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

671–680 of 750 posts

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#671

Post by xp84 »

hirvi74 wrote: post #375
tristor wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I know parents who have no problem with their kids seeing porn. I don't agree with showing actual children porn, but I also totally expect teenagers to find some way to get access to it in the age of the Internet. Part of the challenge with this is cultural. Different places in the world think about sex, sexuality, and even the concept of what is a child differently. In the US, showing a woman's bare breasts to a p…

I considered many of the same points you mentioned. Though, one area I am still struggling to grasp is the harm that governments are trying to mitigate. If a child were to see inappropriate material, then what harm can truly arise? Also, why do governments need to enact such laws when the onus of protecting children should be on their parents? I am not trying to start any kind of flame war, but I really cannot see an…

It seems like you might be a big believer in cultural relativism and that nothing can be right or wrong, so this may be unsuccessful, but many of us do believe that it’s harmful to the normal development of children to be exposed to certain types of content. It is mostly about maturity. A five-year-old who sees explicit sexual acts performed on a screen is going to be curious about it and be interested in trying it. He or she will likely have no sense of what would be problematic (e.g. trying to initiate such an act with a peer or an adult. Consider how they probably don’t understand ideas of consent). It’s why it’s generally considered grooming for people to exhibit that type of thing to children. Children who have been groomed frequently abuse other children (including by force), and can be taken advantage of by pedophile adults.

I think it’s important, as tough as it can be to identify where exactly the line is, distinguish the concept of a 16-year-old cranking his hog to some Internet porn (which yes, probably pretty harmless and inevitable), with little kids being exposed to explicit types of content. And little kids are curious, so just the fact that they make an attempt to find the content doesn’t mean they’re ready for it.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#672

Post by traderj0e »

jenadine wrote: post #559
thin_carapace wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i can make arguments as to potential merits of kids having a beer/cigarette, listening to swear words, or witnessing casual violence. i cant make an argument for letting kids see hardcore pornography in any capacity.

I have hard time imagining what is that argument, that apply to the thing you mention but that doesn't apply to hardcore pornography. Or do you also think we should forbid hardcore pornography also for adults?

Swear words and violence don't cause addiction, alcohol can but it's way less likely and also easier to restrict... idk why a kid should have cigs even once though

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#673

Post by bdangubic »

thin_carapace wrote: post #446
bluGill wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is adult content? I know parents who have no problem with their kids seeing porn. I know parents who give their kids a beer. I know parents who take their kids to violent movies. I used to know parents who will give their kids cigarettes. Most parents I know will disagree with their kids doing one of the above. I know songs that were played on the radio in 1960 that would not be allowed today, even though today…

i can make arguments as to potential merits of kids having a beer/cigarette, listening to swear words, or witnessing casual violence. i cant make an argument for letting kids see hardcore pornography in any capacity.

it is literally always the same thing - who gets to make these decisions? if you come from a family of alcholics (there are many) you will view alcohol for what it is, one of the most dangerous drugs that someone decide should be "legal." if you come from family that lost loved ones to smoking - same thing with smokes. hardcode porn, eh, they will eventually start putting this into practice ("hard" part is personal preference) so while probably not the greatest thing to have kids exposed to who makes these decisions? Personally, if you gave me a choice between smokes and porn and I had to choose one for my kid - I would choose hardcode porn. the core issue as always - who is making decisions on what kids should or shouldn't be exposed to?! and what do you do when whenever someone else gets that power then decides that reading or math or fishing or camping or ... is not allowed?

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#674

Post by slg »

trinsic2 wrote: post #667
slg wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If it was then this kind of solution would be being legislated for. What's more likely a global conspiracy to get age verification passed to allow these unnamed groups to identify everyone for some unknown purpose or politicians just not understanding tech? The way people try to pretend that there can't be any organic desire for these proposals is so bizarre and is a major cause for all these proposed solutions bein…

You do realize that for whatever reason more and more people in government positions are on the path of authoritarian agendas? Its a pretty important topic right now. All of this privacy related stuff is happening in quick succession. I mean I cannot believe I have to post these, but here we go: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/13/california-advances... https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/reddit-user-uncovers-be…

Your argument has two main flaws. First, it relies on an inherent connection between age verification and authoritarianism that is just taken for granted as true. Meta could easily be in favor of age verification because it reduces their liability and raises the barriers to entry for potential competitors. It doesn't inherently have to be authoritarianism.

