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

EFF launches Age Verification Hub

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 371 posts

Re: EFF launches Age Verification Hub

#361

Post by jacobgkau »

Eisenstein wrote: post #357
kcplate wrote: post #355

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.

Person 2 has no duty to prove anything (or to enter the conversation at all), but Person 2 isn't going to convince anyone of their viewpoint by choosing not to attempt to prove their point. By choosing to say "not my problem," Person 2 is accepting liability for not attempting to change their opponent's minds if/when they get out-voted on the issue in the real world, as is currently happening.

Re: EFF launches Age Verification Hub

#362

Post by anon291 »

pksebben wrote: post #305
anon291 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes all those things are great, but you'll notice that instead of explaining this to the non-technical crowd, technology focused privacy concerned individuals rarely attempt to educate about how these could work. Instead they simply seem to be against any sort of control on what children watch online. Given that it's also coming from a bunch of tech males, it comes across as extraordinarily creepy. This is not hard t…

If I believed that the efforts in question were in earnest, I would absolutely be talking through the finer points of how to do it right. I don't believe that, though. The veneer of legitimacy here is paper thin - we start with a very weatherbeaten conservative war drum (think of the children!) and immediately jump into "let's ruin privacy for everyone and I totally promise this isn't another Cambridge Analytica".

I don't think the average suburban parent worried about their kids accessing these things online really maliciously intends to spy on you; they just can't imagine how to keep little Sally safe without doing so, and large government agencies are telling them it's a requirement. Maybe, if you assumed the best in other voters, just like we are to assume the best of others on this forum, you'd have a more convincing argument?

Re: EFF launches Age Verification Hub

#363

Post by Eisenstein »

jacobgkau wrote: post #361
Eisenstein wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Person 2 has no duty to prove anything (or to enter the conversation at all), but Person 2 isn't going to convince anyone of their viewpoint by choosing not to attempt to prove their point. By choosing to say "not my problem," Person 2 is accepting liability for not attempting to change their opponent's minds if/when they get out-voted on the issue in the real world, as is currently happening.

If people want to be swayed by emotional appeals with no evidence, I can't stop them. But I am not going to play that same game in response.

Re: EFF launches Age Verification Hub

#365

Post by kcplate »

Eisenstein wrote: post #363
jacobgkau wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Person 2 has no duty to prove anything (or to enter the conversation at all), but Person 2 isn't going to convince anyone of their viewpoint by choosing not to attempt to prove their point. By choosing to say "not my problem," Person 2 is accepting liability for not attempting to change their opponent's minds if/when they get out-voted on the issue in the real world, as is currently happening.

If people want to be swayed by emotional appeals with no evidence, I can't stop them. But I am not going to play that same game in response.

What an interesting deflection. My initial comment mentioned the significant difference in access to porn between today and 40-50 years ago. You made a claim that it was meaningless. You brought the concept of its “effect” to the conversation.

Re: EFF launches Age Verification Hub

#366

Post by Eisenstein »

kcplate wrote: post #365
Eisenstein wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people want to be swayed by emotional appeals with no evidence, I can't stop them. But I am not going to play that same game in response.

What an interesting deflection. My initial comment mentioned the significant difference in access to porn between today and 40-50 years ago. You made a claim that it was meaningless. You brought the concept of its “effect” to the conversation.

It is interesting that you are accusing me of deflection when you are arguing with me about why it is my duty to prove you wrong instead of defending your premise. Let's start with the specific harms that porn causes.

Re: EFF launches Age Verification Hub

#367

Post by kcplate »

Eisenstein wrote: post #366
kcplate wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What an interesting deflection. My initial comment mentioned the significant difference in access to porn between today and 40-50 years ago. You made a claim that it was meaningless. You brought the concept of its “effect” to the conversation.

It is interesting that you are accusing me of deflection when you are arguing with me about why it is my duty to prove you wrong instead of defending your premise. Let's start with the specific harms that porn causes.

No, I never made any claim that you have any duty to do anything at all, that is something you are inventing. Frankly, I don’t care if you explain anything or not. I provided information about the ease of access of porn among young people pre-internet. You made a claim that ease of access didn’t matter. I asked for clarity on that and you don’t want to provide it.

So be it.

Re: EFF launches Age Verification Hub

#368

Post by Eisenstein »

kcplate wrote: post #367
Eisenstein wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is interesting that you are accusing me of deflection when you are arguing with me about why it is my duty to prove you wrong instead of defending your premise. Let's start with the specific harms that porn causes.

No, I never made any claim that you have any duty to do anything at all, that is something you are inventing. Frankly, I don’t care if you explain anything or not. I provided information about the ease of access of porn among young people pre-internet. You made a claim that ease of access didn’t matter. I asked for clarity on that and you don’t want to provide it. So be it.

> would have a similar emotional and mental impact

You never stated what that impact was, and then tried to make me explain why you are wrong without you defining what your hypothesis is. What is the emotional and mental impact of porn? Why do you press for clarity from me, when you are the one that should be providing it?

Re: EFF launches Age Verification Hub

#369

Post by kcplate »

Eisenstein wrote: post #368
kcplate wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I never made any claim that you have any duty to do anything at all, that is something you are inventing. Frankly, I don’t care if you explain anything or not. I provided information about the ease of access of porn among young people pre-internet. You made a claim that ease of access didn’t matter. I asked for clarity on that and you don’t want to provide it. So be it.

> would have a similar emotional and mental impact You never stated what that impact was, and then tried to make me explain why you are wrong without you defining what your hypothesis is. What is the emotional and mental impact of porn? Why do you press for clarity from me, when you are the one that should be providing it?

I brought up that ease of access was significantly different then and now. That’s the lived experience I brought to the greater conversation. You didn’t argue that I was wrong about that ease of access, you decided to bring its effect into the conversation and said it didn’t matter. I made no reference to the effects in my original comment because it wasn’t about that. It was about ease of access being different. Only after you brought up effect did the conversation shift that way.

You left your thought and argument (whatever that was), incomplete. That’s your prerogative, but it’s a poor debate technique if your hope is to convince someone of your opinion.

Re: EFF launches Age Verification Hub

#370

Post by pnw »

greenavocado wrote: post #335
pnw wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would an SMS code sent to a phone number be traced to the specific user? Anonymous VOIP numbers are plentiful.

You need to show identification to get a SIM card. You can't receive the text message without cellular service. I had to show my passport to get a SIM card.

Anonymous SIM cards are available e.g. https://www.phreeli.com/
Post reply on HN