Live data from Hacker News

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

bbc.com

361–370 of 448 posts

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

#361

I'm in the UK and discord has asked me to complete this check (but I haven't, yet). I can still use discord just fine, it just won't let me view any media it considers "adult". I am an adult but refuse to let them scan my face as a matter of principle, so I've considered using https://github.com/hacksider/Deep-Live-Cam to "deepfake" myself and perform the verification while wearing a fake face. If it works, I'll writ…

Why not leave the platform and actually send a message?

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

#362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So an older brother gives his sibling a key. Why would your design prevent that?

We can still have laws, e.g. that using someone else's certificate (or knowingly giving them your certificate) would constitute fraud. We have laws against kids buying alcohol, even though kids can (and do) try to get adults to buy them booze, but I don't think that's a good reason to say we shouldn't have laws against kids drinking.

Sure, I agree. But we're talking about a claim by GP that his cyrpographic system prevents this behavior.

If it can't, it's no better than a button that says "I'm 18"

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

#363
post #358
post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

My point is that the German society wasn't inherently evil, but stunned, indifferent; a comparatively small group of thoroughly sinister people managed to use that to their advantage. The correct thing to do would have been civil resistance, while it was still possible.

But a state is its population, by your own words. How can you say German society wasn't inherently evil and yet hold that a state IS its people? Either the German population is evil and willed evil into existence, or the state is greater than the sum of its parts. It seems obvious that the latter is the case.

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

#364

A long, long time ago (within the past ten years), I had to verify my age with a site. They didn't ask for my ID, or my facial scan, but instead asked for my credit card number. They issued a refund to the card of a few cents, and I had to tell them (within 24hr) how much the refund was for, after which point they'd issue a charge to claw it back. They made it clear that debit and gift cards would not be accepted, it…

As we've seen, if the information is retained, it will be used.

The only safe approach is for that information not to exist in the first place.

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

#365
post #361

I'm in the UK and discord has asked me to complete this check (but I haven't, yet). I can still use discord just fine, it just won't let me view any media it considers "adult". I am an adult but refuse to let them scan my face as a matter of principle, so I've considered using https://github.com/hacksider/Deep-Live-Cam to "deepfake" myself and perform the verification while wearing a fake face. If it works, I'll writ…

Why not leave the platform and actually send a message?

The platform isn't the problem, it's the legislation.

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

#366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was, in fact, what COPA mandated in the US in 1998, and SCOTUS struck it down as too onerous in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, kicking off the last 20 years of essentially completely unregulated Internet porn commercially available to children with nothing more than clicking an "I'm 18" button. At the time, filtering was seen as a better solution. Nowadays filtering is basically impossible thanks to…

[flagged]

My girl discovered self-pleasure at the age of 5, ironically during an exam from her doctor (she doesn't think it was intentional). I had an ex discover masturbation around the same age. I personally discovered it around 11 or 12. All of the above discovered porn accidentally as kids. I don't know about them but after that I intentionally sought it out.

Guess what! Both of us are perfectly fine!! (Well the ex is a bit psychotic but that's unrelated...)

This obsession with protecting kids from the realities of life is just fucking stupid. We as a species have the stupidest, most ridiculous views about something that is required to keep us alive!

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

#367
post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has already come up before the Supreme Court, with the argument that filtering was a less invasive technique to fulfill the government’s legitimate interests back in the early 2000s. That ship has sailed. Even the opposition admits that trying to get everyone to filter is not going to work and is functionally insignificant. The only question is whether age verification is still too onerous.

> trying to get everyone to filter We never needed everyone to filter, just parents busy lobbying the government to impose crap onto every possible service and website across the entire world. Instead, they should purchase devices for their kids that have a child-lock and client-side filters. All sites have to do is add an HTTP header loosely characterizing it's content. 1. Most of the dollar costs of making it all h…

Ah, the old "all we have to do" solution to complex technical problems. "Just" design it this way!

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

#368
post #217
post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> trying to get everyone to filter We never needed everyone to filter, just parents busy lobbying the government to impose crap onto every possible service and website across the entire world. Instead, they should purchase devices for their kids that have a child-lock and client-side filters. All sites have to do is add an HTTP header loosely characterizing it's content. 1. Most of the dollar costs of making it all h…

There's a peer / social issue at play as well though. If you believe that smart phones are disastrous for kids (I happen to think so), and don't allow your 13yo daughter to have one, you are pretty much forcing her to be the odd one out. Maybe that's OK for some parents, but you can't deny that this cost exists. Preventing your son from playing certain video games that all of his friends enjoy also has a social cost.…

In other words it is a multi-agent coordination problem from game theory. You can have an outside force change the rules, or you can figure out how to collaborate/compete within the game.

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

#370

A long, long time ago (within the past ten years), I had to verify my age with a site. They didn't ask for my ID, or my facial scan, but instead asked for my credit card number. They issued a refund to the card of a few cents, and I had to tell them (within 24hr) how much the refund was for, after which point they'd issue a charge to claw it back. They made it clear that debit and gift cards would not be accepted, it…

That was, in fact, what COPA mandated in the US in 1998, and SCOTUS struck it down as too onerous in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, kicking off the last 20 years of essentially completely unregulated Internet porn commercially available to children with nothing more than clicking an "I'm 18" button. At the time, filtering was seen as a better solution. Nowadays filtering is basically impossible thanks to…

lets just skip straight to the logical conclusion, buddy. no amount of "web" or "discord" regulation stops porn consumption. the statistic of "minors viewing porn" wouldn't be affected even slightly, even if all of the regulation in question here were passed to the fullest extent. this is because people can just download and run whatever software they want, and communicate with any party they want. what you want is for people to not have control over their computers/communications made from them. people talk about a middle ground, but there is none, because you will always just notice that the "minors viewing porn" statistic is not affected by your latest law, until you have absolute control over civilian communications. this is completely against what anyone in the open source community let alone democracy, stand for.
Post reply on HN