Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

State Attorneys General Want to Tie Online Access to ID

reclaimthenet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 109 posts

Re: State Attorneys General Want to Tie Online Access to ID

#61

Post by pdonis »

Instead of lobbying for taking away everyone's privacy, why isn't the government going after those they say are the actual culprits? From the article:

"The attorneys general argue that social media companies deliberately design products that draw in underage users and monetize their personal data through targeted advertising. They contend that companies have not adequately disclosed addictive features or mental health risks and point to evidence suggesting firms are aware of adverse consequences for minors."

Okay, so why aren't they going after the social media companies?

Re: State Attorneys General Want to Tie Online Access to ID

#62

Post by cadamsdotcom »

pdonis wrote: post #61

Instead of lobbying for taking away everyone's privacy, why isn't the government going after those they say are the actual culprits? From the article: "The attorneys general argue that social media companies deliberately design products that draw in underage users and monetize their personal data through targeted advertising. They contend that companies have not adequately disclosed addictive features or mental healt…

They are in some other democracies. We will see how it all plays out.

Re: State Attorneys General Want to Tie Online Access to ID

#63

Post by jacquesm »

dynm wrote: post #30

What I find puzzling about these proposals is that it SEEMS like they could be designed to achieve 90% of the stated goals with almost 0% of the loss of privacy. The idea would be that devices could "opt in" to safety rather than opt out. Allow parents to purchase a locked-down device that always includes a "kids" flag whenever it requests online information, and simply require online services to not provide kid-unfr…

You are mistaking cause for effect. The loss of privacy is the goal, not a side effect, the rest is just a fig leaf.

Re: State Attorneys General Want to Tie Online Access to ID

#66

Post by c22 »

mjevans wrote: post #57
c22 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better yet, require online services to send a 'not for kids' flag along with any restricted content then let families configure their devices however they want. Even better, make the flags granular: , , , 13+, profane language, user, text 17+, violence, self, video 18+, unmoderated content, user, text 13+, drug themes, self, audio and so on...

No - Kid friendly should be something site's Attest to and claim they ARE. That becomes an FTC enforceable market claim (or insert other thing here). Foreign sites, places that aren't trying to publish things for children? The default state should be unrated content for consumers (adults) prepared to see the content they asked for.

Okay...

0+, kid friendly, self, interactive content

Re: State Attorneys General Want to Tie Online Access to ID

#67

Post by digiown »

KoolKat23 wrote: post #35
dynm wrote: post #30

What I find puzzling about these proposals is that it SEEMS like they could be designed to achieve 90% of the stated goals with almost 0% of the loss of privacy. The idea would be that devices could "opt in" to safety rather than opt out. Allow parents to purchase a locked-down device that always includes a "kids" flag whenever it requests online information, and simply require online services to not provide kid-unfr…

I have not once seen a proposal actually contain zero knowledge proof. This isn't something exotic or difficult. It is clear to me there is ulterior motives, and perhaps a few well meaning folks have been co-opted.

A ZKP will work as a base, but the proof mechanism will have to be combined with anti-user measures like device attestation to prevent things like me offering an API to continually sign requests for strangers. You can rate-limit it, or you can add an identifier, both of which makes it not zero knowledge.

Parent's proposal is better in that it would only take away general purpose computing from children rather than from everyone. A sympathetic parent can also allow it anyway, just like how a parent can legally provide a teen with alcohol in most places. As a society we generally consider that parents have a right to decide which things are appropriate for their children.

Re: State Attorneys General Want to Tie Online Access to ID

#70

Post by asdff »

dynm wrote: post #30

What I find puzzling about these proposals is that it SEEMS like they could be designed to achieve 90% of the stated goals with almost 0% of the loss of privacy. The idea would be that devices could "opt in" to safety rather than opt out. Allow parents to purchase a locked-down device that always includes a "kids" flag whenever it requests online information, and simply require online services to not provide kid-unfr…

As others have said, the goal is the surveillance. But this notion goes further than that. So many ills people face in life can be solved by just not doing something. Addicted to something? Just stop. Fat? Stop eating. Getting depressed about social media? Stop browsing.

Some people have enough self control to do that and quit cold turkey. Other people don't even consciously realize what they are doing as they perform that maladaptive action without any thought at all, akin to scratching a mosquito bite.

If someone could figure out why some people are more self aware than others, a whole host of the worlds problems would be better understood.

Post reply on HN