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

Online age verification is the hill to die on

x.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

651–660 of 750 posts

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#651

Post by tekknik »

unselect5917 wrote: post #355
dylan604 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not so sure about that. Handing an ID to a bouncer at a bar or similar is not logging anything. Mainly it's some big man that you can see gears turning to see if the date is correct and a cursory glance to see if the photo matches. Sophisticated places might have a scanner that does what ever validation it does, but again, it's just another cursory check of the photo. Most of these people really don't care. A tech co…

>Not so sure about that. Handing an ID to a bouncer at a bar or similar is not logging anything. Mainly it's some big man that you can see gears turning to see if the date is correct and a cursory glance to see if the photo matches. Sophisticated places might have a scanner that does what ever validation it does, but again, it's just another cursory check of the photo. Most of these people really don't care. Not nece…

why would you trust a physical location who typically wouldn’t have a robust architecture or any opsec but not trust an online first business that likely has opsec and monitoring?

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#652

Post by abustamam »

techblueberry wrote: post #646
abustamam wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No? I guess I missed a word ("educate them on the dangers of porn" perhaps?) but I don't see how the omission makes a huge difference.

I just love the idea that the solution to kids not doing what you want them to is telling them not to do a thing. It’s so optimistic.

Not sure if this is sarcastic but that's exactly how drug education works in the US. Sure it's optimistic but almost everything about raising kids is optimistic.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#655

Post by tardedmeme »

Nursie wrote: post #619
tardedmeme wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

real-broker opens a web page allowing them to verify somehow. The browser extension sends me their URL and cookies so I can load the same page and verify myself. All automated of course.

You could, you could also go to their house and go through the process for them, but in either case I don't think it's going to scale very well (rate-limiting would seem to be called for, maybe with 2FA as well, to mitigate this sort of thing and remove the possibilities for automation). But sure, you could subvert it on a small scale, just as you can borrow someone else's driving license to register in 'normal' syst…

What rate limit would you recommend?

My cellphone provider will be pleased be paid to deliver all those 2FA text messages. Who's sending them? How are they getting paid? Maybe I'm actually my own phone company, so I get paid for delivering them to myself.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#656

Post by crazygringo »

ibejoeb wrote: post #442
crazygringo wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why the heck would the government compel people to formally identify themselves to read or comment on a newspaper or a blog? That's absurd and unconstitutional in the US. You're starting from an assumption that is invalid to begin with.

I don't know. Why would the government compel someone to formally identify himself to put cash in a box at the bank? Why would the government compel people to take off their shoes to get on a plane? Or submit biometric data drive a car? KYC for a phone line... It's not invalid. I have no reason to believe that this isn't going to creep.

We have extremely strong first amendment protections that form part of our constitution. That's why it's not going to creep. It would be a blatant violation of the first amendment.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#657

Post by vrganj »

afpx wrote: post #650
tardedmeme wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you've been paying attention, you know what GP is talking about and you don't make such silly equivocations.

I guess I haven't been paying attention. Could you post a link so I can see what you are all talking about?

Here's a bunch of interrelated links:

https://www.mediamatters.org/tiktok/tiktok-prompting-users-f...

https://www.dcu.ie/antibullyingcentre/recommending-toxicity#

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/feb/06/social-media-a...

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/25/technology/facebook-like-...

https://news.sky.com/story/the-x-effect-how-elon-musk-is-boo...

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/gen-z-men-and-women-most-divided-...

I see the societal turmoil and strife this will feed as much more dangerous and concrete than some abstract high-minded discussion about slippery slopes. Our society is being torn apart as we speak. We don't have the luxury of philosophizing about what-ifs.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#658

Post by xp84 »

intrasight wrote: post #464
LooseMarmoset wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An outstanding idea. Those lobbying for age verification hate it though, because they want to be the arbiters of age, and all that juicy PII that they can analyze and resell.

What PII? They get a boolean "old enough"

If technically competent people specify and build this system, sure. But it’ll be specified by complete idiot politicians, influenced by Google and Meta, who 100% DO want to know your government name, DOB, etc., so we’ll end up flashing our IDs at the camera, turning around to be scanned, etc. The platform owners will tell us they “deeply care about our privacy.”

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#659

Post by SoftTalker »

lynx97 wrote: post #555
Nursie wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reason is that this whole push for age verification is nothing to do with actually stopping kids seeing the content. The reason that mainstream politicians are pushing is because the public wants something done to protect their kids. Are there likely to be bad actors pushing for it for nefarious reasons as well ? Sure. Are the 'solutions' inadequate and often tech- and privacy-illiterate? Absolutely. Is the ent…

So, why are those "real people" actually not willing to do their job? I am so pissed with parents who think the government is supposed to solve their own inability to raise a child.

We expect every other consumer product/toy that kids are intended to use to be safe by default. This is like asking why parents shouldn't be responsible for testing all their kids toys for lead paint.

Yet when it comes to internet/social media technology, it's suddenly a parenting failure if they don't pre-vet every platform and website and device before allowing their kids to use it.

As a society, we collectively protect kids from stuff they aren't ready to handle. We don't let them gamble, or buy alcohol, cigarettes, or porn. For the most part, everyone buys in to this and parents can pretty much count on it. Are there exceptions, sure but they create scandals and consequences when they are discovered.

But social media and content platforms didn't feel that they had any social obligations. They did not honor this societal convention to keep inappropriate content away from kids. And the top people at these companies actually don't let their own kids use the platforms, they know how harmful they are and they know about all the addictive hooks and dark patterns of engagement that are baked into them.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#660

Post by hirvi74 »

znnajdla wrote: post #613
hirvi74 wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Trust is primarily a function of reputation, peer pressure, and legal consequences. The trust is somewhat of a one-way street. We are supposed to trust the entities in power. If we break their trust, there are consequences. If said entities break our trust, we can do little about it. > I don’t see why anyone would want to remove any of this. To protect some freelance journalists in Iran? For some, perhaps. However,…

> you will continue to still use and profit off the Internet in the meantime If I stop my internet use that won't save anybody, so there's no point in doing it. If shutting down the whole internet is necessary to save a life, I would support it. The only reason I don't is because that's not possible and even if it were possible it would not actually save more people than it would harm right now.

[dead]
Post reply on HN