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

441–450 of 486 posts

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#441

Post by egorfine »

hei-lima wrote: post #71

I was a kid with unrestricted, unsupervised internet access, and it definitely affected many things in my life. If I happen to have a child in the future, they won't go through that. The Brazilian government passed a law requiring age verification for every site categorized as 16+. It can't be self-declared, so companies usually resort to facial scans and ID verification. I DO NOT want photos of our Brazilian childre…

All my kids had and have unfiltered internet access. The oldest being 32 and the youngest being 12.

All fine. The dangers of access to unfiltered information are certainly real but not worthy of constant worry.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#442

Post by franga2000 »

gruez wrote: post #287
totetsu wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not very soon, it’s already the case that if one wants to enable the latest models in the OpenAI api you have to submit your details to their “identity provider”.

Given the recent mexican telecom hacks were allegedly done with significant help from openai/anthropic's chatbots, it seems at least somewhat prudent to require some sort of identity verification for API access? I'm struggling to see how this isn't the tech community's version of "no background checks for gun purchases" or "no KYC for bank accounts".

Well for one, API access has nothing to do with it, you could to the same hacks through the chatbox, perhaps with a bit more time.

And the same logic about hacks also applies to access to a command line or Linux or a programming language or just a general-purpise computer.

"Given the recent [everything] hacks were [definitely] done with [Python scripts, a Linux distro and a computer with disabled secure boot], it seems [...]"

I hope you get my point.

As for your gun comparison, a gun is a very optional thing and the identification is just for purchase. It's not like a GPS tracker and shot counter is welded onto it at the time of purchase, nor do you need a gun to do the vast majority of everyday tasks.

As for bank KYC, well, I for one am actually not sold on the idea that having to send a blurry photo of my ID and smiling at my phone camera to open a Relovut account is in any way beneficial to society. Terrorism still gets financed, money still gets laundered, taxes still get evaded. But every swipe of my card can and will be used against me by banks, loan providers, advertisers, government agents and eventually also hackers.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#443

Post by cedws »

microtonal wrote: post #384
cedws wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the same for me, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t be in my career if I had been restricted to an hour a day on a filtered iPad. But I also think the internet has more potential for harm now. Widespread social media makes it easy for predators. YouTube actively incentivises content creators to produce brain numbing shit instead of the more amateur and educational content I was exposed to. Instagram creates vicious d…

That being said, I’m in favour of parents doing the parenting, not the government. This aspect of parenting is really hard. If your kid is 10 years old and all their classmates have Roblox, saying 'no' to your kid does isolate them socially, because all the other kids are talking about what they did in Roblox at school and play Roblox together after school. To make it worse, some primary schools even allow kids to pl…

Yeah you have a good point. I don't have kids so I didn't really think about this social pressure aspect.

I think if a perfect system existed that could gate websites behind age verification, without any privacy compromise and assure the user of this, I would support it. There are zero-knowledge proofs of course, but they're a black box, and the user still has to trust that the system has been implemented correctly. Unless mandated by law, companies have no incentive to build a perfectly private age verification system.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#444

Post by Manuel_D »

rdevilla wrote: post #323
yalogin wrote: post #102

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…

I hope someone takes those Meta glasses or an Oculus or Apple Vision or something and hooks it up to clearview or some other facial recognition service and agentically scrapes OSINT sources to doxx people on the street, in real time. One glance and I have your full name, home address, SSN, all online handles and aliases, employment history, email, and phone number, instantaneously on a HUD. It doesn't even need to be…

Already done: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2024/10/03/metas-r...

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#445

Post by Saline9515 »

poly2it wrote: post #148
hei-lima wrote: post #71

I was a kid with unrestricted, unsupervised internet access, and it definitely affected many things in my life. If I happen to have a child in the future, they won't go through that. The Brazilian government passed a law requiring age verification for every site categorized as 16+. It can't be self-declared, so companies usually resort to facial scans and ID verification. I DO NOT want photos of our Brazilian childre…

I guess the opposite case might not be as interesting to many, but I achieved basically unfiltered internet access as a child, and it has been immensely helpful for me as a person. Everything I am today -- a programmer, technically literate, a founder of a startup with momentum, I am because I had freedom and autonomy as a child (which was not granted to me, rather achieved by me). Many of the people of my age who gr…

I don't know which age you are but as a millenial, the internet we had during our teens was really different than what we have today. There was no real social network, no (or little) addictive patterns, conversations happened on Skype or MSN and on php forums. Even newer platforms like Reddit were very different than what they are now.

