Live data from Hacker News

Online age verification is the hill to die on

x.com

621–630 of 750 posts

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#621

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.

This points get brought up in every thread about this topic, and although I agree with it completely, I feel it's the wrong point to make. They don't want to raise our children. Caring about the children is just pretense. The goal is surveillance. So this is a moot point, really.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#622
post #41

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 EU is. but their verification age process shows the design flaw that preserving privacy means the system can be easily circumvented with a mitm allowing to circumvent the age verification process.

Isn't MITM always a possibility? One person has access, then they could be the man in the middle and stream or access, store and send to others or they get "hacked" with reasonable deniability, etc. and suddenly others have access without age verification again. For example someone could install a device grabbing all frames sent through a display port cable.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#623

This is why we need verification technology that protects identity. Implemented as anonymous verification, without distinguishing between adult age, or permissioned by parent. That solution doesn't negate parental freedom of choice, it facilitates it. I am baffled at how often the "they don't want it, because of their ulterior surveillance motivations, therefore it isn't a solution" argument is made. "They" don't wan…

I think part of the issue people are missing is what the late Randy Pausch would call a “head fake”. My specific autism is not privacy, digital security, none of that. So I will be honest about my gaps. But from my little corner what this is about is geopolitics - specifically a potential war with China. If you zoom out to the macro level first understand the reason China setup the Great Firewall. Why countries like…

> Russia for example aims to sow discord. One classic example is the Black Lives Matter movement. This was not a Russian disinformation campaign - but they did propagate views that exist outside the bell curve of the moderate. They push scenes of cops being under siege for the right and racist policing for the left. They amplify the voices of the most angry, the most extreme and the most radical on both sides of the spectrum to create confusion, distrust and societal division.

> China by comparison takes a much more subtle view. They choose to erode what they call "civilizational confidence" by highlighting systemic failures, inconvenient truths, or otherwise undermine institutional credibility. When you read an article and find a moderating factor buried in the last paragraph that is the flavor of Chinese action. The general malaise about American exceptionalism failing and China's inevitable ascent stems from their work. Rather than pure division they aim to emotionally exhaust you into "acquiescence from inevitability".

The only reason these approaches work is because there is generally a lot of truth in the things they push and a complete lack of transparency on that reality from powerful Americans, both government and oligarchy. If it wasn't "a lot of truth with some bullshit mixed in" but "only bullshit", it wouldn't work. If the state of the US hadn't made the bullshit realistic and plausible, it wouldn't work.

Those are the issues to fix. You name the PATRIOT Act, yet another thing that has caused much more harm than benefit.

> China by comparison takes a much more subtle view. They choose to erode what they call "civilizational confidence" by highlighting systemic failures, inconvenient truths, or otherwise undermine institutional credibility. When you read an article and find a moderating factor buried in the last paragraph that is the flavor of Chinese action. The general malaise about American exceptionalism failing and China's inevitable ascent stems from their work. Rather than pure division they aim to emotionally exhaust you into "acquiescence from inevitability".

They mostly bring light to the worst things that happen in the US, which would otherwise go underreported because the people suffering them have no power and the media is already entirely controlled by Bezos et al.

It's laughable to defend this on the basis of foreign influence. The bad actor influencers are inside the house. They're called Jeff Bezos, Rupert Murdoch, and so on. And the information they spread isn't any more truthful or beneficial than that spread by the likes of China.

Rupert Murdoch has done more for misinformation, polarization and extremism over the last 2 decades than China and Russia combined. He's foreign, by the way.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#624
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How could one protect the, call it one in 1 million… the speech of the (young) Greta Thunbergs, for example? I bet there is a 15 year-old much smarter than me making political videos and I wouldn’t necessarily want them to be forced to stop. What if they’re on my “team”! ;) (I kid) Recalling how we had lots of political debates in high school: if some of those kids made videos and got really popular, and the law made…

I believe every government disenfranchises young people because they are young. Its not about intelligence. Else a whole lot of over-age-of-majority wouldn't pass either. Theres also no old-age cutoff, when their mental faculties significantly decline. Yeah, the voting majority keeps 'under age' from voting. But at least in the USA, we have children as young as 11 being tried as adults but with none of the benefits.

