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

Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

news.dyne.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 486 posts

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#381

Post by microtonal »

poly2it wrote: post #148
hei-lima wrote: post #71

I was a kid with unrestricted, unsupervised internet access, and it definitely affected many things in my life. If I happen to have a child in the future, they won't go through that. The Brazilian government passed a law requiring age verification for every site categorized as 16+. It can't be self-declared, so companies usually resort to facial scans and ID verification. I DO NOT want photos of our Brazilian childre…

I guess the opposite case might not be as interesting to many, but I achieved basically unfiltered internet access as a child, and it has been immensely helpful for me as a person. Everything I am today -- a programmer, technically literate, a founder of a startup with momentum, I am because I had freedom and autonomy as a child (which was not granted to me, rather achieved by me). Many of the people of my age who gr…

I am happy that I grew up in simpler times. I have to thank Linux Developer Resource CD-ROM sets, FreeBSD CD-ROM sets, etc. to make me a Unix fan, a programmer and technically literate. We lived in a small rural town in the north of The Netherlands, and the only way to access the internet was by using 25ct per minute dail-up, to which my parents said "no".

So instead every time I got a new Linux or FreeBSD CD-ROM set, I would go through all the documentation and try everything out, and read source code. I got Pascal and C books through the local library, where you had to order the book and usually wait two or three weeks.

But I also didn't have the omnipresent cameras (you could still do dumb stuff as a kid and not get filmed/photographed). No pressure to show a fake version of yourself on social media. No pressure to be always available through instant messaging.

I feel like it was the best time to be a kid. Access to information was relatively easy (albeit slower than on the internet), but without all the terrible downsides for kids. Without all the dopamine shots and highly addictive social media and games. Without the all-ways present tracking of your every move.

Though even the kids slightly after me probably still had a good time. Early 2000s, Internet access became more ubiquitous, but it still took almost 10 years for the worst of addictive websites, etc. to rise. I sure miss the early web.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#382

Post by simonask »

abcde666777 wrote: post #260
simonask wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that even a single person in the world is trans because of "trans ideology" is what's absolutely insane here. If you think you could be convinced by anyone that you're not living out your true gender identity, I have news for you... Most people, children too, are not having those thoughts unless there's actually a journey waiting for them.

The idea that none of them are trans for that reason is what sound insane to me. Are you not aware of how much humans absorb from the messaging in their environment? And FYI, I've seen it happen with one of my own family members - someone who so far as I can tell isn't 'a man in a woman's body', but rather just someone who never fit in and was always a bit of a social outcast. Their struggle was never their bloody ge…

I just think it's really dangerous to think you know better than another person about their internal struggles.

While you may think they are being affected by certain kinds of messaging, you also have to interrogate that you yourself are being affected by other kinds of messaging, shaping your view on how gender functions.

This is the exact same reasoning behind anti-gay laws around the world: That telling people it's OK to be gay will cause them to somehow "choose" to be gay, which to anyone who is actually either straight or gay is completely absurd - they couldn't change that aspect of themselves even if they wanted to.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#384

Post by microtonal »

cedws wrote: post #255
poly2it wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess the opposite case might not be as interesting to many, but I achieved basically unfiltered internet access as a child, and it has been immensely helpful for me as a person. Everything I am today -- a programmer, technically literate, a founder of a startup with momentum, I am because I had freedom and autonomy as a child (which was not granted to me, rather achieved by me). Many of the people of my age who gr…

I think the same for me, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t be in my career if I had been restricted to an hour a day on a filtered iPad. But I also think the internet has more potential for harm now. Widespread social media makes it easy for predators. YouTube actively incentivises content creators to produce brain numbing shit instead of the more amateur and educational content I was exposed to. Instagram creates vicious d…

That being said, I’m in favour of parents doing the parenting, not the government.

This aspect of parenting is really hard. If your kid is 10 years old and all their classmates have Roblox, saying 'no' to your kid does isolate them socially, because all the other kids are talking about what they did in Roblox at school and play Roblox together after school. To make it worse, some primary schools even allow kids to play Roblox at school during breaks or the teachers make TikTok videos, making kids want to have Tik Tok as well (TikTok-teachers are a real phenomenon), etc. So, even when you are trying, it gets undermined by others. Trying to fight it is kind of pointless, because most other parents don't see the issue.

Same for e.g. instant messaging, it is basically Sophie's choice: you allow them into these addiction machines or you isolate them socially. It would be much easier if social media and certain types of addictive games were just not allowed under 16. Just like we don't sell cigarettes or alcohol to kids.

I also completely agree with the counterpoint that age verification on the internet is generally bad.

Luckily, some things can be done without grave privacy violations. E.g. where high schools 10-15 years ago would gloat about being iPad or laptop schools, more and more are completely banning smart phones and laptops during school time.

At any rate, it's perfectly possible to hold both views at the same time: social media and addictive games should be forbidden under 16 and the age verification initiatives are terrible for privacy.

Maybe we should just ban Facebook, TikTok, etc. no more addiction, no more age verification needed :).

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#385

Post by Nursie »

SarahC_ wrote: post #320
hei-lima wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean... access to adult content at that age is really, really bad. It really messed up my brain. Gore videos, chatting with adults, etc. But I learned many good things, too. It's a double-edged sword.

Seeing people squish at a young age - and I am not being flippant here - helped reduce my teen "I'm immortal! I'm unstoppable!" phase. I saw very quickly that what separates a live person from a very deceased flat person was a moment of sillyness/forgetfullness/stupidity. "I didn't SUSPECT that is even possible to happen to a person!" - "We're....fragile?!" - "Ah, bike helmet... I think they're REALLY GOOD idea...."…

> helped reduce my teen "I'm immortal! I'm unstoppable!" phase.