Unfortunately, internet evolved to become much more predatory and addictive, with platforms like Meta running world-scale ops that they know lead to addiction, depression, scam and sexual harassment.

I honestly would like to give my children the same experience of the internet as the one I had. Unfortunately I fear that it may not be possible anymore. That's not to say that we should run a surveillance experiment with everyone connected to the web.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#446

Post by Saline9515 »

microtonal wrote: post #384
cedws wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the same for me, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t be in my career if I had been restricted to an hour a day on a filtered iPad. But I also think the internet has more potential for harm now. Widespread social media makes it easy for predators. YouTube actively incentivises content creators to produce brain numbing shit instead of the more amateur and educational content I was exposed to. Instagram creates vicious d…

That being said, I’m in favour of parents doing the parenting, not the government. This aspect of parenting is really hard. If your kid is 10 years old and all their classmates have Roblox, saying 'no' to your kid does isolate them socially, because all the other kids are talking about what they did in Roblox at school and play Roblox together after school. To make it worse, some primary schools even allow kids to pl…

As someone who grew up without TV, I would say that it's fine to be a little bit isolated socially. You learn to develop real social skills and the time wasted playing Roblox can be better invested anyway.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#447

Post by Saline9515 »

sciencejerk wrote: post #330
gabriela_c wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also sorry to sound egotistical but I think I was an outlier that drifted into doing educational things, many or most kids will spend every moment they get just playing video games. I am in the same predicament as both of you, having grown up with unfiltered internet access, and not wanting it to have went any other way (I love my life, actually!) There is a condescending tendency when people hear what I said above…

I think the HN crowd is full of outliers. You folks are unrestricted internet success stories. Congrats! For every one of you there has to be 100 or 1000 gaming and social media addicts.

HN crowd grew up when they was no social media and when gaming patterns were not ultra-addictive.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#448

Post by sandworm101 »

foobar10000 wrote: post #402
sandworm101 wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My black-mirror prediction for how augmented reality and AI will interact: In order of horribleness. 1> Auto-nude. Today we can "nudify" photos and videos. Soon, augemented reality glasses will be able to nudify eveyone in real time. (This is totally possible today.) 2> Auto-tranlation. Cool. Everyone can talk to everyone, but users will have censorship options. I don't much like hearing australians so I will just ha…

All are indeed plausible- translation is iffy due to diarization not being all there yet - but why the specific order of horribleness? Live translation seems either better than autonude or worse, but not in the middle of the pack I’d assume? Am I missing something here?

It isnt the translation. Translation if good. But if you have a machine handling the voices of other people the option to censor/edit/replace those voices can lead to bad things.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#449

Post by [deleted] »

Saline9515 wrote: post #445
poly2it wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess the opposite case might not be as interesting to many, but I achieved basically unfiltered internet access as a child, and it has been immensely helpful for me as a person. Everything I am today -- a programmer, technically literate, a founder of a startup with momentum, I am because I had freedom and autonomy as a child (which was not granted to me, rather achieved by me). Many of the people of my age who gr…

I don't know which age you are but as a millenial, the internet we had during our teens was really different than what we have today. There was no real social network, no (or little) addictive patterns, conversations happened on Skype or MSN and on php forums. Even newer platforms like Reddit were very different than what they are now. Unfortunately, internet evolved to become much more predatory and addictive, with…

[deleted]

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#450

Post by bluegatty »

cluckindan wrote: post #390
bluegatty wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Preventing children from buying guns is Nazism!' Actually, this sentiment is a 'litmus test' for common sense. We use age discrimination universally in all affairs, across the globe, across all cultures. Of course the same thing is going to apply to 'content', it's just a lot harder and creates ugly externalizations. It's a real problem, with no real solutions, at least not yet.

Nobody is arguing that gun shops shouldn’t check buyers’ ID. That’s a strawman. The situation is more like we set up a new system of checkpoint booths on every highway at city limits, and anyone entering the city gets their ID checked, and that is justified by claiming that it’s so children can’t buy guns.

References to 'nanny state' are the strawman.

Also - your analogy is wrong - we are not 'age verifying' the whole web, we're 'age verifying' things that ostensibly should be 'age verified'.

Let's just say - 'porn' - to keep it simple.

Porn is to be 'age verified' on the web literally like it is in the city shop.

You don't have to present your ID to read CNN.

They're not saying 'present your id to get into the city, but into the porn shop'

Youre screaming strawman's and presenting strawmans.

The issue is more nuanced then you've presented.

Post reply on HN