Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Online age verification is the hill to die on

x.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 750 posts

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#481

Post by [deleted] »

sysreq_ wrote: post #463
Nevermark wrote: post #410

This is why we need verification technology that protects identity. Implemented as anonymous verification, without distinguishing between adult age, or permissioned by parent. That solution doesn't negate parental freedom of choice, it facilitates it. I am baffled at how often the "they don't want it, because of their ulterior surveillance motivations, therefore it isn't a solution" argument is made. "They" don't wan…

I think part of the issue people are missing is what the late Randy Pausch would call a “head fake”. My specific autism is not privacy, digital security, none of that. So I will be honest about my gaps. But from my little corner what this is about is geopolitics - specifically a potential war with China. If you zoom out to the macro level first understand the reason China setup the Great Firewall. Why countries like…

[deleted]

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#482

Post by k33n »

gblargg wrote: post #415
DangitBobby wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Presumably it makes people fearful to post things that differ from the norm, which is what I'm assuming parent means by brainrot (wrongthink).

Brainrot isn’t wrongthink. Brainrot is brinksmanship and zero sum discourse. As a member of the public it’s virtually impossible to know where the real consensus is on any issue today due to wishful thinking backed up by gigantic botnets. Brainrot will make people certain that they’re part of some majority consensus to the point that they will fight legislation like this because being provably part of a fringe line of thinking would cause them psychological pain. Right now, everyone (including the “moon mission was fake” fringe) thinks they’re part of a majority consensus. Even sovereign citizens and flat earthers believe they’re in a much larger cohort than they really are. A lot of these ideas are harming people offline in addition to degrading their personal mental health.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#483

Post by themafia »

SoftTalker wrote: post #388
rpdillon wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly the way it should be done. Device with parental controls enabled disables content client-side when the header is detected. As far as I can tell, it's a global optimum, all trade-offs considered.

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…

> sticking their fingers

I actually think it was giant wads of cash.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#484

Post by ocdtrekkie »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #479
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

> 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.

This is entirely false scare tactic nonsense, and you really need to look at where you sourced that idea and no longer use them as a reference point. There isn't even a concept of a method of doing this that would make that true, and certainly not in any of the implementations being considered in the US. The federal bill is called the Parents Decide Act, if it gives you some idea where the goal in decisionmaking is supposed to be.

We have not just woefully bad parental controls, but in the name of privacy, modern platforms make it exceptionally hard to implement parental controls. What is being pushed here is largely a mandate that a system for parents to control what their kids can reach needs to exist and Internet companies need to support it.

(Steam is, FWIW, probably one of the best actors in this regard already, Steam Family is incredibly nuanced in the features and tools it gives parents. I have a lot of gripes about Steam but this is not a place they will have difficulty complying with the law. Heck, Steam is better at parental controls than Nintendo and Disney).

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#485

Post by themafia »

furyofantares wrote: post #341
cooper_ganglia wrote: post #211

THe government shouldn't be raising anyone's children, that's what parents are for. If you're a bad parent, your kids will get access to bad things and could become an adult failure. The future of your family and your legacy is up to you, not the government. We don't need age verification to restrict the social darwinism of raising children.

I keep thinking we can't fight age verification by just saying "no" to it, and have to offer an alterative. Maybe we need to turn it on its head, point out that if we want legislation to help out with this, we could choose legislation that gives power to parents. Age verification laws put the power directly into the law itself, they're a blanket solution that gives all the power to legislators and that prevents paren…

> and have to offer an alterative.

It's called "software." It already just exists. It's sold for the purposes of locking devices down so they're safer for children to use.

> point out that if we want legislation to help out with this

Make this software tax deductible. The end.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#486

Post by pdntspa »

dylan604 wrote: post #188
ronsor wrote: post #121

There's an angle everyone misses. Mandatory age surveillance everywhere is only going to result in massive, normalized ID fraud. You thought fake and stolen IDs were a problem before? You haven't seen anything yet. And half of it will be from adults trying to avoid privacy invasion.

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…

> Handing an ID to a bouncer at a bar or similar is not logging anything.

Some of the bars in the party areas of my college town have a digital scanner they hold the ID up against, and they even had a screen showing a scrolling Wall of Shame of fake IDs. And they had this like 20 years ago. So I would not necessarily agree with you here

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#487

Post by kelvinjps10 »

laserbeam wrote: post #338
Hikikomori wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty European countries have eID without these issues.

You use eID when explicitly interacting with a govt entity or bank or otherwise similar institution because you have to and want to prove who you are. Yes, I do want to prove who I am when I file taxes, vote or want to start a business... You don't use it when just browsing randomly on the internet. You don't use it to buy games on steam. Your computer isn't forced to store it because a law arbitrarily says so.

if it's done by the government, what prevents the goverment to not allowing opposition members to access social media? I think social media and porn are harmful for children but still

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#488

Post by beloch »

dylan604 wrote: post #409
beloch wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Logs of location data on people are already worth real money. The FBI has admitted to buying it. The companies that do age verification will absolutely be selling that data unless there are severe penalties for doing so, and what are the odds that the U.S. government passes a law making it illegal for the FBI to buy data? That's bad enough if you're a U.S. citizen. If you're a non-U.S. citizen, now you're in the situ…

> This might just be the impetus that finally drives enough users to non-U.S. social media platforms to get the snowball rolling downhill. I guess, but like, who? During the time TikTok was not available on an app store (even though the service wasn't stopped), people were trying some of the other Chinese apps, and they were not very compelling as the exodus never happened.

It's a chicken and egg problem. Without users, a new social platform lacks content, so it can't attract users. Unless something decidedly new and compelling comes along, users will probably stick with what they know... unless something happens that really pisses them off.

If I'm being honest though, I don't think privacy concerns will be what does it. The TikTok generation doesn't give a fig about privacy. You can build a panopticon around them and they won't even notice.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#489

Post by vivekd »

rationalist wrote: post #422
streetfighter64 wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> is that right? No. You asked a specific question, and I answered a specific question (which I even quoted in my response).

but I think the parents counterpoint was that the important parts of the internet (paying bills, buying things, registering for classes) don't require or presuppose anonymity.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#490

Post by DangitBobby »

k33n wrote: post #480
DangitBobby wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bottin…

I disagree. I won't repeat my comment, but it carries all the information you need to know.
Post reply on HN