Maybe it should be about intelligence. All kinds of people destroy ecosystem after ecosystem, simply by acting in stupid ways and thereby creating tons of bad incentives for businesses, who will stop at nothing to maximize their profits, zero ethics. The whole system is rigged up to trend towards supporting stupid behavior and attracting more of that, simply because there are so many people doing stupid things. Engagement and attention economy, no matter how stupid or rotten.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think children are harmed by porn? Did you know it's illegal to distribute porn to a minor in the US? It seems reasonable to me to hold porn companies responsible for distributing porn to minors.

There is actually extremely little evidence for anything when comes to individuals, sexual content, and their sexual fantasies. There is even less evidence available for anything when it comes to minors. I've read papers on the topic, and the good papers always point out that there is almost no focus on any potential positives. Many "authors" have already made up their minds before they've even started conducting res…

The difficulty of getting funding for such "research" is probably due to ethical concerns (regarding the methodology itself).

As for focusing on potential positives, I'd be surprised to see any studies focusing on the potential positives of gambling or doomscrolling.

Any arguments of "lack of evidence of harm" sounds a lot like what tobacco or asbestos companies used to claim not long ago.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your lack of understanding why age verification does not constitute it being a conspiracy for another reason. There is a antiregulatory crowd that will invent any possible excuse to suggest tech companies shouldn't be accountable and we should just leave the Internet be. Those people make a lot of money exploiting everyone, as it happens, and they also pay for journalists to tell you that it's all about violating pri…

> These are facts, whether you like them or not. [Citation Needed] As I understand it, the debate on whether social media is responsible for actual harms in kids is still open and ongoing. Social media has been found to do both harm and good for kids, and for some kids the good outweighs the harms [0]. Scientists are hoping to get some verification from the actual social experiments that we're conducting in the UK an…

> Social media has been found to do both harm and good for kids, and for some kids the good outweighs the harms

Indeed. For example, the strongest evidence for harm shows that negative mental health is correlated with increasing social media use, but it's an important question of whether using social media more causes mental health problems, or mental health problems mean more social media use (or both, which would suggest a spiraling effect is important to look out for and prevent).

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're worried that due to age checks you'll no longer be able to anonymously > register for classes, pay bills, submit something to the government is that right?

> is that right? No. You asked a specific question, and I answered a specific question (which I even quoted in my response).

You took away the context of my question and thus gave an irrelevant answer. The subject at hand is age verification and anonymity on the internet. For effective communication, one usually tries to make their input to a conversation relevant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle#Maxims_i...

Even then your answer isn't really an answer, because you're giving examples of things the internet is required for. Certain situations can require having a car, that doesn't mean you need to care about cars more than the minimum necessary to operate one.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#629
post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We will see how your opinion changes when someone steals your ID and voice and you end up being defrauded due to the government chosing the cheapest Indian shop to mishandle your data

Not going to be any worse than the oncoming onslaught of AI-powered scam, fraud, and hacks that are enabled by a lack of legal consequences.

There is a vast difference between being scammed and being defrauded. The latter can happen without any interaction with you by criminals using your leaked personal data. An AI empowered scam is just that. A scam can be avoided. Leaked IDs, voice and identity not so much

My point is that the data that you don't provide cannot be leaked

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#630
post #512

It’s not online age verification. It’s online identity verification. Would you vote for that? Prove who you are to visit this website? Would you do it to access Hacker News? Your newspaper? Didn’t think so.

Neither HN nor my newspaper run content that needs age-gating.

HN has 'user-submitted content' which tends to be one of the categories that these laws target. Newspapers can also run stories on disturbing events that can also fall under these laws. They are often incredibly broadly defined such that it's easier to describe what they don't cover.
Post reply on HN