681–690 of 750 posts
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.
I would say be careful what you choose to believe. Online identity verification is the only way to end the war that’s being waged on the American people by foreign states via social media. If I were a bad actor, I would very much want to convince the public that this is a bad idea.
It's easy for a corporate level bad actor to pay homeless people $20 to scan their ID, and easy for a state level bad actor to fabricate IDs at will
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Which brings us right back to what I said here[1]. We don't have to agree on the motivations behind this push. Even if you believe this is all an authoritarian conspiracy, that conspiracy could be undermined by proposals like OP's, but instead people make enemies out of these potential allies which just further empowers the people who you consider to be authoritarians. It's a failure of basic political coalition building.
I'm not a fan of online age verification, but this is completely absurd: > Every website. Every platform. Every app. Every service. Your children will never know what it was like to think freely online. They will never explore ideas anonymously. They will never question authority without it being logged in their permanent profile. They will never speak freely without fear that every word will be used... No. Nobody's…
I agree that it's an exaggeration to say that every website, platform, app, and service will require identity verification. I don't think it's inconceivable to think of a future where every website, platform, app, and service that matters will require identity verification (every one that has a significant userbase.) I can easily envision a future where it's impossible to anonymously or pseudonymously post a controve…
That's the difference. Porn sites aren't places intended for the free exchange of political opinions so age verification can pass muster. If anyone tried to do that with newspaper sites or political blogs or anything like that, the courts would shut down that law instantly.
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"
And on what date does that change?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I think your interpretation, even if correct, is not the current position of the legislature. This post and the thread attached to it is about how it's currently happening. Personally, I don't see a future where you don't have a digital ID. If the government can compel you to provide an ID to, say, travel or operate a vehicle in public, I don't see a compelling 1A argument that it can't do the same to operate computi…
And your analogy between driving a vehicle and posting on a website doesn't work because there is no constitutional protection for driving vehicles or taking commercial air flights. However there is a constitutional protection for speech, above all political speech. That's the difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What, in the same way movie studios wouldn't comply with the Hayes Code, or comic book publishers wouldn't comply with the CCA, or games publishers wouldn't comply with the ESRB? The financial incentive is to police yourself, because government policing is much, much worse.
Sure but the government doesn't police corporations in the US anymore. The Hayes code was before neoliberalism.
Age verification on Australian social media has loopholes. Underage influencers use an agency to manage their social media for them. So anyone with enough followers or money can continue using social media under the age of 16. If you are going to implement age controls, you should implement a ban on underage influencers as well.
That's the legal loophole that I'm sure a tiny number of people are using. In the real world, reportedly around 3/4 of kids under 16 that were using social media still are by either having changed their age during the window and using a sibling or older friend to do face scans for age recognition, or by creating new accounts and again using an older friend/sibling/relative etc. for the age verification. I heard about…
But it's a good lesson, I suppose. It changed the lesson to my kids about lying from "lying is bad", to a more sophisticated "lying is bad for these reasons, and so these lies are bad, but those lies are not."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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? ...?