551–560 of 579 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean you can read it in your app and they're not just stored on your phone. E2E just means in transport from what I understand.
E2EE means end-to-end, where the ends are the participants in the chat. They can read it on your phone, but not on their servers. They need their app to separately transmit the plaintext to their servers to read it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If social media adoption was driving the increase in suicides, we would have started to see a rise in suicides around the early 2000s, reaching it's peak around 2008. I think there is a logical fallacy here. Social media has not remained stable since 2008. For one thing, 2008 social media used the chronological timeline. For another, it didn't show "recommended" (or sponsored) content in your feed. There was no Tik…
Facebook moved away from chronological timelines as default in 2011. YouTube added "recommended" videos tab in 2007.
The platforms continue to optimize for engagement (i.e. addiction.)
Another item on the subject of this verdict that, at present, has more points is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47519625 One is a story by a journalist at CNN, the other is a story by a journalist at the LA Times Multiple articles on the same topic can sometimes offer different facts and opinions, different perspectives
Meta has always wanted the appearance of caring about safety (helps them attract talent and keep mission-related morale high), while nearly always prioritizing growth (save for tiny blips of time, like in 2017 when the fallout of the cambridge analytica stuff was hitting a crescendo), whereas companies like X are run by people explicitly disinterested in putting significant resources into safety, especially research.
I will also add that, for the past few years, Meta and X both have become extremely hostile to external researchers of their platforms, shutting down access to tools and data.
Many will cheer for any case that hurts Meta without reading the details, but we should be aware that these cases are one of the key reasons why companies are backtracking from features like end-to-end encryption: > The New Mexico case also raised concerns that allowing teens to use end-to-end encryption on Instagram chats — a privacy measure that blocks anyone other than sender and receiver from viewing a conversati…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Children are not just the responsibility of parents it is the job of society-through government- to protect and support them. So no we can't just tell parents to deal with it.
The laws being made to “protect” children seem to always have the side effect of removing security and privacy protections from adults. There has to be a middle ground.
There's probably a much better solution than "adults vs children" but very few with our expertise seem seriously interested in solving for safer children, which essentially leads to inexpert solutions gaining popular support.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The laws being made to “protect” children seem to always have the side effect of removing security and privacy protections from adults. There has to be a middle ground.
The tech community has had pretty much free reign over the last few decades, and has always chosen adult convenience over child safety (and mostly profit over both). The "middle ground" probably involves a bigger transfer than this. There's probably a much better solution than "adults vs children" but very few with our expertise seem seriously interested in solving for safer children, which essentially leads to inexp…
1. Limit child accounts to "classic" social network functionality. They get to see things from mutual friends. No algorithmic feeds, kids aren't in the user search, and no way for messages to be sent/received unless both sides have consented.
2. Disable chat for child accounts. How many chat apps do children really need? Each one is another potential vector for issues that parents would need to monitor.
I'm sure there is a monkey paw here, but either option seems better than no end-to-end encryption for anyone, at a time when government surveillance is a bigger issue than ever.
Frankly, I think option 1 would be better for all users, not just children. Go back to classic "social networks". This "social media" experiment has failed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The correct nuance here is... * Classifying accounts as child accounts (moderated by a parent) * Allowing account moderators to review content in the account that is moderated (including assigning other moderation tools of choice) In call cases transparency and enabling consumer choice should be the core focus. Additionally: by default treat everyone online as an adult. Parents that allow their kids online like that…
It’s very hard to control kids internet access. Impossible really. Even if you do it fine at home, once they go to school it’s whatever policies the school has. Most require laptops and provide internet access.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The law California (and other states) passed doesn't define what content has to be blocked for which ages No, but it's a framework that would allow other laws to do so. Because... > it's not as if they had no idea the children endlessly posting selfies and posting "six seven" on their service weren't adults. ...you can make statements like that which sound like common sense, but it would be incredibly hard to regul…
> No, but it's a framework that would allow other laws to do so. I worry that's it's the start of a lot of "other laws" which will limit the ability for children and adult's to maintain even pseudo-anonymity online. > The law has to provide (guarantee) a way for them to know in order to actually require them to take action based on it. That sounds like an argument for even stronger proof of age than what the law call…
That's fine, but it needs an enforcement mechanism, or we're back to where we currently are ("click here if you're 18").
> It would be easy enough to push a rating to clients, they could even use HTTP headers for it. If lawmakers really felt the need to interfere in all of our operating systems it could require some means to collect and act on those ratings.
I would completely agree it seems reasonable at a glance to have websites push ratings and have the enforcement be done e.g. at the web browser level (with the web browser knowing how to enforce based on the OS's supplied age bracket), rather than making websites read the age bracket and act on it directly. Although it does still run into questions about how you handle websites with content from multiple brackets (like Reddit or X)-- what's the UX supposed to look like if a child attempts to access adult content on one of those platforms? If the platform can't know what's happening (due to your privacy/safety concerns), then you're limited to the web browser entirely breaking the interaction or somehow redirecting them somewhere else.