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

Online age-verification tools for child safety are surveilling adults

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 371 posts

Re: Online age-verification tools for child safety are surveilling adults

#361

Post by RHSeeger »

vladms wrote: post #100
RHSeeger wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're downplaying it in the same way that others are overplaying it. - There are servers that are labelled adult only because it's simpler to label _everything_ as causing cancer than it is to only label the correct things. I can't join channels for some games because they're "adult"; even though they're not - There are servers that are getting rid of content because they don't want some automatic system to label th…

> It's negatively impacting people and servers that have no interest in having anything adult on them. So who should police that? I am in certain communities that try to be stricter on moderation (which I love!) but it's hard work, lots of people trying to be at the edge of rules (with normal things like swearing, insults, etc.). Whoever labels adult only and does not care is not wishing to put the effort to police t…

> So who should police that?

I don't have the right answers. I don't know that there _is_ a right answer.

> Whoever labels adult only and does not care is not wishing to put the effort to police that it actually is not.

Or they're unwilling to risk the consequences of making a mistake.

> the fact that I am not allowed to post some stupid adult-looking meme.

But, in my example, you don't lose the ability to post some stupid adult-looking meme. You lose the ability to post ANY meme. Because the risk of someone posting something over the line is that the entire server is suddenly adult only. And for something like a game server, that's can be a catastrophic change; it can destroy the community.

Is being able post memes that important? No, probably not. But giving up the entire ability to do something fun, that doesn't cause any real harm, because someone might do something stupid... and the response to that will be a full nuclear destruction of your community. Yeah, that part sucks.

Re: Online age-verification tools for child safety are surveilling adults

#362

Post by EmbarrassedHelp »

commandlinefan wrote: post #155
dylkil wrote: post #99

ZK proofs are the solution to this problem. Its a pity this tech is not taken more seriously. I recently used a product that required proof of country (or rather proof of not from certain countries). It was a very painless experience with https://zkpassport.id/

You're assuming that anonymous age verification is or ever was actually the end goal here.

Their comment is advertising a product that undermines user privacy, so I don't think they care.

Re: Online age-verification tools for child safety are surveilling adults

#363

Post by triceratops »

voxic11 wrote: post #359
triceratops wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't know the Online Safety Act had this proposal. Do you have a source? I've been proposing the same thing on this site for months. IMO anonymous age verification with no record-keeping is the only form of age verification that should exist. No zero knowledge proofs, no centralized government identity provider, nothing.

Zero knowledge proofs are better than this "bearer token" proposal because all what is needed to unmask an account is for the shop to note down the name on the ID and the code that was given to them.

I already wrote "no record keeping" in my first comment.

Shop at stores that don't do that. If that doesn't work write it into the law that they aren't allowed to record your ID.

For alcohol and tobacco, stores don't even card people that obviously appear to be legal age. So most people won't ever show any ID to a clerk.

I've been buying alcohol since turning legal age, in multiple countries and jurisdictions. Never had my ID scanned or stored.

Re: Online age-verification tools for child safety are surveilling adults

#364

Post by Cthulhu_ »

tmaly wrote: post #41
john_strinlai wrote: post #6

> An FTC spokesperson told CNBC that companies must limit how collected information is used. [...] The agency pointed to existing rules requiring firms to retain personal information only as long as reasonably necessary and to safeguard its confidentiality and integrity. the very same rules that have allowed literally every single piece of my data to be leaked several separate times, and now i have free credit monito…

I have gotten several notices of medical data being leaked over the last two years. I thought HIPPA law had very harsh fines for this, but I guess they just look the other way.

Some companies may have paid fines, some people may have lost their jobs over incidents like these, but the repercussions aren't severe enough to be a deterrent.

Re: Online age-verification tools for child safety are surveilling adults

#365

Post by specialist »

lapcat wrote: post #127
Scapeghost wrote: post #62

Man... How did yall white Westerners turn out to be the weakest people in the world? You were supposed to be the bastions of freedom and justice, and the rest of the world begrudgingly admired you for that and were slowly improving to become like you, but ever since 9/11/2001 the rich old people that rule you have been feeding you boogeymen to make you their complacent b*tches and you lay down and crawl along and acc…

> Man... How did yall white Westerners turn out to be the weakest people in the world? You were supposed to be the bastions of freedom and justice This is a misunderstanding of American history. From its founding by wealthy white male landowners and slaveowners, the US was by design a plutocracy, enshrined in the Constitution with various anti-democratic (small "d") measures such as separation of powers, the electora…

Agree with all. Especially about nationalization.

