Live data from Hacker News

Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

news.dyne.org

391–400 of 486 posts

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#391
This article seems to be mostly an AI reformulation of the standard retort in tech: "Protecting kids online should be the parents' responsibility, not ours!"

> Guardianship is something else. It is the contextual responsibility of parents, teachers, schools, and other trusted adults to decide what is appropriate for a child, when exceptions make sense, and how supervision should evolve over time. Moderation is partly technical. Guardianship is relational, local, and situated in specific contexts.

But there is no mention how this guardianship is supposed to work in practice if unsupervised internet access is pushed everywhere: Kids are expected to have their own devices (or will use one from a friend), school whatsapp groups are at the same time essential for communication and potentially dangerous. Even if a page filter is set on a phone, which pages exactly would you block or unblock?

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#392
post #37
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it would be helpful to engage with the possibility that they are neither stupid nor ignorant, rather that they simply have different values and priorities than the early internet users.

And what would those values and priorities be? Because it doesn't seem to me that they align with what they actually do. For example, it seems to me there is a whole lot of worry around megacorporations, often related to capitalism and the inequalities it brings. In that context, if you don't place privacy as a priority, how are you not either stupid or ignorant? Is my premise just wrong?

I don't know why I'm the only person online willing to steelman this, but...

The early Internet users weren't people who subscribed to AOL to look at porn in the 90's. They were the people who were granted access to the ARPANET to work in the 80's. The Internet was an exclusive community back then. You had government employees, knowledge workers, and elite university students who had all passed institutional screening processes. You were only allowed to use the ARPANET if you were using it to do something useful and aligned. Therefore you could feel reasonably assured that anyone you talked to online was going to be better than the average person you'd find going outside and walking down the street. If you wanted to know who they were, you could just finger their username. If you wanted to know who owned a domain, you could whois it, get their name and then even write them mail or call them.

People have wanted that old Internet back for a long time. i.e. the one that existed before Eternal September. Those are the people who run your tech companies. The ones who remember what it was like. These people understand what people actually want isn't always the same thing as what they say they want. They understand why the only truly successful Internet spaces on the modern Internet are the ones like Facebook that got people to be non-anonymous. Another example is the best places to work that folks desperately want to get into are the companies like Google whose intranets are much more like the old Internet. These are really the only Internet spaces that normal people want to use. Because people want to interact with other people who are similar to them. Because people want to know who other people are. Otherwise we can't operate as the social creatures that evolution designed us to be. I don't think any civilization in history has operated its public square as a gigantic red light district where everyone is required to wear a mask. So why should we?

Overcoming the anonymous religion problem that somehow glommed onto the hacker and cyberpunk movements is more important and urgent now than it's ever been, because the Internet has been filling up with billions of AI agents. It's gonna be Eternal September in overdrive. Humanity is really facing a tradeoff where you'll have to have gatekeeping again and won't be allowed to conceal who you are, or you can be gaslit by machines forever in your own robot fantasy.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#393
post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not to mention that this could create perpetually morbidly afraid individuals.

Yeah now they know they might die, but they also know they will die.

Cool. What now? You might have a kid thinking that they are going to die tomorrow, for the next 70 years.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#394
post #332
post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alright, so does that mean we don't need KYC for gun purchases or bank accounts either? Of course you're probably going to say something about how guns and bank accounts are crucial components to crime, in which case the same holds for AI in the mexican telecoms hack.

> Alright, so does that mean we don't need KYC for ... bank accounts either? That sounds reasonable. A bank can just be an institution that holds money for people; they don't need to be all over their customer's business. It is like a telecom not being responsible for what their customers say. In a simple sense banks don't need KYC.

>> A bank can just be an institution that holds money for people

Nope. That is a storage locker. A bank uses the money it holds for other purposes such as loans or its own investments, possibly returning interest to the depositor. But, most importantly, a bank disperses money. it therefore needs to know who deposits what so that it doesn't eventually release funds to the wrong person. And then there are the lengthy procedures for handing out money without customer permission. People die. Governments garnish wages. Courts order payments to for child support. If you hold money you have to be prepared for this stuff. So you need to be absolutely confident in the identity of everyone you deal with.

