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

411–420 of 486 posts

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#411

Post by fc417fc802 »

Nasrudith wrote: post #356
fc417fc802 wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tiktok-esque national security handwaving. Algorithmic feeds are propaganda tools. A foreign government being able to propagandize your citizens is a legitimate threat, not handwaving.

Think for a nanosecond about how exploitable that is. Imagine for a moment that a foreign nation had obtained proof that say ICE was engaged in sex trafficking and publishing it only for it to be blocked as 'destabilizing propaganda'. If anybody says that propaganda is a valid reason for censorship I say, censor thyself first.

No one said anything about censorship. There are many things that would pose a threat if controlled by a foreign adversary. Communications platforms with algorithmic feeds are one of them.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#412

Post by GeoAtreides »

Nursie wrote: post #407
GeoAtreides wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 arr…

Honestly, so long as there is adequate time for everyone to prepare and adequate oversight, fast tracking like seems to me far preferable to waiting for 2-3 years! And given the Southport riots were, well riots , it’s unsurprising they were dealt with harshly. That said, I agree that what’s happening with protest in both the UK and Australia is deeply wrong. New South Wales in particular seems to be awful on this fro…

>And given the Southport riots were, well riots, it’s unsurprising they were dealt with harshly.

you didn't read or care to understand my argument at all, which is not about the target of the process, but the existence of the process and the process itself. Looks like I have to spell it out: next time won't be race rioters, next time will be protesters protesting the farage gov crackdown on immigrants and minorities.

>It’s not especially surprising that there is a high rate of arrests in the subcategory of protests they picked

the article mentions the rate of arrests is high COMPARED with other countries. And again you're getting lost in the details; this wasn't about what the protests were about, but the brutal swift crackdown AND the laws passed giving police more powers.

Yes, this time they hit your out-group, so all is well. fine. next time, (and this is the crux of my argument), _using the exact same tools_, it's your group, you, that will be targeted.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#413

Post by fc417fc802 »

simonask wrote: post #379
fc417fc802 wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Online anonymity has significant, real-world drawbacks. Do please be specific about those. Provide concrete examples and justify for the class why those involved couldn't have voluntarily done away with anonymity for that particular interaction. Hypothetically someone can browse a tor site in one tab, post on 4chan in a second one, all while accessing online banking in a third. The bank can use hardware backed 2FA…

> Do please be specific about those. Here is one example: It's likely that we will never know who was behind the attempted backdoor in the xz library, which was almost successful in making a huge number of Linux installations worldwide vulnerable to remote exploitation. [1] That malicious contributor is protected by online anonymity. Now, I know that it's probable that a state actor was behind "Jia Tan", meaning they…

> > and justify for the class why those involved couldn't have voluntarily done away with anonymity for that particular interaction.

The project in question could have chosen to verify identities if they deemed it worthwhile to do so.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#414

Post by popcornricecake »

skybrian wrote: post #223
AJ007 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that even begin to make sense? I want to protect my child from X type of content -- one of many jobs of a parent, but I will trust all content to self report to be child inappropriate? "Inappropriate" is entirely subjective and can not be defined as some sort universal bool -- and that's before you get to the point of actively malicious actors like Meta and Tiktok actively exploiting children for their conte…

The idea is that society should have some common standards for what's inappropriate for children. For example, parents don't want their kids to buy cigarettes, but also, stores don't want to sell them cigarettes. When there's consensus on this, cooperation is possible. Parents have an easier time when they get cooperation from the rest of society. But there isn't going to be consensus on everything, so content filter…

It's the internet. There are no borders and there is no mandate to follow any consensus. Stores may not want to sell cigarettes to children, but e-stores safely hosted in some remote country do want to sell them nicotine pouches and vapes. With a protocol that makes age information always available to websites they could hide their intentions from adults while actively targeting children.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#415

Post by Nursie »

GeoAtreides wrote: post #412
Nursie wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, so long as there is adequate time for everyone to prepare and adequate oversight, fast tracking like seems to me far preferable to waiting for 2-3 years! And given the Southport riots were, well riots , it’s unsurprising they were dealt with harshly. That said, I agree that what’s happening with protest in both the UK and Australia is deeply wrong. New South Wales in particular seems to be awful on this fro…

>And given the Southport riots were, well riots, it’s unsurprising they were dealt with harshly. you didn't read or care to understand my argument at all, which is not about the target of the process, but the existence of the process and the process itself. Looks like I have to spell it out: next time won't be race rioters, next time will be protesters protesting the farage gov crackdown on immigrants and minorities.…

> the existence of the process

Yes, I know you think it’s bad that it exists. I don’t.

So long as it is carried out with proper oversight and people have time to prepare their cases, it actually appears preferable to endless delay which is the current hallmark of the British justice system. Do you disagree? Why?

Do you have a reason to think that justice served this way is less fair or rigorous?

Because frankly I’d rather get in the express lane at that point if I was on the receiving end, than have to live with the process over my head for 2-3 years.

> the article mentions the rate of arrests is high COMPARED with other countries.

Yes, and it also says some of those other countries are killing environmental protestors, so the picture is not as clear cut as you might like. It certainly suggests problems, but it also suggests that we may not be comparing apples to apples with these figures.

Seriously, maybe read it again if you think this is entirely un-nuanced. Personally I’d like to know more.

I agree with you that giving the police extra powers is bad. I agree the direction of travel is bad.

I disagree that faster justice is bad.

