Tech firms must tame toxic algorithms to protect children online

Post by rustcleaner » Wed, May 08, 2024, 5:34 PM UTC

whimsicalism wrote: post #65

Aurornis wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> California’s digital id has a way of verifying age without revealing anything else about your identity called “TruAge” I'm not familiar with the system, but I assume it would necessarily have to reveal the sites you're verifying with to the State of California. So it's less of a big deal, as long as you're okay with sending a record to the government about what site you're visiting every time you want to sign up so…

> TruAge encrypts your data points and then protects them even further by creating anonymous tokens. These anonymous tokens cannot be traced back to you without legal authorization from a court-issued subpoena Yes, I think you are right. There is probably a way to make a fully anonymous scheme.

Post by manlobster » Wed, May 08, 2024, 5:35 PM UTC

Aurornis wrote: post #26

People love these proposals until they read the details and think of the consequences. Anything that requires "robust age-checks" means that everyone using the site must go through an ID check and validation process. No more viewing anything without first logging in via your ID-checked account > 1. Carry out robust age-checks to stop children accessing harmful content > Our draft Codes expect much greater use of high…

Post by s1artibartfast » Wed, May 08, 2024, 5:38 PM UTC

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #61

whimsicalism wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

maybe we shouldn’t use government intervention and force as the default in all of these things.

What I can tell you for sure is that self-regulation was not very beneficial to the society as a whole ( see current cell phone impact on youth ). As to whether government regulation is a bad idea, at this point I believe it is an interesting academic objection thrown in that happens to be true often enough to an extent, but then hijacked by corporations trying to avoid actual regulation.. ie. biased at best.

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 » Wed, May 08, 2024, 5:39 PM UTC

whimsicalism wrote: post #68

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I can tell you for sure is that self-regulation was not very beneficial to the society as a whole ( see current cell phone impact on youth ). As to whether government regulation is a bad idea, at this point I believe it is an interesting academic objection thrown in that happens to be true often enough to an extent, but then hijacked by corporations trying to avoid actual regulation.. ie. biased at best.

As someone from the cell phone impacted generation, I wish our elders would spend less time trying to protect us from the internet and more time building homes.

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 » Wed, May 08, 2024, 5:41 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #75

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I can tell you for sure is that self-regulation was not very beneficial to the society as a whole ( see current cell phone impact on youth ). As to whether government regulation is a bad idea, at this point I believe it is an interesting academic objection thrown in that happens to be true often enough to an extent, but then hijacked by corporations trying to avoid actual regulation.. ie. biased at best.

I don't think you can write off self regulation so easily. I don't think anyone is claiming that it's a complete and perfect harm reduction. It usually takes time for social norms to develop, especially in the face of rapidly changing technology. However, the alternative is very grim. It is essentially conceding that the average human is not capable of directing their actions, and they should be controlled by a highe…