Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Online age verification is the hill to die on

x.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 750 posts

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#301

Post by aduwah »

znnajdla wrote: post #278

In the age of AI I think it’s only necessary and inevitable to implement some of kind of internet ID system to stop the massive onslaught of AI generated fraud, malicious hacking, and spam. If age verification is a Trojan horse to erase online anonymity, so be it, I see that as a worthy goal. Humans are inherently social, and social networks are based on trust. Trust is primarily a function of reputation, peer pressu…

We will see how your opinion changes when someone steals your ID and voice and you end up being defrauded due to the government chosing the cheapest Indian shop to mishandle your data

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#302

Post by [deleted] »

nonethewiser wrote: post #235
goda90 wrote: post #41

Age verification can be achieved without destroying anonymity and privacy online using anonymous credential systems, but it has to be designed that way from the ground up, and no one pushing age verification is interested in preserving privacy.

Yes, but this is not popular among technologists (see the average sentiment towards age verification here). Legislators aren't going to build technology. This will happen if age verification actually becomes a widespread requirement. But until that point the prospective builders will be fighting the entire premise of such systems.

[deleted]

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#303

Post by retired »

ilovecake1984 wrote: post #185
retired wrote: post #34

Age verification on Australian social media has loopholes. Underage influencers use an agency to manage their social media for them. So anyone with enough followers or money can continue using social media under the age of 16. If you are going to implement age controls, you should implement a ban on underage influencers as well.

That’s not really a loophole though. We have child actors in Harry Potter.

Perhaps we should stop that too.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#304

Post by didgetmaster »

I have long thought that all content (local and remote) should be properly labeled with metadata. Just like the cans of soup in the supermarket, you don't have to open it to find out if it has peanuts, lactose, or MSG in it; you should be able to filter data before accessing it.

You could define a set of 5 or six categories (nudity, sex, drugs, violence, etc.) and have a scale from 1 to 10 for each. Each content producer would rate each category according to defined criteria.

Then each user, or their parent, can set what their own acceptable level is. If you set your violence level at 4 then nothing level 5 or higher will load.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#305

Post by Bender »

duped wrote: post #269
Bender wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Moderation is like law enforcement, it doesn't prevent crimes from happening it just punishes the people they can catch. There exist severe punishments for the kinds of behavior I'm talking about, but unsurprisingly, this does not stop kids from being harmed and it doesn't undo it. This isn't hypothetical, by the way. There are adults catfishing kids into producing CSAM [0], kidnapping and assaulting minors [1], [2],…

I am only interesting in protected the majority of children which I believe my proposal more than covers. There will always be exceptions. Today teens share porn, warez, pirated movies and music with small children in rated-G video games. I am not proposing anything for that. It is up to businesses to detect and block such things.

Point being, there will be a myriad of exceptions. I am not looking to address the exceptions. Those can be a game of whack-a-mole as they are today. I am proposing something that would prevent the vast majority of children from being exposed to the trash we today call social media and of course also porn sites.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#306

Post by Bender »

bluGill wrote: post #300
Bender wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good idea. There could be two headers, the existing RTA header that adult sites use today [1] and another static header that explicitly states there shall be no adult content. [1] - https://www.shodan.io/search?query=RTA-5042-1996-1400-1577-R... [THESE ARE ADULT SITES, NSFW]

What is adult content? I know parents who have no problem with their kids seeing porn. I know parents who give their kids a beer. I know parents who take their kids to violent movies. I used to know parents who will give their kids cigarettes. Most parents I know will disagree with their kids doing one of the above. I know songs that were played on the radio in 1960 that would not be allowed today, even though today…

That's between parents and their local governments. Yes when I was a kid my mom let me watch whatever and go wherever. The parent in my example ultimately decides what a kid may or may not do which is in alignment with existing laws. If the parent is endangering their kid that is up to them and their government to sort out.

Point being, put the controls entirely into the hands of the device owner. Options can be to default to:

- Block everything by default unless header states otherwise.

- Block only sites that state they are adult.

- Do nothing. Obey the operator. (Controls disabled on child accounts or make them an adult or otherwise unrestricted account on the device).

I think the options are just limited to our imagination.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#307

Post by nativeit »

Scaled wrote: post #204
iamnothere wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’d think that one could simply block sites that don’t have the age header set on child computers. This may block kids from hobbyist sites that don’t bother to set their headers as kid-friendly, but commercial sites would surely set their headers properly. Over time sending proper rating headers would become more normalized if they were in common use. This still isn’t perfect, as it creates an incentive for legisla…

Yes, that's how parental filters already work. They use a combination of rta tags and external data to block pages. Even works with Google safe search, firewall devices, etc. The rta ecosystem is already built out and viable.

I think the better tack is to stop acting like these laws are being pushed by honest actors with good faith intentions of protecting children.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#308

Post by kaboomshebang »

nonethewiser wrote: post #253
IAmBroom wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And bootleggers will always bootleg, and smugglers will always smuggle. For that matter, murderers will find ways to murder. Shall we just abolish all laws? None of them have any effect whatsoever, if they are even slightly imperfect... by your rule.

Yeah his point suggests we should stop ID'ing at liquor stores, physical porn stores, etc.

I'm not suggesting that actually. I look at my nephews and see them buy cigerettes, vapes, etc from small dealers instead of stores. Not saying we should just let them smoke, just expecting that they will be able to circumvent online age restrictions as well.

My question is: are digital age verifications the best way to protect kids from harmfull effects of pornography? And my worry is: what unwanted side-effects will age verification have for our society as a whole.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#310

Post by aqme28 »

bluGill wrote: post #300
Bender wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good idea. There could be two headers, the existing RTA header that adult sites use today [1] and another static header that explicitly states there shall be no adult content. [1] - https://www.shodan.io/search?query=RTA-5042-1996-1400-1577-R... [THESE ARE ADULT SITES, NSFW]

What is adult content? I know parents who have no problem with their kids seeing porn. I know parents who give their kids a beer. I know parents who take their kids to violent movies. I used to know parents who will give their kids cigarettes. Most parents I know will disagree with their kids doing one of the above. I know songs that were played on the radio in 1960 that would not be allowed today, even though today…

Then those parents can turn off their browser/client’s age protections. I think that’s actually a decent argument for the solution posed by this thread.
Post reply on HN