Want a simple bank? A bank that doesn't ask for ID? Keep your cash under your mattress. Or put it all in a crypto wallet.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#395
100% of the time they want to “protect children” it’s never about that, because if it were, they would do something also to feed them and prevent them from being shot by guns. If the same people pushing for age verifications for all children are not also pushing to feed all hungry children, then I simply do not trust them, at all.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#396
post #387

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…

Presumably the 2011 riots: a college student with no criminal record was jailed for six months for stealing a £3.50 case of bottled water [0]

Or perhaps our current Home Sec in 2014 declaring "Rioters face years in prison as Home Secretary Yvette Cooper promises ‘swift justice’" [1]

[0] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8695988/London...

[1] https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/riots-prison-justice-l...

It's all part of making effective protesting illegal. You can justify each little step as you clutch your pearls (even me, to an extent if I don't think of the bigger picture), but then when you realise that the sum of all that is permitted is standing alone creating no disturbance for anyone, effecting no change, and you realise effective protesting is banned.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#397
post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in an area that has been declared among the safest in America. Two months ago a 17 year old girl from our city disappeared. Turns out she had been being groomed for a year over Discord and in Roblox by a 39 year old the next state over. He eventually convinced her to let him pick her up, after which he filmed himself having sex with her, killed her, and then dismembered her body. He apparently was grooming oth…

> But declaring the situation to simply be a facade to harvest people’s data seems to me like a reflexive response to avoid uncomfortable truths regarding the situation. Well, your example wouldn't be solved by age verification in any way. They could still legally access Roblox or a discord private chat (or even another private chat method) after this law. So the example show how it is about irrational fear and not p…

I'm here wondering why it would make a difference whether the girl is under 18 or not. You could argue that the criminal has to cover up his crime by getting rid of the evidence (murder) because the girl wasn't 18 yet and therefore it makes sense to stop under 18 year old girls from using the platform because they are living evidence, but it actually sounds more like a problem caused by the law itself.

After all, dating apps are an even more extreme version of this. If you're attractive enough, you get to have many one night stands and many murder opportunities.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#398

The big issue isn’t even age verification. The end goal is verified user identification. They want every transaction on the internet to be associated with the exact identity of the user. No more anonymity. In the short term the way it will be implemented is this — age verification will not be a binary, it will also want to push your DoB, name, location etc and they say “the choice is with the user” but the default wi…

[dead]

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#399

The big issue isn’t even age verification. The end goal is verified user identification. They want every transaction on the internet to be associated with the exact identity of the user. No more anonymity. In the short term the way it will be implemented is this — age verification will not be a binary, it will also want to push your DoB, name, location etc and they say “the choice is with the user” but the default wi…

Yeah, none of this is about children. "Think of the children" is just a means to an end, and most likely what we'll find is even when we lose all pretense of anonymity somehow the kids will figure out a way to get access.

> somehow the kids will figure out a way to get access.

This is what they want to happen with the initial round of "it's just a DOB field bro" legislation. It'll be completely useless, easy to bypass, and annoying to adults. But, everyone will be warming up to this government mandated prompt in their OS. Perfect, now legislators know they have a foundation to work with to introduce "reasonable" amendments to this prompt that require you to upload ID, for example. Frogs in a pot.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#400

I read in some other discussions that this is about social media companies being able to increase their profits and nothing else. But the social media companies lobbying for these laws are shamelessly making it look like some kind of protect the children thing. It is all pushing more ads annd getting more users. The way it works: today, social media companies cannot advertise to children under 13 under COPPA. So thes…

Protesting only means something if you're taking on risks.

The same could be said about enterprise, investment, war, etc.

It's the people who won't take risks that schemers try to exclude.

This is the real reason why no one will ever remember your name kid.

Post reply on HN