[dead]
Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'
401–410 of 448 posts
Re: Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'
#402So, what will be the proper technology to apply here? I have no problem with verification of my age (not the date of birth, just the boolean, >18yo), but I do have a problem with sending any party a picture of my face or my passport.
Discord got me to do this about 2 weeks ago (I'm Australian so they seem to be rolling this out here too), at least for the face scan the privacy policy said it occurred on device, so if you believe that you're not sending anyone images of your face.
we don't store your face [just the unique biometric metadata weights]. a computer doesn't need a picture to identify you, just store the numbers and you can legally claim you aren't "storing the picture".
Re: Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'
#403Earlier 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?
Andrew Tate is basically the core of the Manosphere [0].
Re: Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'
#404I would like to think there there is a solution that can be engineered, in which a service is able to verify that a user is above an appropriate age threshold, while maintaining privacy safeguards, including, where relevant, for the age-protected service not to be privy to the identity of the user, and for the age verification service to not be privy to the nature of the age-protected service being accessed. In this…
Unfortunately, no amount of blockchains and zero-knowledge proofs can compensate for the fact that 15 year old has a 18 year old friend. Or the fact that other 15 year old looks older than some 20 year olds. Or the fact that other 15 year old's dad often leaves his wallet, with his driving license, unattended. Over the next five years, you can look forward to a steady trickle of stories in the press about shocked par…
None of these things are a problem.
> 15 year old has a 18 year old friend
Adults can be prosecuted for helping minors circumvent the checks.
> Or the fact that other 15 year old looks older than some 20 year olds
See Australian approach. Site can verify you and both government and site don't know who you are. No need for photo.
> shocked parents finding
No law is a replacement for bad parenting. But good parenting is easier with the right laws.
> a one-time over-18 age verification check
it can happen more than once non intrusively.
Re: Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'
#405Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps because as an adult you understand we understand this can influence them when its not supervised?
Perhaps it would be a better solution to ban the dehumanising kind of porn for everyone.
Nice idea, but how? How could that actually be accomplished, without stacking SCOTUS with conservative and/or feminist justices? My other comment pointing out the 1A problem with proposals to ban porn was downvoted but nobody has been able to explain how I'm wrong.
Requiring porn businesses to check IDs would be, legally and politically, much easier.
Re: Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'
#406Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is why I think it's great when schools ban phones in class. This was the absolute norm in the 00s when cellphones became common and cheap enough for teens to often have one. If you were seen with a phone out it would be confiscated. At some point schools apparently just gave up and only a few are starting to rediscover the policy as though it's a novel idea. What the fuck happened? When exactly did this transi…
> When exactly did this transition happen? In the late 2000s, as a response to a parental demand for communication and safety following high-profile school emergencies, especially school shootings.
Crazy. Compromising the quality of education for everybody every school day so that on rare occasions a very small number of students might be able to call their parents (who will be powerless to help over the phone.)
Re: Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'
#407Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point is that the German society wasn't inherently evil, but stunned, indifferent; a comparatively small group of thoroughly sinister people managed to use that to their advantage. The correct thing to do would have been civil resistance, while it was still possible.
But a state is its population, by your own words. How can you say German society wasn't inherently evil and yet hold that a state IS its people? Either the German population is evil and willed evil into existence, or the state is greater than the sum of its parts. It seems obvious that the latter is the case.
Now that's mixing things. We are talking about democracies; and there, a state is its population: Every constituent carries responsibility for the government—the state—that is elected in fair elections. Even by abstaining, you agree with the majority. Without the German people, there wouldn't be a state of Germany.
But of course that doesn't apply to autocracies and dictatorships, which Germany pre-WW2 obviously turned into. My point is that the Germans voted for the NSDAP, and dit not resist the transformation into an autocratic state. They let this happen, out of indifference, wrong assumptions, anger, stupidity, and fear. That means one way or another, the German people decided what the state became.
Re: Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'
#408why wouldn't an identity/age verification scheme that blinds both sides work? e.g. a site wants to have some proof of identity. it generates a token and sends the user with it to a government service. the service verifies the user's identity, signs the token and sends the user back. now the site knows that the government service has verified the identity (and relevant characteristics, like age threshold), but doesn't…
it works (ZKP, DID) and some countries do it (https://www.forbes.com.au/news/innovation/why-the-future-of-..., Germany too allegedly)
Re: Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'
#409Earlier quoted context omitted.
[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…
I would be interested in a discussion here about what sex acts people find demeaning to women. You cherry-picked from a narrow band of agreeable examples. Are blow jobs themselves demeaning to women? I suspect that many (perhaps here but certainly elsewhere) would say so.
I would also welcome a discussion about how porn might be disadvantageous to boys (and the very medicated male performers) and how all this contrasts with tolerance towards non-sexual violence depicted on screen.
Re: Discord's face scanning age checks 'start of a bigger shift'
#410Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Jesus, how does your society still function when underage people can see videos of people having sex?! It kind of isn't anymore. But not just because of porn, obviously. Early porn exposure goes hand in hand with the problems we see typified in the recent Netflix movie Adolescence. Seen women constantly railed and treated like meat when that young probably does do something. "Videos of people having sex" is deliber…
> "Videos of people having sex" is deliberately misleading it literally isn't. porn is mostly people having normal sex or just nude images of a woman. the existence of fringe fetish stuff doesn't affect that in any practical way. but your confusion seems to be thinking this discussion was about feminism or something when it's really just a decrepit boomer who is against sex being even legal lying through his teeth to…
You can map the availability of pornography to a rise in risky sex practices like choking. This isn't a problem inherent to pornography itself—rather, it's a factor of inadequate sex ed combined with the commonplace irresponsible presentation of certain sex acts in porn. Still, it'd be misleading to present porn as an entirely neutral depiction of sex. Mainstream pornography demonstrably does spread some harmful ideas. This is also true of Hollywood cinema, though; all media works this way, to a greater or lesser extent.