The origins of each colony (a la Albion's Seed) continue to shape our politics. Spoiler: The Virginians won.

> it took a "white knight"

Yes and: each progressive reform, however modest, barely squeaked thru, overcoming huge opposition. The Farmstead Act (et al), New Deal, Great Society, ACA, IRA, etc.

Followed by an outsized reactionary backlash. Every single time. Just like the current cycle of revanchism.

--

Albion's Seed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albion%27s_Seed

Re: Online age-verification tools for child safety are surveilling adults

#366

Post by hamburglar »

Tuna-Fish wrote: post #144
hamburglar wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did I miss a memo on Linux somehow requiring age verification now? How would that even work?

You missed US states competing on setting up age verification legislation that lets anyone sue any developer who produces systems that don't do age verification for life-destroying amounts of money.

So, Linus? Patrick Volkerding? I mean, I can build a Linux system from basically nothing.

Re: Online age-verification tools for child safety are surveilling adults

#367

Post by ClayShentrup »

galangalalgol wrote: post #316
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ditching first past the poles and mitigating gerrymandering would also obviously help. Mitigating gerrymandering is a lost cause with first past the post because someone has to draw the lines and whoever is in the majority at the time is going to find a way to benefit themselves. It's especially hard because in a state which is e.g. 60% for one party, drawing the lines in a "normal" way can pretty easily result in…

With scoring isn't the logical play to score your favorite the highest and zero out everyone else? Then it just devolves to fptp.

a common fallacy of basic logic.

with FPTP, strategic voting means NOT voting for your favorite. so at the very least, you'd "vote for the person you'd normally support under FPTP, _plus_ everyone you like better".

but in real life, a lot of people will use intermediate scores.

https://www.rangevoting.org/RVstrat6

Re: Online age-verification tools for child safety are surveilling adults

#368

Post by ClayShentrup »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #330
galangalalgol wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With scoring isn't the logical play to score your favorite the highest and zero out everyone else? Then it just devolves to fptp.

No, to begin with the people who want to play stupid games would give the highest score to every candidate they approve of and the lowest score to everyone else, and then it devolves to approval voting, which is significantly better than FPTP -- and IRV. And even doing that is people being too clever by half. Imagine there are three candidates. The one you prefer is polling at a score of 6/10, another that you like a…

nailed it.

Re: Online age-verification tools for child safety are surveilling adults

#369

Post by ClayShentrup »

galangalalgol wrote: post #331
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, to begin with the people who want to play stupid games would give the highest score to every candidate they approve of and the lowest score to everyone else, and then it devolves to approval voting, which is significantly better than FPTP -- and IRV. And even doing that is people being too clever by half. Imagine there are three candidates. The one you prefer is polling at a score of 6/10, another that you like a…

Interesting, and what are your thoughts on the star variant? Also what is so bad about irv?

what's so bad about IRV?

https://www.rangevoting.org/CoreSuppPocket https://www.rangevoting.org/BayRegsFig

https://web.archive.org/web/20190219005733/https://sites.goo...

https://clayshentrup.medium.com/later-no-harm-72c44e145510 https://clayshentrup.medium.com/star-voting-is-simpler-than-...

Re: Online age-verification tools for child safety are surveilling adults

#370

Post by ClayShentrup »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #337
galangalalgol wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, and what are your thoughts on the star variant? Also what is so bad about irv?

STAR is basically fine, it's a variant on score. There are several problems with IRV, but the most obvious one is that it can often knock the moderate candidate out of the final round. Suppose you have a district that goes 60% for one party. That party runs two candidates and the other party runs one. With IRV, one of the first party's candidates is the most likely to get knocked out, because they'll each average ~30…

preach, brudda.
Post reply on HN