Live data from Hacker News

Online age verification is the hill to die on

x.com

471–480 of 750 posts

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well why haven't all the big tech companies done it then? They have only themselves to blame. They had years to fix the problem of inappropriate content being delivered to kids and their response was sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "blah blah blah parenting blah blah blah" And it really should be the opposite. Assume content is not kid-safe by default, and allow sites to declare if they have some othe…

The reason is that this whole push for age verification is nothing to do with actually stopping kids seeing the content. If it was then this kind of solution would be being legislated for. It’s just about making everyone identifiable.

Your lack of understanding why age verification does not constitute it being a conspiracy for another reason. There is a antiregulatory crowd that will invent any possible excuse to suggest tech companies shouldn't be accountable and we should just leave the Internet be. Those people make a lot of money exploiting everyone, as it happens, and they also pay for journalists to tell you that it's all about violating privacy or something. (The same folks will tell you opening up Android for third party AI tools would be a privacy and security risk, and not ask you to notice it would just cost Google a lot of money.)

We've been running essentially a social experiment on our kids for the past two decades and it has not gone well. Social media has had a toxic impact on kids. CSAM and child abuse are rampant, and most "privacy services" like disposable email and VPNs are the primary source. These are facts, whether you like them or not. There are, in fact, kids dying, school shootings, grooming, etc. which are all the direct result of our failure to regulate social media companies. Section 230 being the primary problem.

OS-level age verification is likely the best route, as private information can remain on a device in your control, and a browser then just needs to attest to websites whether or not the user should be allowed access, without conveying more detail. Obviously anyone with a Linux box will have ways around it, anything based in your own device will be exploitable in some way, but generally effective for the average child.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An outstanding idea. Those lobbying for age verification hate it though, because they want to be the arbiters of age, and all that juicy PII that they can analyze and resell.

What PII? They get a boolean "old enough"

Think about how they validate how old you are. Meta and Google, who are lobbying in support of this legislation,will force you to sign up with your real ID, and be the arbiter for questions like “are you old enough for this website”. For every request that you make through some third-party website that needs to know your age, Meta and Google will know where you tried to login, and for which content. They will then resell this data to the highest bidder. Additionally, through all their ad networks and tracking, they will follow your session and have verified ID to match your entire browsing history. This is the end of anonymity and privacy on the Internet.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#473
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back in the late 90s or so, there was a proposal to have sites voluntarily set an age header, so parents/employers/etc could use to block the site if they wish. People said it would never work, because adult sites had a financial incentive not to opt in to reduce their own traffic.

You’d think that one could simply block sites that don’t have the age header set on child computers. This may block kids from hobbyist sites that don’t bother to set their headers as kid-friendly, but commercial sites would surely set their headers properly. Over time sending proper rating headers would become more normalized if they were in common use. This still isn’t perfect, as it creates an incentive for legisla…

An age header is not the answer. Why should a site have to decide what content is appropriate for a 18 year old and what content is not? Who is qualified to make that decision for every 17 year old in the world? Do they know my 17 year old? Do they know the rules in our home? What if I'm OK with my kid seeing sex-education stuff, but some lawyer at Wikipedia just decides to tag sex ed articles as 18+? Now I have a shitty choice: Open up the floodgates of "18+" to my kid, do it temporarily while the kid browses the sex ed sites, or not let the kid browse them.

Letting a company or government decide what's appropriate for what exact specific age is fraught with problems.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#474
post #8

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…

If they can scrape and fine, they can just make a list and the browser can use that.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#475
To anyone reading this, please take the extra step beyond striking down age-verification laws, and start taking measures to prove to Congress that it's not needed.

Your nextdoor neighbor whose misbehaving child that's permanently on their phone? Help them out.

Your friend that joked about sending death threats to someone? Scold and report him.

That girl endlessly scrolling Instagram? Get her help.

Please take a step back and examine how insane the internet is and how it's affecting our everyday lives. Political violence and mental illness is increasing, and the internet is solely to blame for this.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." Federalist 51

We're all too familiar with the latter part of that quote, but we're completely oblivious to the former. At this point, we've all but proven that the government needs to step in and regulate internet access. And unfortunately for us, they're going to do it in the most dystopian, authoritarian way possible.