I mean, is that good?

Isn’t another way of looking at that to say that it poisoned an innocent time and left you aware and afraid of death when you might otherwise have been enjoying the end of your childhood without that burden?

In general parents might want their kids to be a little more mindful, but not grow up too soon.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#386

Post by fer »

poly2it wrote: post #148
hei-lima wrote: post #71

I was a kid with unrestricted, unsupervised internet access, and it definitely affected many things in my life. If I happen to have a child in the future, they won't go through that. The Brazilian government passed a law requiring age verification for every site categorized as 16+. It can't be self-declared, so companies usually resort to facial scans and ID verification. I DO NOT want photos of our Brazilian childre…

I guess the opposite case might not be as interesting to many, but I achieved basically unfiltered internet access as a child, and it has been immensely helpful for me as a person. Everything I am today -- a programmer, technically literate, a founder of a startup with momentum, I am because I had freedom and autonomy as a child (which was not granted to me, rather achieved by me). Many of the people of my age who gr…

I agree and disagree with you.

I'm roughly the same as you in terms of information access, though whether I was a child is debatable; was 14 when I got my first dialup connection. My family wasn't tech-adjacent so it was me who pushed for it; the only control in place was the amount of time I'd spend there.

The only control I have in place on my son in terms of content is whether something is scary or if he won't be able to understand most of it, because arguably he's still too young for many things.

But once he's 12 I don't think I want to restrict most things in terms of content, and by 16 I personally don't care if he watches hardcore midget porn, as long as I have the chance to contextualise and explain the industry.

But.

What I'd rather control (or ban, even) is rather all ML-driven doomscrolling platforms and the "social media" that turned people no longer social. The Internet you and I grew up in no longer exists (or it's a small hidden fraction of it), and now it's a wasteland of engagement traps and corporate revenue directed dark patterns.

You and I learnt to separate wheat from chaff, research, deep dive, and what not. Internet is now, by and large, instant gratification loops and user tracking. I don't want my son (or myself, actually) pulled into that. Porn is literally healthier: you bust a nut and go on with your day, but I see some people wasting hours on end, reel-after-reel, with increasingly targeted ads shoved to their face. Hard pass on that.

Age control, if any, should lie in the hands of the parent/guardian. Make it by law a setting on the routers (new devices are All of that leaving aside the fact that zero knowledge proofs solve this problem without sharing any sensitive information.

But of course, the corporations benefiting from this are not interested in pushing those, IMO reasonable, age controls.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#387

Post by Nursie »

GeoAtreides wrote: post #79
smartmic wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s only too late when we stop fighting back and accept it as a given. Don’t underestimate civil disobedience and the hacker spirit.

UK showed how to deal with civil disobedience (fast tracked judicial process). Hardware attestation will deal with the hacker spirit. Above all, the LLM panopticon will watch us all. Technology will not save us. Nothing will save us but ourselves and we're busy making rent and doomscrolling.

> UK showed how to deal with civil disobedience (fast tracked judicial process)

What is it you mean by this?

I see so many offhand comments about the dystopian UK here but AFAICT there’s a lot of noise and very little meat. The only thing I can think you mean is the UK is currently debating a bill to limit jury trials to more serious offences. While I do find that pretty offensive, there’s nothing fast track about any of its justice system at the moment.

On the contrary, people are waiting years for trial, which is bad for the accused because they have it hanging over them, and bad for victims who get no swift resolution.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#389

Post by GeoAtreides »

Nursie wrote: post #387
GeoAtreides wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UK showed how to deal with civil disobedience (fast tracked judicial process). Hardware attestation will deal with the hacker spirit. Above all, the LLM panopticon will watch us all. Technology will not save us. Nothing will save us but ourselves and we're busy making rent and doomscrolling.

> UK showed how to deal with civil disobedience (fast tracked judicial process) What is it you mean by this? I see so many offhand comments about the dystopian UK here but AFAICT there’s a lot of noise and very little meat. The only thing I can think you mean is the UK is currently debating a bill to limit jury trials to more serious offences. While I do find that pretty offensive, there’s nothing fast track about an…

I meant the way it deal with the southport rioters (no judgement value on the riot itself or its reasons, just noticing how the uk gov dealt with the it)

For example:

>Courts will sit for 24 hours to fast-track sentencing under government plans to crack down on far-Right riots that swept Britain on Saturday.[1]

[1]https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/03/courts-open-24-h...

There is also this:

>Only Australia arrested climate and environmental protesters at a higher rate than UK police. One in five Australian eco-protests led to arrests, compared with about 17% in the UK. The global average rate is 6.7%.

>The UK’s Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2021 and the Public Order Act 2022 transformed the relationship between protesters and the state, handing police extensive new powers to curtail protests and criminalising a range of protest activities. [2]

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/11/britain-...

Boot, face, forever, etc

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#390

Post by cluckindan »

bluegatty wrote: post #181
cluckindan wrote: post #18

It’s not even a debate if these controls are problematic. The litmus test is to mentally substitute the age field for an ancestry field and place the system in 1930’s Germany. Coincidently, that system was provided by IBM.

'Preventing children from buying guns is Nazism!' Actually, this sentiment is a 'litmus test' for common sense. We use age discrimination universally in all affairs, across the globe, across all cultures. Of course the same thing is going to apply to 'content', it's just a lot harder and creates ugly externalizations. It's a real problem, with no real solutions, at least not yet.

Nobody is arguing that gun shops shouldn’t check buyers’ ID. That’s a strawman.

The situation is more like we set up a new system of checkpoint booths on every highway at city limits, and anyone entering the city gets their ID checked, and that is justified by claiming that it’s so children can’t buy guns.

Post reply on HN