571–580 of 720 posts
What is "social media", and how much are they actually banning communications , speech , association , organizing , political activity , etc. by young people? Plus a backdoor way to promote surveillance tracking to communications for everyone, by the likely mechanisms to be used in practice for excluding those under 16.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like you are in favor of something that requires coordination, but don't believe in coordination. Is there a different way you think this could be achieved?
I don't believe in the disbelief of coordination so it seems like we're at a bit on an impasse. Please expound.
Almost all parents either don’t care or opt for the second option (which I also think is the better one), but the dynamics today are that between 10-12yo the pressure to get your kid a smartphone will mount and you have to give in at some point. Being able to wait till 16 would be much better IMO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In particular, "anonymous speech is required if you want to have free speech" is actually a very niche position, not a mainstream one. It just happens to be widely spammed in certain online cultures.
Correct. I am staunch believer in the moral and societal good of free speech. Anonymous speech is far more dubious. Like, protests seem valuable. Protests while wearing robes and masks however...
If you assume a just government that doesnt demand revenge for every petty slight, you are living in a fantasy land.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm in favor of kids not using social media, but not of the government forcing this on people nor spinning up whatever absurd regulatory regime is required. And the chance of actually enforcing it is zero anyway. It's no more realistic to expect this to work than to expect all parents to do it as you say. It's just wasted money plus personal intrusion that won't achieve anything.
I used to want no govt intrusion for this. Then I understood how there are teams of PHDs tweaking feed to maximize addition at each social network. I think there could be even limits, or some sort of tax on gen pop.
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 can't agree. This teaches kids that the government is the answer to everything. this should 100% be the responsibility and decision of parents. Kids are different, and these one-size-fits-all authoritarian tactics that have become a signature of the current GOP Floridian government are just the beginning of the totalitarian christofascist laws that they want to implement. Before you ask, I am a parent, and my kid's…
My kid, and I have told my wife this, is ready to view whatever he wants on the internet when he can circumvent me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The government doesn't learn which web sites you visit, and the web sites don't learn anything about you other than you are certified to be age ≥ 16. If the zero-knowledge proof doesn't communicate anything other than the result of an age check, then the trivial exploit is for 1 person to upload an ID to the internet and every kid everywhere to use it. It's not sufficient to check if someone has access to an ID whe…
As I mentioned elsewhere, you’re falling for letting perfect be the enemy of good. The ZKP + phone biometrics only needs to raise the cost of bypass above what adolescents have access to. And no, you can’t just share the same ID because there’s revocation support in the mDL and it’s difficult to extract the raw data once it’s stored on the trusted element. This is very similar to how credit cards on phones work which…
No, this line of reasoning deserves nothing but absolute contempt when it comes to laws. We are not talking about getting the finnicky API to work at your job. Too often laws have had unintended consequences as a result of loopholes or small peculiarities. If the damn law doesn't even work on a fundamental level then it should be opposed on principle.
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 might be the only one here in favor of this, and wanting to see a federal rollout. I'm not American, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ban kids from the internet just by applying the logic used for film classification. Even just the thumbnails for YouTube (some) content can go beyond what I'd expect for a "suitable for all audiences" advert. This isn't an agreement with the specific logic used for film classif…
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/jul/31/margaret-pomera...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not a cryptographer so I might miss something but I have the impression that - either a stolen card can be reused thousands of time meaning that it's so easy to get a fake that it's not worth the implementation cost - either there is away to uniquely identify a card and then it becomes another identifier like tracking ids.
You can also use fake ID to buy booze. Making it illegal is, by itself, enough to discourage a lot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Answering a problem with unenforceable garbage like this doesn't seem like a very sound strategy.
It doesn't have to be perfectly enforceable to have a positive effect. Even just making illegal the promotion of social media toward children would have a huge effect.
And you have to be trolling with your second paragraph.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The government doesn't learn which web sites you visit, and the web sites don't learn anything about you other than you are certified to be age ≥ 16. If the zero-knowledge proof doesn't communicate anything other than the result of an age check, then the trivial exploit is for 1 person to upload an ID to the internet and every kid everywhere to use it. It's not sufficient to check if someone has access to an ID whe…
As I mentioned elsewhere, you’re falling for letting perfect be the enemy of good. The ZKP + phone biometrics only needs to raise the cost of bypass above what adolescents have access to. And no, you can’t just share the same ID because there’s revocation support in the mDL and it’s difficult to extract the raw data once it’s stored on the trusted element. This is very similar to how credit cards on phones work which…
If there is no risk involved, everyone will jump on doing it.