Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'

Post by ndriscoll » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 2:28 PM UTC

hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #333

lupusreal wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Filtering has never been easy or practical for the general public. But the situation has become much worse. In 1998 it was easy for a family to have no computer at all, or to put their single computer in the living room where it could be supervised. Internet use was limited because it tied up the phone line. These factors made it easy for parents to supervise their children. Today, computers are everywhere, fit in yo…

Seems like a reasonable argument to ban encryption rather than actually parent your children. As a conservative voter with nothing to hide, I’m in.

Post by doright » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 2:37 PM UTC

plsbenice34 wrote: post #179

kelseyfrog wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a great stance to have if consequences have zero value. Every time we shrug and say "let the parents decide," we gamble with the most vulnerable: the kids who don’t yet know how to refuse a cigarette, who don’t yet grasp the weight of a loaded weapon, who don’t yet understand that porn isn’t a harmless curiosity. We gamble with the soul of childhood—and when we lose, those children don’t get a second chance.…

I can't express strongly enough that arguing about how to raise children is an incredibly deep, contentious topic. Over and over i see that the state terrifies me deep into my soul, as does the power that a parent has over shaping its children. You're gambling either way and there will always be disturbing consequences. You do not know the optimal way to raise a child - nobody does. It is subjective. Parents NEED to…

Post by redczar » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 2:46 PM UTC

viraptor wrote: post #344

redczar wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your points only make sense in the absence of bad and/neglectful parents. For many decades it was required to prove age in order to consume porn. Porn on the internet ought to have the same requirement. I don’t know the best way to implement it but since the industry isn’t trying to find a solution then government should impose one.

That's just not possible in practice. There's lots of people who enjoy publishing their sex, not commercially. There's no place under a single jurisdiction that can be filtered or required to prove age. Any social network will contain groups of people using it to distribute porn. When common ones are closed, dedicated ones are created.

Post by 9dev » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 2:55 PM UTC

hiatus wrote: post #351

9dev wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I vote and I do not care which of the parties that have a chance of winning wins because their policies are so similar it does not matter, where is my democratic participation? In joining a party that represents you better—or founding one if no such party exists—and campaigning for it. Democracy doesn't end with casting a ballot, especially in trying times like these. Nobody is going to come and save us; if we d…

> It very thoroughly describes how a society ends up asking how the holocaust could possibly have happened while nobody did anything about it while it did. > If the government is not working like that, you have an administrative problem, not a societal one. A state is its population. How do you jive these two statements?

Post by hsbauauvhabzb » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 3:15 PM UTC

ndriscoll wrote: post #352

hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like a reasonable argument to ban encryption rather than actually parent your children. As a conservative voter with nothing to hide, I’m in.

Banning encryption that the device owner can't control actually seems like a great idea. So e.g. for TLS it should be easy to install a CA and MITM filtering proxy as an admin user and all applications must trust that CA.