Live data from Hacker News

The case for banning children from social media

newyorker.com

591–593 of 593 posts

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not clear how you could effectively regulate this stuff - especially in our highly polarised political climate. The right will immediately target "wokeness", and the left will immediately target "hate speech". And the kids will be totally forgotten about. A good start would be to ban feeds based on algorithms; instead your feed would be a chronological list of new posts from channels you've chosen to follow.

So ban HN?

HN has no concept of following certain individuals, and is a niche website aimed at a particular audience. I mean in things like Twitter, Facebook or YouTube.

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#592
post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if people didn't think they needed 27 hilarious t-shirts they'll never wear or wear once, a tool to cut an apple into slices (plus one for all the other fruits and veg), plastic bags for everything they pack for their kids, toys that will go on the pile of other toys, a new phone and car each year, 137 pairs of sneakers, etc. Not to mention no longer getting ear-and-eye-fucked with billboards, pop-ups, requir…

you had me on your side, but then you came for a tool to cut apples and now you have mortal enemy. i will defend a right to ikea apple cutter with all my might and will soread the word about it as far as possible. no, really. its a very convenient and often used tool in my home.

Well, let's meet in the middle and say they should make stronger apple cutters (apple core-ers?), with stainless steel or something, that could be passed down for generations, and doesn't shed microplastics in the trash when it breaks :)

Re: The case for banning children from social media

#593

People keep suggesting stuff like that as though it were somehow easy to know who was a child. It isn't. Not if you want to serve the whole world, or even very much of the world. And not if you don't want to create a panopticon where everything anybody does is associated with everything else that person does, and nothing is ever, ever anonymous. There are a bunch of sleazy "age verification" companies out there claim…

A company needs to make a reasonable effort. If something is as popular as TikTok, and people know there are lots of children on the app, then the company is liable. GNU Taler figured out a way to verify age without revealing your identity.

> A company needs to make a reasonable effort.

It's not "reasonable" to demand any effort that won't be effective. Period.

> GNU Taler figured out a way to verify age without revealing your identity.

Well, no. GNU Taler proposed a very complicated system on top of some zero knowledge concepts that have been around since the late 1990s, embedded in the rest of Taler's incredibly complicated overall system. That sort of gross impracticality, generally in the service of authoritarian goals that aren't good ideas to begin with, is how Taler rolls, and why Taler has even less chance of ever getting anywhere than cryptocurrency in general.

But it's true that zero knowledge systems can in theory solve most of the problem: whoever's certifying age doesn't know what the user is doing with the credential, and the relying party doesn't know who the user is.

... and that still has no practical impact at all. You can do all kinds of things in zero knowledge, if you have the infrastructure for it. But to make AV ubiquitous, you first have to make that infrastructure ubiquitous.

In practice, that will probably only happen if every government in the world starts issuing zero-knowledge credentials; only governments have the reach and the generally accepted standing to do that kind of thing. But governments in general have never shown any sign of having any enthusiasm for zero knowledge, in part because they tend to like having somebody's identity attached to everything that happens. At most you might be able to drag governments, kicking and screaming, into adopting systems where only they can invade your privacy. But probably not, because they don't trust one another.

There is, of course, a possibility of a private system developing, or of governments getting off their butts. There's even a possibility of Taler's grandiose dreams of massively complicated interacting systems of public and private institutions coming to pass. However, we don't have any of those now, and even if there were the will to make them work, it'd take decades to make them ubiquitous enough.

So people who want to advocate for age verification need to first go off and do about 50 years of work to build that infrastructure, before they can start talking about requiring AV for anything.

In reality, of course, the intent of all real AV advocates is to totally ignore that possibility and rely on "trust me" assurances from AV vendors.

Post reply on HN