I want to be on the side of freedom and strike this bill down. But when it is struck down, everyone is going to cheer, go on their merry way, and continue to let demorilization, radicalization, and mental illness infect the psyche of the everyday human being, and do nothing about it. And then the cycle will repeat itself.

At this point, I actually hope this bill passes. Not because I want it to, but because maybe then everyone will stop using the internet for everything, and some sanity will return.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#476

To anyone reading this, please take the extra step beyond striking down age-verification laws, and start taking measures to prove to Congress that it's not needed. Your nextdoor neighbor whose misbehaving child that's permanently on their phone? Help them out. Your friend that joked about sending death threats to someone? Scold and report him. That girl endlessly scrolling Instagram? Get her help. Please take a step…

[dead]

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#477
post #429
post #8

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 agree with the general idea, but I would like this header to be more fine grained than just a binary "adult" or not. For example, so that you can distinguish between content that is age appropriate for teenagers and older from content that is suitable for all ages.

A MIME type for every genre.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#478
post #397

Enjoy dying on that hill then because without mandatory ID for potentially harmful services like social media, we will continue to descend further into the brainrot that many of you suffer from today.

I'm curious to hear your theory on how it saves us from the brain rot!

I’m betting that bot activity plummets once accounts are tied to real identities. That’s a discourse benefit. I’m also betting that discussion will become a lot more rational once people have to put their names on what they are saying. Death threats also become more easily prosecutable.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason is that this whole push for age verification is nothing to do with actually stopping kids seeing the content. If it was then this kind of solution would be being legislated for. It’s just about making everyone identifiable.

Your lack of understanding why age verification does not constitute it being a conspiracy for another reason. There is a antiregulatory crowd that will invent any possible excuse to suggest tech companies shouldn't be accountable and we should just leave the Internet be. Those people make a lot of money exploiting everyone, as it happens, and they also pay for journalists to tell you that it's all about violating pri…

> These are facts, whether you like them or not.

[Citation Needed] As I understand it, the debate on whether social media is responsible for actual harms in kids is still open and ongoing. Social media has been found to do both harm and good for kids, and for some kids the good outweighs the harms [0]. Scientists are hoping to get some verification from the actual social experiments that we're conducting in the UK and Australia on this.

Mandating OS-level age verification effectively means not allowing kids access to OSS platforms, a step way too far in my opinion. For instance, we would have to outlaw Steam Decks for kids.

[0] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12165459/ "Social media and technological advancements’ impact on adolescent mental health is complex. It can be both a risk factor and a valuable support system. Excessive and problematic use has been linked to increased rates of MDD, anxiety, and mood dysregulation, while also exacerbating symptoms of ADHD, bipolar disorder, and BDD. Simultaneously, digital platforms provide opportunities for social connection, peer support, and mental health management, particularly for individuals with ASD and those seeking online mental health communities. The challenge is finding a balance. Although social media offers benefits, it also poses risks like addiction, negative social comparison, cyberbullying, and impulsive online behaviors"

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#480
post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want that. I'm tired of bots being half the internet traffic or more. It's driving the general public insane and anonymity on the internet has zero utility. If journalists need to send sensitive information, they'll always be able to use Tor.

I think there's plenty of utility. People can express opinions that they hold honestly but would fear social retribution for if it could be tied back to them publicly. For example, any political opinion that I hold that's modestly center or right of center I would not appreciate being attached to my name online since people are completely incapable of nuance or compartmentalization.

If you wouldn’t make a political statement in a town hall setting where you’re going to show ID, then you probably shouldn’t say it on the internet.

But keep in mind that these laws don’t result in your identity being public. They will ultimately result in the sites you’re posting on know that you’re an enumerated individual. The ultimate benefit as I see it is removing outsized leverage over public opinion by botting likes on your statement or otherwise operating tons of accounts. It should also eliminate threats of violence from the digital public square, since building a prosecution pipeline against those would be easy to do. Same with child grooming, but I’ll acknowledge there’s a way to make that argument in a glib way, as an excuse to realize some of the other goals. It is a real problem though.

Post reply on HN