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

341–350 of 750 posts

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#341

Post by furyofantares »

cooper_ganglia wrote: post #211

THe government shouldn't be raising anyone's children, that's what parents are for. If you're a bad parent, your kids will get access to bad things and could become an adult failure. The future of your family and your legacy is up to you, not the government. We don't need age verification to restrict the social darwinism of raising children.

I keep thinking we can't fight age verification by just saying "no" to it, and have to offer an alterative.

Maybe we need to turn it on its head, point out that if we want legislation to help out with this, we could choose legislation that gives power to parents. Age verification laws put the power directly into the law itself, they're a blanket solution that gives all the power to legislators and that prevents parents from making decisions about what's appropriate for their kids and what isn't.

If the market isn't delivering the level of parental controls people want, then sure, maybe legislation is needed. But it should be legislation that improves parental such that parents can make decisions about what's appropriate for their children.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#342

Post by ibejoeb »

crazygringo wrote: post #276

I'm not a fan of online age verification, but this is completely absurd: > Every website. Every platform. Every app. Every service. Your children will never know what it was like to think freely online. They will never explore ideas anonymously. They will never question authority without it being logged in their permanent profile. They will never speak freely without fear that every word will be used... No. Nobody's…

We've spent the past three decades trying to invent ways to deduce identity and build profiles of what would otherwise be anonymous users. When the government steps in and compels people to formally identify themselves by their government names, what would you expect these companies to do? They're not gonna say "no thanks."

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#343

Post by traderj0e »

lokar wrote: post #333
traderj0e wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US. If they want to serve users in other countries, or if certain states make their own rules, it's business as usual whether to serve different content there or serve a different header or take the legal risk.

That seems unworkable and a practical matter

They already do this, like there's Victoria's Secret's US website vs Qatar.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#344

Post by EmbarrassedHelp »

ericmay wrote: post #161

Just requiring it for social media companies is probably enough of a win to not have to pursue any further. We require age verification for sports betting and things like that, I'm not sure why we wouldn't do the same or some variation of that for other massively addicting products that we know as a matter of scientific study have a very bad impact on some number of kids.

It will spread to everywhere else if we allow it for social media. In Australia for example, mandatory age verification has already spread to video games.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#345

Post by dpark »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #322
dpark wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is literally a “think of the children[‘s freedom]” appeal. You’re not arguing for or against the restriction on its merits. In the US at least there’s also no such thing legally as age discrimination against minors so far as I’m aware. Edit: Let me frame this differently. “Ageism” is basically by definition bad, so applying the term “ageism” to a restriction is a an attempt to label the restriction bad without e…

You’ve lost me.

You* are using “ageism” as a synonym for “bad”. You are also labeling restrictions as “ageism” without establishing that they are actually bad.

In effect you are saying “that’s bad!” without accepting the burden of establishing why it’s bad, but hiding this behind a different term that carries more emotional weight. It’s a very politically effective strategy but it’s not logically sound.

* actually jMyles

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#346

Post by dylan604 »

basisword wrote: post #259
chimeracoder wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not so sure about that. Handing an ID to a bouncer at a bar or similar is not logging anything. > Sophisticated places might have a scanner that does what ever validation it does, but again, it's just another cursory check of the photo. Many/most bars do scan IDs now. Ostensibly it's to verify that it's real, but they do use those systems to keep a log of everyone who enters.

They also use them to flag people who've been previously banned and the systems work across venues. The idea that verification in the real world is cursory is not accurate.

The vast majority of places I frequent do not even have a person at the door checking IDs. If the bar tender/server thinks you look young, they ask for ID. I clearly do not look to be too young, so there's that. The last place I went to with an actual scanner was more of a nightclub that had a cover charge.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#347

Post by babypuncher »

babypuncher wrote: post #25
cvoss wrote: post #6

> 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…

5 years ago I would have agreed, but seeing how the GOP has been fighting tooth and nail to protect actual child sex traffickers, I don't think so anymore. There's just no possible way that the safety of children is an actual concern to any of them. To these people, kids are little more than sex toys for billionaires.

It seems the Epstein class didn't like this comment

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#348

Post by traderj0e »

Induane wrote: post #326
traderj0e wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or could have a header saying this is not adult-only content, and a parentally-controlled device will block things that don't participate.

I always love seeing pros and cons of whitelist vs blacklist sorts of strategies in different scenarios.

Yeah, and this is a good one. Blacklist is less likely to be ignored by parents. Both have risks of corps doing CYA strats, but less so with the blacklist. Whitelist has the advantage of being more feasible without an actual law, and also better matching how parenting works. Generally kids are given whitelists irl.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#349

Post by dpark »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #319
dpark wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did. Restricting children’s access to certain things is not ageism. We can argue the merits of restricting children’s access to the internet, or certain books, or alcohol, or pornography, or whatever else. We can debate the merits of those various restrictions based on the benefits and costs to both the children and society at large. But it is not ageism to attempt to protect children. It is not ageism even of the…

You jumped to children behind the wheel of vehicles and doing tequila shots. There is no way that was a serious effort at good faith discourse.

I used a rhetorical device to demonstrate why restricting children’s activities is not simply ageism.

I don’t know how you can seriously come here and accuse me of engaging in bad faith when I’ve taken the time to make my viewpoint explicit multiple times in this thread now, including directly to you.

Post reply on HN