461–470 of 494 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is that the alternative platforms should be small per-community chat servers run by their users. A one-click installation on a $5/mo web host like DO or Vultr or similar. Good luck policing them away.
The problem is that this is too tedious for most people. There's a reason centralization is popular.
The real and robust method will be generating artificial video input instead of the real webcam. I really don’t think any platform will be able to counter this. If they start requiring to use a phone with harder to spoof camera input, you will simply be able to put the camera in front of a high resolution screen. The cat and mouse game will not last long.
Are you sure it's that simple? How high does the resolution need to be for the camera to not be able to tell? And I'm sure there are sublet clues. Remember, you can't modify the photo or change the camera.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is extremely dangerous, and would only work with hardware/software that is nonfree (i.e., not under the user's control, or any attestation could be spoofed).
This is effectively PKI for personhood. The State DMV acts as the Certificate Authority (CA), signing a "leaf certificate" that is bound to the device's hardware Secure Element. It’s less like a TLS handshake and more like OpenID for Verifiable Presentations (OID4VP). The "non-free" hardware requirement serves as Remote Attestation—it allows a verifier to cryptographically prove that the identity hasn't been cloned o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> First, children also have a right to free speech. Maybe I'm wrong (not reading all the regulations that are coming up) but the scope of these regulations is not to ban speech but rather to prevent people under a certain age to access a narrow subset of the websites that exist on the web. That to me looks like a significant difference. As for your other two points, I can't really argue against those because they are…
> narrow subset of the websites on the web Under most of these laws, most websites with user-generated content qualify. I'd be a lot more fine with it if it was just algorithms designed for addiction (defining that in law is tricky), but AFAIK a simple forum where kids can talk to each other about familial abuse or whatever would also qualify.
An alternative to playing whac-a-mole with all the innovative bad behavior companies cook up is to address the incentives directly: ads are the primary driving force behind the suck. If we are already on board with restricting speech for the greater good, that's where we should start. Options include (from most to least heavy-handed/effective):
1) Outlaw endorsing a product or service in exchange for compensation. I.e. ban ads altogether.
2) Outlaw unsolicited advertisements, including "bundling" of ads with something the recipient values. I.e. only allow ads in the form of catalogues, trade shows, industry newsletters, yellow pages. Extreme care has to be taken here to ensure only actual opt-in advertisements are allowed and to avoid a GDPR situation where marketers with a rapist mentality can endlessly nag you to opt in or make consent forms confusing/coercive.
3) Outlaw personalized advertising and the collection/use of personal information[1] for any purpose other than what is strictly necessary[2] to deliver the product or service your customer has requested. I.e. GDPR, but without a "consent" loophole.
These options are far from exhaustive and out of the three presented, only the first two are likely to have the effect of killing predatory services that aren't worth paying for.
[1] Any information about an individual or small group of individuals, regardless of whether or not that information is tied to a unique identifier (e.g. an IP address, a user ID, or a session token), and regardless of whether or not you can tie such an identifier to a flesh-and-blood person ("We don't know that 'adf0386jsdl7vcs' is Steve at so-and-so address" is not a valid excuse). Aggregate population-level statistics are usually, but not necessarily, in the clear.
[2] "Our business model is only viable if we do this" does not rise to the level of strictly necessary. "We physically can not deliver your package unless you tell us where to" does, barely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why bother supporting Safari when they aren't interested in supporting the modern web? They're five years behind.
In a way I agree with you; but practically 100% of iOS/iPad users are forced to use Safari. Plus, it's nice to have a browser engine that's not Chromium.
The fact that safari refuses to support modern features and is forced on ios devices makes it even worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are doing this pre-emptively since it will be the global law trend sooner or later.
That's not for Discord or you to decide nor is that guaranteed!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> First, children also have a right to free speech. Maybe I'm wrong (not reading all the regulations that are coming up) but the scope of these regulations is not to ban speech but rather to prevent people under a certain age to access a narrow subset of the websites that exist on the web. That to me looks like a significant difference. As for your other two points, I can't really argue against those because they are…
> narrow subset of the websites on the web Under most of these laws, most websites with user-generated content qualify. I'd be a lot more fine with it if it was just algorithms designed for addiction (defining that in law is tricky), but AFAIK a simple forum where kids can talk to each other about familial abuse or whatever would also qualify.
I'm currently scrolling through this list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_age_verification_... and it seems to me these are primarily focused on "social media" but missing from these short summaries is how social media is defined which is obviously an important detail.
Seems to me that an "easy" solution would be to implement some sort of size cap this way you could easily leave old school forums out.
It would no be a perfect solution, but it's probably better than including every site with user generated content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not for Discord or you to decide nor is that guaranteed!
Yeah, the decision to do it pre-emptively obviously is discord’s to make. How could it be otherwise?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> getting everyone to spontaneously switch with no clear benefit hasn't worked Somehow Discord pulled it off. It really didn't have much of an edge over the other chat apps at launch, just was slightly easier to use because it was simpler. A new site launching now could easily have that over Discord.
You're ignoring the massive edge it had over TeamSpeak and Mumble. Back when Discord was launched, it was significantly better than its competitors and the cherry on top was that you didn't have to install anything or host your own server, just make an account.