But more importantly even if that connection is true, your argument relies on the current proposals of age verification being the only way to satisfy the organic desire for protecting kids from the unfettered internet. OP gave an example that could be a compromise position that addresses the need and isn't authoritarian. Why can't you support that effort?

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#675

Post by slg »

jpfromlondon wrote: post #635
slg wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>organic desire for these proposals Even if everything you said was true and there was a global conspiracy among the politicians, the tech crowd consistently denies and demeans these organic desires. We could cut the legs out from under these politicians if we listened to these people's concerns, considered actual solutions like OP did at the top of this thread, and turned these people into allies against those polit…

The public, and consumers in general often state a want or need for something that they don't actually want or that would harm their quality of life, it is correct to demean or deride these wants when they're identified, some aspects of human nature are amusing. But there is a global conspiracy, a synchronised effort among western leaders to implement near identical solutions to this engineered "problem", the respons…

>The public, and consumers in general often state a want or need for something that they don't actually want or that would harm their quality of life, it is correct to demean or deride these wants when they're identified, some aspects of human nature are amusing.

Thank you for proving my point by doing the exact thing I said tech people do. Do you think that if you demean and deride enough people, the problem will go away?

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#676

Post by traderj0e »

bdangubic wrote: post #673
thin_carapace wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i can make arguments as to potential merits of kids having a beer/cigarette, listening to swear words, or witnessing casual violence. i cant make an argument for letting kids see hardcore pornography in any capacity.

it is literally always the same thing - who gets to make these decisions? if you come from a family of alcholics (there are many ) you will view alcohol for what it is, one of the most dangerous drugs that someone decide should be "legal." if you come from family that lost loved ones to smoking - same thing with smokes. hardcode porn, eh, they will eventually start putting this into practice ("hard" part is personal…

There are things where like 90% of people will find common ground

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#677

Post by cantbudgeit »

illiac786 wrote: post #557
cooper_ganglia wrote: post #211

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.

I do agree fundamentally, but you are making a lot of assumptions about the parents here. Many do not have parents able to do this. Do they not deserve some protection against such content? Blaming the parents for their failures is not going to help the kids. That being said the current approach really has nothing to do with protecting kids and everything with tracking us.

[flagged]

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#678

Post by bdangubic »

traderj0e wrote: post #676
bdangubic wrote: post #673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it is literally always the same thing - who gets to make these decisions? if you come from a family of alcholics (there are many ) you will view alcohol for what it is, one of the most dangerous drugs that someone decide should be "legal." if you come from family that lost loved ones to smoking - same thing with smokes. hardcode porn, eh, they will eventually start putting this into practice ("hard" part is personal…

There are things where like 90% of people will find common ground

why 90%? and who decide is it 90%? or 87%? or 94%? are we going to have a referendum to decide on this? we need 100% people to vote on this referendum or small fraction will work? ...?

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#679

Post by trinsic2 »

slg wrote: post #674
trinsic2 wrote: post #667

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize that for whatever reason more and more people in government positions are on the path of authoritarian agendas? Its a pretty important topic right now. All of this privacy related stuff is happening in quick succession. I mean I cannot believe I have to post these, but here we go: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/13/california-advances... https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/reddit-user-uncovers-be…

Your argument has two main flaws. First, it relies on an inherent connection between age verification and authoritarianism that is just taken for granted as true. Meta could easily be in favor of age verification because it reduces their liability and raises the barriers to entry for potential competitors. It doesn't inherently have to be authoritarianism. But more importantly even if that connection is true, your ar…

I can support any effort that puts the responsibility into the hands of the parent without a mechanism that advances identity verification to protect their children.

The way it stands now. this issue is being used by people in power to advanced an authoritarian agenda. Its really clear to see, if you only have the will to look.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#680

Post by afpx »

vrganj wrote: post #657
afpx wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[dead]
Post reply on HN