31–40 of 120 posts
In full expectation of being downvoted, I would like to say here that I think the comments below show an astonishing lack of awareness about how most ordinary australians feel about the risks to children online. I believe most australians vox-popped in the street would say they expect the government to do this. I'm not for a minute saying either the current government, or any past government is either competent or ca…
If Australia genuinely wanted to improve the lives of its children, it would first tackle the loopholes in its child support scheme [1]. But then again, as with Chat Control and other such schemes, “save the children” is used to usher in breaking of all citizens’ privacy. I bet Aus is insanely jealous of China’s mandatory ID checks on their superapps [1] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/oct/08/single-paren...
I was having a similar conversation yesterday, and my stance is that the political grand-standing like this is worse than doing nothing because it gives the populace the sense that something is being done, although very little is likely to change. Resources are being applied far from optimally. Funding that could be useful is being spent on the useless. As such, it's taking things in the wrong direction whilst still…
I mostly agree with this. Unfortunately I think it is also true of a lot of activist tactics (e.g., big protests), which seem to be more about making their participants feel good than about producing genuine results. It's human nature to lose interest in things when there is no crisis, and to be vulnerable to misdirection.
It's like the old joke about how there's no good time to fix the roof, because when it's raining you can't fix it, and when it's not raining you don't need to fix it. Of course, you have to fix it when it's not raining. Likewise the only real way to avoid this "sense of something being done" is to push sizable changes at a moment when no one thinks they are urgent, and that's often difficult to accomplish.
Anyone who cares will ask their mates at school, who will assist them to set up a VPN and thus circumvent this silliness. Then the same people who've pushed this solution to their perceived problem will start to target VPNs. The real question is whether they then attempt to ban VPNs. The streamers would likely join in on that, which might be sufficient lobbying for the government to accept it? Fortunately, my 12yo wa…
What about Yandex? If I wanted to see porn, I'd go to Yandex, not Bing or Google, because Yandex is the superior search engine for that kind of thing. If Yandex is unaffected, this age check is useless. What about Marginalia? A small operation like Marginalia, if affected, may not have the ressource to implement age check. Is this some kind of regulation capture scheme? Why don't you just shove a leash up my ass?
I assume that Russian dissidents must ironically use google et al for the same reasons.
Anyone who cares will ask their mates at school, who will assist them to set up a VPN and thus circumvent this silliness. Then the same people who've pushed this solution to their perceived problem will start to target VPNs. The real question is whether they then attempt to ban VPNs. The streamers would likely join in on that, which might be sufficient lobbying for the government to accept it? Fortunately, my 12yo wa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would refrain from referring to it as incompetence, as I feel that ignores the true nature of the system. The problem is that the Australian political system needs to appease to the centre. That's how parties get into power. As long as that's the case, it doesn't leave a whole lot of room to meaningfully tackle the problems plaguing the country (in particular, housing).
Your point about not tackling the hardest challenges is well made. However the benefit of needing to appeal to the political Centre (a factor of compulsory voting) is that Australia also avoids the crazy swings and debilitating division of left and right that other nations can face.
Why not simply pass a law to limit company liability in the case that a minor sees something undesirable? Why shouldn’t the onus be on the parents to parent?
What about Yandex? If I wanted to see porn, I'd go to Yandex, not Bing or Google, because Yandex is the superior search engine for that kind of thing. If Yandex is unaffected, this age check is useless. What about Marginalia? A small operation like Marginalia, if affected, may not have the ressource to implement age check. Is this some kind of regulation capture scheme? Why don't you just shove a leash up my ass?
Devil's advocate position: If you can shepherd the majority, or at least a larger percentage, then the leaks can be ignored (until they get too big, at which time then consider changes and tweaks). For the likes of us on HN bypassing these things is a bodily function, however I believe there's a large cohort "out there" for whom it could be a bridge too far. Eg. I doubt too many degrees of separation outside of HN ev…
Kid searches for porn and can’t find it. Someone at school recommends incognito/logging out. … So they lock down logged out searches?
Next someone at school puts them onto SearXNG, Yandex, VPNs, etc.
Maybe a percentage of kids will grow up never learning workarounds? Maybe the rest get slightly more tech savvy in a good way… (I’m not pro-11-year-olds watching ultra-depraved snuff but can see occasional bridges to IT know-how. Hope not all workarounds are ultra-appified then.)
We are going to have to give our IDs and biometrics to untrusted 3rd parties just because some people don't like the idea of other people's kids using the internet.
If these sites are so bad, maybe laws should instead target that problem. For example, make it illegal for social media companies to make their products addictive.
Instead, we get insanely invasive half-measures that impede on security, privacy and speech, with the added bonus of politicians whipping people up into moral panics in order to pass them.