I disagree that a higher arrest rate than other countries on a subset of protests is as black and white as you think.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#416

Post by legacynl »

abcde666777 wrote: post #90
tangotaylor wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their real goals are even worse than that. Some of these groups have admitted they're also about suppressing LGBT+ content. As the Heritage Foundation admitted: > Keeping trans content away from children is protecting kids. No child should be conditioned to think that permanently damaging their healthy bodies to try to become something they can never be is even remotely a good idea. https://arstechnica.com/tech-polic…

I mean, I don't disagree with the sentiment of keeping trans ideology away from kids, in exactly the way I'd want to protect them from any kind of religious indoctrination.

Since you compare it to religious indoctrination: I wouldn't want my child to be indoctrinated into believing some religion, but I still want my children to learn about religion. Not because I think it's important, but because we live on a world where a lot of people DO consider that very important. We don't have to agree, but we should at least try to understand the people around us. The same way I don't think there is any harm in learning kids about trans people, and what might cause someone to decide something radical like trying to change their gender.

Can you explain what you mean with trans ideology? because AFAIK 'ideology' means a collection of beliefs or philosophies, and I don't really understand how that applies to a physiological condition, like it does in the case of religion.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#417

Post by ndriscoll »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #322
ndriscoll wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self categorization has been the status quo since the 90s and has proven to be insufficient. More generally, assuming people agree that something is a social problem/should be restricted, I don't think "have a third party come up with a solution that people can buy to filter us" makes sense. The liability belongs on the people dealing in the restricted item. We don't give kids special debit cards that detect and bloc…

TBH I think this is all either fundamentally flawed or incredibly weak except for your final paragraph. That one actually poses a somewhat interesting question - why the seeming disparity between online and offline porn regulations in the US? Still, it fails to address (or even acknowledge) the differences in the impact of requiring ID between those scenarios. Also I think you have this entire thing exactly backwards…

Sending a header is unworkable because nothing obeys it, there are embedded browsers all over, and even if you mandated that every app/browser do so, kids can get a computer/phone for $20 with no restrictions.

There's no requirement for ID retention online either. In fact, unlike in person, it is banned. And a framework where you just say "you are liable for what you provide to children" actually allows for a site employee to briefly eyeball your ID or just look at you and decide you look old enough (though that doesn't really work with realtime video generation).

Record retention is a different question from checking. I think I and the actual relevant laws have been pretty clear that we should disallow that. No, we do not have anonymous cigarette vending machines (at least anywhere I've been in the US). They are always behind a counter with an ID check.

Except for crypto, I don't think I am familiar with any way to pay for something online without revealing my identity. I'm pretty sure 100% of online purchases I've made over the last 20 years have required name/address and usually phone number as part of payment details. Even with crypto, as far as I know common wisdom on darknet markets is (or was?) to use your real name/address as that's the least suspicious. I don't actually know a single place where you don't give that info to your counterparty. I can't imagine it's common.

What parental controls? As far as I know, Safari is the only modern browser that checks RTA headers (if it still does). There are no options for Chrome or more importantly Firefox, which is the only browser that's fit for purpose with malware blocking (especially for children). Similarly Android has no controls.

I don't see what part of being online makes it less practical to check ID. It seems more practical to me. It's just cheaper not to, and online businesses are big on avoiding labor. That's not some fundamental right of theirs.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#418

Post by acidphreak2k »

gruez wrote: post #303
BobbyJo wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens when everyone needs to use AI for their job? Genuine question that I think gets at the heart of the debate. Once a common technology that everyone has access to becomes powerful enough to alter the lives of others on command, do we as a society just need to do away with the concept of anonymity? We are all just too powerful in isolation, and too much of a threat to the collective, that we cannot reasonab…

>What happens when everyone needs to use AI for their job? Genuine question that I think gets at the heart of the debate. Considering most places does direct deposit and that requires a bank account (so KYC), I don't see what's particularly new here. Many places also do background and/or work eligibility checks, which again is a form of KYC. >Today, you can buy parts/print a completely untraceable firearm, so do we l…

You can buy 80% lowers, which require no serial numbers on them if you don't transfer or sell, and it is pretty trivial to complete the machining necessary to make it a 100% lower. It does not require a professional CNC machining shop.

Buy an 80%, machine it to finish it, and you now have a completely unregistered long rifle with no serial number, and it is completely legal.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#419

Post by acidphreak2k »

watwut wrote: post #365
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The arguments for background checks generally have to be split into two separate classes of people. The first is the mentally ill. Intuitively it seems desirable to say that someone undergoing treatment for e.g. depression shouldn't buy a gun. The problem here is the massive perverse incentive. If you're pretty depressed but you're not inclined to forfeit your ability to buy firearms, you now have a significant incen…

Third, non career violent people. Domestic violence or other interpersonal viole ce should prevent you from having a gun. Regardless of whether you are career criminal

It already does. Here is the list of prohibited persons:

convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

who is a fugitive from justice;

who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802);

who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

who is an illegal alien;

who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;

who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner;

or who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#420

Post by mpalmer »

hunterpayne wrote: post #89
mpalmer wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's mostly Meta lobbying for this, in every state. Sensationalizing and exaggerating does not help.

But why is Meta lobbying for this? The bills they push move compliance onto the app stores. And Meta doesn't run an app store. I think the execs think its some sort of 4D chess move to put liabilities onto their competitors. I'm not sure it will work out that way. Seems like FB has a lot more to lose than they think.

> I think the execs think its some sort of 4D chess move to put liabilities onto their competitors.

No, they're pulling up the ladder. Meta is fine losing the app store battle because it can easily afford regulation requiring first-party compliance, and no startup could.

Post reply on HN