491–500 of 720 posts
Everyone here seems to be forgetting the root of this problem: Algorithms that select content (including ads) need to be treated as publishers rather than platforms . "facebook.com/users/my_friend/posts_in_cronological_order" is a platform "facebook.com/my_feed" is a publisher
Is this a real bill or another one of those performative ones that they know will get deemed unconstitutional by a court?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's suppose that 1 million new governments are founded, and violence still can be enforced only by the existing ones. The new governments will be in charge of ids, signatures, property ownership and reputation. Governments of Rust programmers, or Python programmers, or football players, or pool players, or truck drivers will be created. When a citizen of Rust programmers social graph uploads code, he can prove his…
Government is not the correct word to use for this idea.
This makes me think of how, as a child, every site asked “are you over 13”, and I diligently clicked “yes”. Some more clever sites asked for my birth year… forcing me to do the arduous work of taking the current year and subtracting 14. Though I suppose the real plan here is to pass the law and then have the government selectively prosecute social media companies for having users under 16.
I don't think enforcement actually needs to be very tightly controlled. The barriers that are put in place like the one you describe are already enough to create a social milieu where parents and kids with think twice about these things and understand that there is a recognised harm potential. There's nothing stopping you pouring your youngsters a glass of wine with dinner, but as a society we've made the dangers of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assuming you can make active queries to the verifier, you could do something like - Have your backend generate a temporary AES key, and create a request to the verifier saying "please encrypt a response using AES key A indicating that the user coming from ip X.Y.Z.W is over 16". Encrypt it with a known public key for the verifier. Save the temporary AES key to the user's session store. - Hand that request to the user…
If you can make active queries to the verifier, so can any adversarial party. These kinds of ZK-with-oracle schemes need to be very carefully gamed to ensure they're truly ZK, and not just "you learn nothing if you only query once." > and the service would become suspicious if it saw lots of users verifying from the same IP address This implodes under CGNAT, cafe internet, hotel internet, etc.
We do need to get people onto ipv6 so CGNAT can die. Restricted services could potentially disallow signups or require more knowledge (e.g. full ID) if coming from shared IPs as a risk mitigation strategy, depending on how liable we want to hold them to properly validate age. If you've already signed up for facebook at home, obviously you don't need to validate your age again at the cafe.
Fake IDs exist in the real world. The system doesn't have to be perfect, and we can say that there's some standard of reasonable verification that they should do for these sorts of cases.
Personally I'm more in favor of an approach where sites label their content in a way where parents can configure filters (ideally using labels that are descriptive enough that we don't get into fights over what's "adult", and instead leave that decision to individual families), but if we're going to go an ID-based route, there are at least more private ways we could do it, and I think technologists should be discussing that, and perhaps someone at one of these big companies can propose it.
I might be the only one here in favor of this, and wanting to see a federal rollout. It is not reasonable to expect parents to spontaneously agree on a strategy for keeping kids off social media- and that kind of coordination is what it would take, because the kids + social media companies have more than enough time to coordinate workarounds. Have the law put the social media companies on the parents side, or these k…
- I'm not the biggest fan of hard cutoff
- addictive dark patterns which cause compulsive use should be general banned or age restricted no matter where they are used, honestly just ban most dark patterns they are intentional always malicious consumer deception not that far away from outright committing fraud. (And age restrict some less dark but still problematic patterns.)
- I think this likely will make all MMORPGs (and Roblox, lol) and similar 16+, I'm quite split about that. I have seen people between 14-18 get addicted to them and mess up their education path. But I have also seen cases of people which might not be alive anymore today if they hadn't fund a refuge and companions in some MMORPG.
- I guess if it can make platforms like YT, Facebook, Instagram, Snapshat etc. implement a "teen" mode with less dark patterns and tracking it would be good.
- The balance between proving your age and making things available and keeping privacy is VERY tricky (especially in the US) and companies, the government and spy agencies will try to abuse the new requirements for age verification to spy more reliable on everyone 16+.
- It's interesting how that affects messengers. Many have less dark patterns, some do not track users, or can easily decide not to track children. The aren't social networks per-se. But most have some social network like features. Even such which do not try to create compulsive use might still end up with it as long as their as is "live" chatting.
This makes me think of how, as a child, every site asked “are you over 13”, and I diligently clicked “yes”. Some more clever sites asked for my birth year… forcing me to do the arduous work of taking the current year and subtracting 14. Though I suppose the real plan here is to pass the law and then have the government selectively prosecute social media companies for having users under 16.
Lol I just always added 10 to my birth year
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because 15 year-olds are the prime audience for a lot of social media. And while much of it is a waste of time at best or actively harmful at worst, a lot of it is also engaging or even educational content that high school students should be allowed to access. And will access regardless; it'll just be a hassle for them or their parents to have to jump through hoops to get to it.
> or their parents There doesn't appear to be a parental approval exception, it's just a straight ban. So kids will apparently be responsible enough to drive a car but not make a Facebook account.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you are willingly playing this down as "talking to people online" to make some point. However, it is beyond what one kid online says to another online. It is what predators say to those kids online. I don't just mean Chester and his panel van. I'm talking about anyone that is attempting to manipulate that kid regardless of the motive, they are all predators. Social media has long since past just being a means…
I think people are being incredibly disingenuous when they imagine that the government won't abuse this power to censor and harm marginalized communities. Many states are trying to remove LGBT books from school libraries for being "pornographic" right now, for example. All it takes is some fancy interpretations of "safety" and "social media" for it to become a full internet blackout, for fear of "the liberals" trying…
I've suggested no such thing. In fact, I described putting regulations in place as a "nightmare". Parenting alone will not work. Self regulation from the socials will not work. The entire situation is a nightmare of our own making. There is no simple solution. These tendencies of human nature were present long before social media. It was just fuel for the fire for the worst qualities.