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

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

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 448 posts

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

#391

Post by iamacyborg »

ndriscoll wrote: post #387
iamacyborg wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My impression is that parents are increasingly alarmed at young boys becoming bitter misogynists This seems more in line with the increase of mysoginist influencers (Andrew Tate and the like) and less to do with porn. The former of course being the type of content that social media companies are more than happy to proactively promote to children.

I'm not particularly familiar with Tate or his story, but wasn't he literally arrested for human trafficking in connection with a porn site that he ran? And that site was part of the start of his "Internet" career? And part of his shtick is bragging about being an "Internet pimp" and running said site?

He was but he’s more well known for his social media posting than for his cam site stuff

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

#392

Post by redserk »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #390
redserk wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the states banning porn weren’t generally the same states restricting medical care for women, I’d say you have a point, but that’s simply not the case. “Protecting women” is the sales pitch, not the objective.

Noncentral fallacy. Nobody's against "medical care for women" except where they believe it overlaps with "legalized murder of children", and it's extremely disingenuous for you to ignore that and act like "medical care" is the part they're against.

I’m disputing your claim that I am invoking a logical fallacy here.

Revoking access to life-critical medical care that is specific to one’s sex is indisputably making the people of a given sex less safe.

Threatening to persecute people who wish to assist women in pursuing life-critical medical care is making women less safe.

If medical care specific to one’s sex cannot be considered protecting the safety of someone on the basis of their sex, what is?

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

#393

Post by Tokumei-no-hito »

anon84873628 wrote: post #372
xphos wrote: post #211

I don't think the problem is that young people are finding porn on the internet. There is a problem, though, and it has to deal with psychological warfare on attention Formats like shorts or news feeds to you algorithmically with zero lag are the problem. It makes for the zombification of decision making. Endless content breaks people down precisely because it's endless. I think if you add age verification but don't…

There was just another article on HN about how Snapchat is harming children at an industrial scale. Not just giving them access to drugs, violence, pedophiles, and extortionists, but actively connecting them with those accounts. Kids have died from fentanyl or committed suicide from bullying and harassment. Porn addiction is bad but it seems there are even worse things happening.

minor correction, it was about tiktok. and although it's a long read it's worth understanding just how absurd things have gotten.

https://www.afterbabel.com/p/industrial-scale-harm-tiktok

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

#394

Post by DrillShopper »

jjmarr wrote: post #248
stego-tech wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, make no mistake, I hate both of these. I loathe this forced surveillance of everyone because parents can't be bothered to supervise and teach their children about the most primary of human animal functions (sex), regardless of their reasons for it. I take great pains to keep minors out of my adult spaces, and don't have to resort to anything as invasive as biometric surveillance or card charges. This notion that…

> This notion that the entire world should be safe for children by default, and that anything and everything adult should be vilified and locked up, is toxic as all get-out and builds shame into the human animal over something required for the perpetuation of the species. The world should be safe for kids because kids are the future of our society. When the world isn't safe, families won't have kids and society will…

The parent said "entire world".

My partner and I do not have kids. Our bedroom is not safe for kids. It will not be made safe for kids (as we're not having any).

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

#395

Post by doublerabbit »

mvdtnz wrote: post #152
doublerabbit wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could chunk it, compress it with gzip. Usenet uses yENC. Public servers sure, may have protections in place but your own server and with IRCd's being easy configurable makes it non-trivial.

And this is somehow better than a "gimmicky" service which handles images natively? Interesting.

Yes, because you don't need to fork $$$ to enable the basic "native" features. Not forgetting the advertising, having your data mined and any other miscreant features that they decide to implement.

You buy Nitro within discord and you still have advertisements.

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

#396

Post by anon84873628 »

Tokumei-no-hito wrote: post #393
anon84873628 wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was just another article on HN about how Snapchat is harming children at an industrial scale. Not just giving them access to drugs, violence, pedophiles, and extortionists, but actively connecting them with those accounts. Kids have died from fentanyl or committed suicide from bullying and harassment. Porn addiction is bad but it seems there are even worse things happening.

minor correction, it was about tiktok. and although it's a long read it's worth understanding just how absurd things have gotten. https://www.afterbabel.com/p/industrial-scale-harm-tiktok

By the time I got there, dang updated the link to the same publication's article on Snapchat, since the TikTok one had been discussed already.

