queer for over 20 years. Using trans people as a wedge to pry apart the entire LGBTQ community is a tale as old as time. This isn't theoretical or a slippery slope argument; it's recent history. It's effective because it sounds "reasonable" on its face, but it's a ploy. Just one of the many, many, many reasons that trans rights are human rights.

[dead]

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#277

Post by foltik »

gruez wrote: post #121
foltik wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You sure are giving them quite the benefit of the doubt. Why? https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/see-the-alleged-tr...

> https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/see-the-alleged-tr ... 1. "alleged" 2. I'm not sure what you're trying to refute. I specifically quoted a passage saying that they broke up in 2004, which implies they were together prior to that. 3. For the specific claim that Trump's a pedophile, a "drawing of a curvaceous woman" is hardly proof. At best it's a proof that he's a womanizer, but we hardly need proof of that…

[flagged]

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#278

Post by Buttons840 »

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…

Somehow they will eliminate anonymity for real people, but bots will still be pushing Russian or... some other country's interests with massive bot farms.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#279

Post by jchook »

Like the evergreen comic, "How would you like this wrapped?" by John Janik

For decades policymakers have been trying to sell us the same surveillance state they accuse their adversaries of having, wrapped as either security or protecting children.

https://i.redd.it/ifb8agngc7dy.jpg

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#280

Post by fc417fc802 »

closeparen wrote: post #68
sillysaurusx wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure it’s possible to have different priorities without being stupid or ignorant of history. Once you concede a certain right, such as a right to privacy, you rarely if ever get it back. Most people seem not to care about this, despite ample evidence that it’s something worth caring about. Stupid is the obvious term for it, though obtuse could work as well. Of course, I don’t blame them. They haven’t lived in…

I have the right to my own senses, my own observations, my own memories. I have the right to photograph what I can see with my eyes, and to write down what I can remember. Unless enjoined by a specific duty of care (doctor/patient, attorney/client, security clearance, etc) I have the right to discuss my memories with others. This obtains even when using electronic tools and even when working in association with other…

It can remain legal to operate a security camera while being illegal to upload unencrypted footage to any third party. I'm not worried about individuals, only about big business and the government.

> This obtains even when using electronic tools and even when working in association with others.

I think it is reasonable to place limits on public "speech" (ex uploading videos of people) without interfering with private (in the case of electronics E2EE) communications.

Post reply on HN