351–360 of 371 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not making any claims about mental or emotional impacts, you are. What are they?
A couple of comments above, you said: “Why would 'ease of access' make any difference if you didn't have easy access and got it anyway” So exactly what is the target of the “difference” you are referring to then here? You are referencing a differential in something…if not psychological impact from the viewing of said material…what would that something be?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not making any claims about mental or emotional impacts, you are. What are they?
A couple of comments above, you said: “Why would 'ease of access' make any difference if you didn't have easy access and got it anyway” So exactly what is the target of the “difference” you are referring to then here? You are referencing a differential in something…if not psychological impact from the viewing of said material…what would that something be?
Person 2: "I don't think that they actually smell worse, and people were still exposed to chemicals in the 70s, so why would it make a difference?"
Person 1: "Are you saying that the health effects of chemical exposure are lessened because they are exposed to some chemicals as opposed to a lot of chemicals?"
Person 1 is using a claim that is not proven by their statements to make Person 2 responsible for a claim they never conceded was true.
Person 2 is disputing that Person 1's mechanisms make a difference not that their conclusion is valid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep this is the first time I've disagreed with the EFF on anything civil liberties related. My view is that there's no reason why we can't come together and come up with a rating system for websites (through HTTP headers, there are already a couple proposals, the RTA header and another W3C proposal). Once a website just sends a header saying this is adult only content, what YOU as a user do with it is up to you. You…
> My view is that there's no reason why we can't come together and come up with a rating system for websites There's no way everybody will agree what constitutes "adult only content," therefore there's no way to come up with a rating for websites.
So I think they would voluntarily state that their content is adult only.
This isn’t rocket science. We’ve rated content for decades. We simply can’t be obtuse about this and throw our hands up and do nothing because we can’t tell if obvious things like porn are adult only content the way we’ve done on every other medium.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Are you aware of any age verification systems that do not have this property? As I understand it, it's the goal of OpenID4VP[1][2]. Using it a site can request to know if the user is over 18 say, and the user can return proof of just that one claim, I'm over 18, without sharing identifying information. The new EU age verification solution[3] builds on this for example. [1]: https://openid.net/specs/openid-4-verifia…
Can't read the specs at the moment, but what prevents the age verification service and the age-gated website from coluding and de-anonymizing your porn use?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A couple of comments above, you said: “Why would 'ease of access' make any difference if you didn't have easy access and got it anyway” So exactly what is the target of the “difference” you are referring to then here? You are referencing a differential in something…if not psychological impact from the viewing of said material…what would that something be?
Person 1: "People are exposed to many more chemicals now than in the 70s, and they smell worse" Person 2: "I don't think that they actually smell worse, and people were still exposed to chemicals in the 70s, so why would it make a difference?" Person 1: "Are you saying that the health effects of chemical exposure are lessened because they are exposed to some chemicals as opposed to a lot of chemicals?" Person 1 is us…
Person 2: I bathe in that same chemical for 30 minutes every single day. It’s no different than 1982. The risk of harm is the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would the state force you to do in this case?
Is your question about what authoritarian states do with information about everyone's private lives?
If the identifiers are pseudonyms, if the government compelled someone to share their user IDs, all the government would see are basically a bunch of UUIDs keyed to that provider.
So what specific actions are you talking about. What is your threat model?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Person 1: "People are exposed to many more chemicals now than in the 70s, and they smell worse" Person 2: "I don't think that they actually smell worse, and people were still exposed to chemicals in the 70s, so why would it make a difference?" Person 1: "Are you saying that the health effects of chemical exposure are lessened because they are exposed to some chemicals as opposed to a lot of chemicals?" Person 1 is us…
Person 1: I once or twice got a small drop of a dangerous chemical on my skin in 1982 Person 2: I bathe in that same chemical for 30 minutes every single day. It’s no different than 1982. The risk of harm is the same.
If Person 1 is claiming that there are harmful effects, they are required to prove that they exist and explain why bathing in it causes those effects while being exposed to it otherwise does not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Person 1: I once or twice got a small drop of a dangerous chemical on my skin in 1982 Person 2: I bathe in that same chemical for 30 minutes every single day. It’s no different than 1982. The risk of harm is the same.
In this case Person 2 has no duty to prove that bathing in it is fine or that getting exposed to a small drop is dangerous. If Person 1 is claiming that there are harmful effects, they are required to prove that they exist and explain why bathing in it causes those effects while being exposed to it otherwise does not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"group of people pushing age verification for kids disappear." Parents need to parent then, but the amount that will are still larger than the people who want mass surveillance because they can't be arsed to raise their kids. If they are too lazy to raise their kids, they don't have the energy to push the nanny state forward.
Parenting is, and always has been, a collective responsibility. We made it illegal to sell alcohol to kids, instead of just complaining that parents weren't teaching them not to drink it.
No, it isn't, and no it hasn't. Other people have always been involved in the upbringing of children, but responsibility for parenting has never belonged to anyone other than parents.
And the others involved have always been individuals operating within the bounds of direct trust relations with parents and children -- extended family members, neighbors, friends etc. -- and not strangers enforcing rules promulgated by other strangers.
The social context in which parenting takes place is "family", not "political state".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would much rather have laws that require that certain kinds of websites return machine-readable headers describing what kind of content is on them, and then browsers, web proxies, etc. could be configured by parents, schools, etc. to block undesirable sites.
Recycling a post about reasons to do it that way: > 1. Most of the dollar costs of making it all happen will be paid by the people who actually need/use the feature. > 2. No toxic Orwellian panopticon. > 3. Key enforcement falls into a realm non-technical parents can actually observe and act upon: What device is little Timmy holding? > 4. Every site in the world will not need a monthly update to handle Elbonia's rite…
Once that solution was in place, the argument was settled, and the people trying to push for censorship in pursuit of ulterior motives didn't have a leg to stand on.