421–430 of 750 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dumb- BUT immediate links to sites of the right legislators! Adam B. Schiff Sorry, this legislator cannot be contacted with our tool. To message them, visit their website instead. Alex Padilla Sorry, this legislator cannot be contacted with our tool. To message them, visit their website instead.
They do have a physical address, and stamps aren't that expensive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> who cares this much about the internet? The Internet pretty much runs our lives now, so: I do. Lots of things require having Internet access, an email address, being able to visit a website, coordinate with others on a Facebook page for a local group, etc. No one requires me to buy a pack of cigarettes to register for classes, pay bills, submit something to the government, etc.
So you're worried that due to age checks you'll no longer be able to anonymously > register for classes, pay bills, submit something to the government is that right?
No.
You asked a specific question, and I answered a specific question (which I even quoted in my response).
Age verification can be achieved without destroying anonymity and privacy online using anonymous credential systems, but it has to be designed that way from the ground up, and no one pushing age verification is interested in preserving privacy.
This comes up in every thread, but the purpose of the laws is not to verify that someone can access an anonymous token. If we had a true anonymous token system then everyone would just share tokens around. The real world analog would be if you could buy beer at the store with anyone's ID because they didn't make any effort to reasonably check that the ID was yours or discourage people from sharing or copying IDs. The…
In the age of AI I think it’s only necessary and inevitable to implement some of kind of internet ID system to stop the massive onslaught of AI generated fraud, malicious hacking, and spam. If age verification is a Trojan horse to erase online anonymity, so be it, I see that as a worthy goal. Humans are inherently social, and social networks are based on trust. Trust is primarily a function of reputation, peer pressu…
The trust is somewhat of a one-way street. We are supposed to trust the entities in power. If we break their trust, there are consequences. If said entities break our trust, we can do little about it.
> I don’t see why anyone would want to remove any of this. To protect some freelance journalists in Iran?
For some, perhaps. However, I also would rather protect people from a potentially grim future. What is permissible and acceptable now may not always be the case in the future. The Holocaust, for example, only ended 81 years ago. The notion of another one, even against different groups, seems completely infeasible -- the same as the first one.
> I as a programmer who makes my living on the internet, would gladly support the shutting down of the whole internet if it would save the life of a single precious child.
Tone is hard to read in text, but are you be facetious? If not, you are essentially saying that you would support shutting down the Internet to protect even just one child. Yet, despite these real and active harms that already exists, you will continue to still use and profit off the Internet in the meantime?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not so sure about that. Handing an ID to a bouncer at a bar or similar is not logging anything. Mainly it's some big man that you can see gears turning to see if the date is correct and a cursory glance to see if the photo matches. Sophisticated places might have a scanner that does what ever validation it does, but again, it's just another cursory check of the photo. Most of these people really don't care. A tech co…
>Not so sure about that. Handing an ID to a bouncer at a bar or similar is not logging anything. Mainly it's some big man that you can see gears turning to see if the date is correct and a cursory glance to see if the photo matches. Sophisticated places might have a scanner that does what ever validation it does, but again, it's just another cursory check of the photo. Most of these people really don't care. Not nece…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>They should focus on school. Why? Presumably so they can go to college and get a high paying job that may not exist in 10 years? The direction we give kids coming up always seems to lag behind reality by 10 or 20 years. Perhaps we shouldn't stand in the way of the new generation figuring things out for themselves in this brave new world. The old playbooks to a solid middle class life are increasingly outdated.
> Why? Presumably so they can go to college and get a high paying job that may not exist in 10 years? Also so they don't end up stupid and useless like a potted plant. People with too little education are easy to manipulate and dim. They're perfect fodder for the propaganda machines. It would be nice if we could just let kids loose like wild animals and they'd, somehow, figure everything out. But no, we actually have…
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…
I'm not a fan of online age verification, but this is completely absurd: > Every website. Every platform. Every app. Every service. Your children will never know what it was like to think freely online. They will never explore ideas anonymously. They will never question authority without it being logged in their permanent profile. They will never speak freely without fear that every word will be used... No. Nobody's…
We've spent the past three decades trying to invent ways to deduce identity and build profiles of what would otherwise be anonymous users. When the government steps in and compels people to formally identify themselves by their government names, what would you expect these companies to do? They're not gonna say "no thanks."
You're starting from an assumption that is invalid to begin with.