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

#397

Post by DrillShopper »

whiplash451 wrote: post #225
stego-tech wrote: post #164

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…

What you describe is called QES (Qualified Electronic Signature) and is still widely used to validate identities. Unfortunately it is not enough to prove an identity (you could be using the credit card of your traveling uncle) and regulation requires for it to be combined with another proof. I see a lot of people associating identity verification with evil intent (advertising, tracking). I work in this domain and the…

As someone looking in from the outside: what regulations govern this type of work?

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

#398

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

stavros wrote: post #251
ndriscoll wrote: post #167

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]

The problem is that most porn depicts sex as somewhat violent and sets unreasonable expectations of what sex is like.

Not every woman is capable of deep-throating or going straight from vaginal to anal without adding some extra lube. Most women don't want their man to put his hands around her throat during sex. Almost none of them are okay with going from ass to mouth.

Porn also sets an unrealistic standard for penis size. When the average is 5.2 inches with a standard deviation of about an inch, it becomes clear that the 7+ inch penises used in porn are like the top 5%.

I don't think parents are having these conversations with their kids about this.

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

#399

Post by 9dev »

gherard5555 wrote: post #359
9dev wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unless each and every citizens has approved the elected "representative" and every decision they made But they have, by electing the representatives that ought to represent them, and thereby yield the power to make decisions on behalf of their constituents. If they do no not act accordingly, they will not be elected again in subsequent terms; if they act against the law, they will be fairly tried; and if the laws d…

> But they have, by electing the representatives that ought to represent them Yes this is the theory, but what if there is no political party "representing" me, what about people abstaining from voting, what if peoples elect an authoritarian figure I didn't vote for ? This is one of the pitfalls of your system, if only one citizen disagree, or do not feel represented in it, this justification falls apart. You cannot…

> what if there is no political party "representing" me

If it bothers you enough, you’re supposed to create your own party. Democracy doesn’t mean that everyone else is doing the hard work for you.

> what about people abstaining from voting

Silent disagreement—if they were bothered enough, they would go voting.

> what if peoples elect an authoritarian figure I didn't vote for

If a few people do this, the system can (and has, for hundreds of years) handle it just fine. If more and more people do it, something is off, and nobody did anything about it. Part of the problem is people stopped caring and participating, expecting someone else to.

> if only one citizen disagree, or do not feel represented in it, this justification falls apart.

It’s no justification. We live in a shared society, democracy is a compromise to make the most people in it happy.

> the state is not putting me in prison for my dissident opinion, I went to prison myself.

As far as I can see, no democratic state is putting you in prison for a dissenting opinion, as long as you don’t endanger someone else with it.

Otherwise, yes: if you willingly went against the rules you agreed to follow by actively enjoying the benefits of a free, democratic society, then it’s reasonable to go to prison if you’re caught. You expect the same of other criminals, even if they may not realise the error of their ways yet.

People take everything around them for granted, acting like their freedom doesn’t come at a cost. It does. By living in a democracy, you enjoy boundless riches, housing, health care, fair trials, roads, plumbing, electricity, supermarkets, and a myriad of scale effects that are only possible because a lot of people have agreed to work together. The price to thrive in that system is to adhere to our collective rules, and deal with the fact that we constantly need to make compromises with our neighbours so the majority of people can be as happy as possible. And yes, that means even a government that you don’t fully agree with represents you, if not perfectly; it means taking responsibility for the mechanism that feeds you.

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

#400

Post by DrillShopper »

threeseed wrote: post #20
roenxi wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, key point in the framing, when was it decided that Discord supposed to be the one enforcing this? A pop-up saying "you really should be 18+" is one thing, but this sounds like a genuine effort to lock out young people. Neither Discord nor a government ratings agency should be taking final responsibility for how children get bought up, that seems like something parents should be responsible for. This is over-rea…

> This is over-reach. Both in the UK and Australia 2/3 of Australians support minimum age restrictions for social media [1] and it was in-particular popular amongst parents. Putting the responsibility solely on parents shows ignorance of the complexities of how children are growing up these days. Many parents have tried to ban social media only for those children to experience ostracisation amongst their peer group l…

> Putting the responsibility solely on parents shows ignorance of the complexities of how children are growing up these days.

Don't have kids if you're unwilling to parent them. "It's hard! :(" is not an argument.

"We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!"

Post reply on HN