541–550 of 750 posts
Age verification can be achieved without destroying anonymity and privacy online using anonymous credential systems, but it has to be designed that way from the ground up, and no one pushing age verification is interested in preserving privacy.
The destruction of privacy is the whole point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And they continue to act like opposition just wants a wild west/don't care about kids, which is the oldest trick in the book. We just don't want "protect the kids" leveraged to tear up our rights. It's addressing a real problem in a bad way.
I mean, it's more than that. I _want_ to protect kids' right to be part of the human connectome. The "protect the kids" (by disallowing them their freedom of thought on the internet) is just naked ageism.
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.
> The reason is that this whole push for age verification is nothing to do with actually stopping kids seeing the content. The reason that mainstream politicians are pushing is because the public wants something done to protect their kids. Are there likely to be bad actors pushing for it for nefarious reasons as well ? Sure. Are the 'solutions' inadequate and often tech- and privacy-illiterate? Absolutely. Is the ent…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah I'm not sure why the govt or any other 3rd party needs to get involved. If I don't want my kids to look at porno online I will educate them on porn. If I don't trust my kids to listen to me then I will install an open source monitoring software and educate them on trust. Letting the govt dictate what is age restricted is an easy way for the govt to control speech and narrative. For example, children's books that…
“If I don't want my kids to look at porno online I will educate them on porn“ I can’t tell if this is a joke, is this a joke?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 tru…
A Steam Deck is just an Arch Linux box. There is, intentionally by by design, no method of securing it against its user. Anyone with root access can change anything on it. There is no method of enforcing an age verification scheme on it in a way that cannot be removed or altered by a sufficiently bright and motivated teenager.
the conclusion from that discussion was that kids should not be allowed Steam Decks because that would provide them a way of getting around age certification.
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.
Western society, for better or worse, is set up such that parents need to resume work as soon as possible. Saying the government has no responsibility in child rearing ignores the economic reality of parents.
Bad argument, bad outcomes. These are exactly the "bad parents" I was referring to in my original comment. The government HAS no responsibility in raising your child, but they would LOVE to change that. It's absolutely imperative for the human race that that does not happen.
An anecdote: I am 40 years old and I have an Onlyfans account. I enjoy some hippie chick that makes pottery and takes pics of herself without clothes on. I went on vacation to Tennessee and tried to log in and it said I needed to verify with their identity verification provider. Of course I refused. Now I am home in a different state and still cannot log in. I contacted support and because I was detected in TN once i…
> it's just making it harder for honest people to pay for what they like. I have a female friend who creates that kind of content. Her take is that this is very much intentional. There is a general crackdown on porn in the US. They're not just trying to make it difficult for the clients, but also difficult for people to make this kind of content, distribute it and get paid for it. Of course none of this makes sense.…
In the age of AI I think it’s only necessary and inevitable to implement some of kind of internet ID system to stop the massive onslaught of AI generated fraud, malicious hacking, and spam. If age verification is a Trojan horse to erase online anonymity, so be it, I see that as a worthy goal. Humans are inherently social, and social networks are based on trust. Trust is primarily a function of reputation, peer pressu…
You speak positively about peer pressure, but on a basic level, peer pressure is power excercised against non-conformists. Robbers and abusers are non-conformists, but activists and reformers are also non-conformists. Peer pressure is often used in certain highly oppressive societies to enforce values I'd consider downright evil. Such societies take great care in limiting independent, anonymous access to digital tools and networks. Personally, I'd really like to keep living in a free society where there are ways to communicate and express non-conformist ideas without having to worry about who can easily stamp out such ideas. I think digital ID opens the way to oppressive societies which can wholesale block specific individuals' access to any effective communication tools. Digital ID us an overcorrection to a problem that DOES need to be corrected, but not in a way that destroys various essential aspects of free societies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you actually have an argument to make? He’s 100% correct. For a start, child are parents responsibility, and the state should stay out of that as much as reasonably possible. Nothing more would need to me said on the matter if that’s as far as it went, but it isn’t. There can be no free speech if the state can imprison you for what you say, and they know everything you say. I dropped the word ‘online’ from the abo…
Yes, my argument, to restate it, is that rhetoric can be misused to counterproductive effect, as is the case here. Carefully note that I have neither affirmed nor contradicted anything of the substance of his argument. So defending his position to me is a non sequitur.
The goal should probably be convincing people at the margins, and not turning away those in opposition.
Preaching to the echo chamber is probably less productive.
> If you love your family, you must stop online age verification. > If you want the best for your children, you must stop online age verification. > Your children are being targeted. The infrastructure being built under the cover of child safety is designed to enslave them for the rest of their lives. Jumped the shark on that one, and really off-color. I'm less inclined to listen to guy, not because of his actual poi…
> how unreasonable he sounds It's important to remember that they're targeting your children. You grew up with freedom from surveillance and constant identification. You were able to communicate anonymously and without the content of your speech being sold to Walmart and the cops. They are putting in effort to make sure that your children will never have that reality as a reference point. The idea of the government a…
Who is the "they" that you refer to? Did you know that many people are in favor of age verification? Like, many parents of children who are at a loss for how to protect them from early access to obscene material? Could it be that that is why a large segment of government actors are moving in this direction? Or must it necessarily be a secretive nefarious play by some evil tech companies in cahoots with that one administration?
Or is it actually the opponents of age verification who are the ones targeting my children by encouraging early access to obscene materials for grooming?
That last point sounds like a conspiracy theory. It should. I wrote it that way to be provocative, and I hope that you, as a result, dismiss it out of hand. But I want you to understand that TFA's argument also sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. If you want me to engage, you want to make a serious attempt at persuasion.
To that end, I do appreciate that you have not adopted the tone of the article.