Online age verification is the hill to die on

Post by trinsic2 » Wed, Apr 29, 2026, 9:04 PM UTC

Bender wrote: post #379

trinsic2 wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, please don't sideline/marginalize people by using the "whataboutism" term. Thats being used more and more to silence dialog from people that see problems outside the focus of a specific area. Its important that we see ALL sides of the problem.

Fair enough. Even though I do not perceive it that way I removed it in the event a majority of others have come to this conclusion.

Post by Forgeties79 » Wed, Apr 29, 2026, 9:06 PM UTC

dpark wrote: post #349

Forgeties79 wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You jumped to children behind the wheel of vehicles and doing tequila shots. There is no way that was a serious effort at good faith discourse.

I used a rhetorical device to demonstrate why restricting children’s activities is not simply ageism. I don’t know how you can seriously come here and accuse me of engaging in bad faith when I’ve taken the time to make my viewpoint explicit multiple times in this thread now, including directly to you.

Post by rpdillon » Wed, Apr 29, 2026, 9:09 PM UTC

Bender wrote: post #8

The one and only method I will participate in is server operators setting a RTA header [1] for URL's that may contain adult or user-generated or user-contributed content and the clients having the option to detect that header and trigger parental controls if they are enabled by the device owner. That should suffice to protect most small children. Teens will always get around anything anyone implements as they are alr…

Post by array_key_first » Wed, Apr 29, 2026, 9:11 PM UTC

dpark wrote: post #273

pseudalopex wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.[1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I did. Restricting children’s access to certain things is not ageism. We can argue the merits of restricting children’s access to the internet, or certain books, or alcohol, or pornography, or whatever else. We can debate the merits of those various restrictions based on the benefits and costs to both the children and society at large. But it is not ageism to attempt to protect children. It is not ageism even of the…

Post by array_key_first » Wed, Apr 29, 2026, 9:14 PM UTC

logicchains wrote: post #42

retired wrote: post #34

Age verification on Australian social media has loopholes. Underage influencers use an agency to manage their social media for them. So anyone with enough followers or money can continue using social media under the age of 16. If you are going to implement age controls, you should implement a ban on underage influencers as well.

>If you are going to implement age controls, you should implement a ban on underage influencers as well. That just makes it even worse, why deprive the younger generation of one of the few remaining methods they have to make a decent income? We should be encouraging youth entrepreneurship, not making them spend even longer in classrooms learning things that LLMs will do better than them.