71–80 of 109 posts
I suggest to (re)read
- https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Global%20Trends_Mapping%...
- https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Newsroom/Reports%20and%2...
These predictions have largely come true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some people have been saying for so long that you should need a license to use the internet, and now that we have it, it's a little different than we intended :(
I'd argue it's more like KYC for the internet. Something HN users have brutally and ruthlessly defended for banking every time I argue it's a 4A violation (in fact, it's one of the most fiercely defended things anytime I bring it up). Give in 20+ years and you'll be called a kook for thinking otherwise.
In the 90s they told kids: don't give strangers your real name online. In 2026: the government demands your ID to access the internet. Progress.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Better yet, require online services to send a 'not for kids' flag along with any restricted content then let families configure their devices however they want. Even better, make the flags granular: , , , 13+, profane language, user, text 17+, violence, self, video 18+, unmoderated content, user, text 13+, drug themes, self, audio and so on...
Internet Explorer had content ratings back in the day
This could pretty easily be solved by just giving sites some incentive to actually provide a rating.
What I find puzzling about these proposals is that it SEEMS like they could be designed to achieve 90% of the stated goals with almost 0% of the loss of privacy. The idea would be that devices could "opt in" to safety rather than opt out. Allow parents to purchase a locked-down device that always includes a "kids" flag whenever it requests online information, and simply require online services to not provide kid-unfr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have not once seen a proposal actually contain zero knowledge proof. This isn't something exotic or difficult. It is clear to me there is ulterior motives, and perhaps a few well meaning folks have been co-opted.
A ZKP will work as a base, but the proof mechanism will have to be combined with anti-user measures like device attestation to prevent things like me offering an API to continually sign requests for strangers. You can rate-limit it, or you can add an identifier, both of which makes it not zero knowledge. Parent's proposal is better in that it would only take away general purpose computing from children rather than fr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Better yet, require online services to send a 'not for kids' flag along with any restricted content then let families configure their devices however they want. Even better, make the flags granular: , , , 13+, profane language, user, text 17+, violence, self, video 18+, unmoderated content, user, text 13+, drug themes, self, audio and so on...
Just say the whole internet is not for kids without adult supervision and leave it at that. It doesn't even matter if you can get something that technically works. Half the "age appropriate" content targeted at children is horrifying brainrot. Hardcore pornography would be less damaging to them. Just supervise your damn children people.
Also, not all 13-year-olds are of equal level of maturity/content appropriate material. I find it very annoying that I can’t just set limits like: no drug-referencing but idgaf about my kid hearing swear words.
On other machines: I do not want certain content to ever be displayed on my work machine. I’d like to have the ability to set that. Someone who has specific background may not want to see things like: children in danger. This could even be applied to their Netflix algorithm. The website: does the dog die, does a good job of categorizing these kinds of content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Better yet, require online services to send a 'not for kids' flag along with any restricted content then let families configure their devices however they want. Even better, make the flags granular: , , , 13+, profane language, user, text 17+, violence, self, video 18+, unmoderated content, user, text 13+, drug themes, self, audio and so on...
Other advantages include: - It's much easier for web sites to implement, potentially even on a page-by-page basis (e.g. using tags). - It doesn't disclose whether the user is underage to service providers. - As mentioned, it allows user agents to filter content "on their own terms" without the server's involvement, e.g. by voluntarily displaying a content warning and allowing the user to click through it.
That's why I have a hard time crediting the theory that today's proposals are just harmlessly clueless and well intentioned (as dynm suggests). There are many possible ways to make a child-safe internet and it's been a concern for a long time. But, just in the last year there are simultaneous pushes in many regions to enact one specific technique which just happens to pipe a ton of money to a few shady companies, eliminate general purpose computing, be tailor made for social control and political oppression, and on top of that, it isn't even any better at keeping porn away from kids! I think Hanlon's razor has to give way to Occam's here; malice is the simpler explanation.
What I find puzzling about these proposals is that it SEEMS like they could be designed to achieve 90% of the stated goals with almost 0% of the loss of privacy. The idea would be that devices could "opt in" to safety rather than opt out. Allow parents to purchase a locked-down device that always includes a "kids" flag whenever it requests online information, and simply require online services to not provide kid-unfr…
Better yet, require online services to send a 'not for kids' flag along with any restricted content then let families configure their devices however they want. Even better, make the flags granular: , , , 13+, profane language, user, text 17+, violence, self, video 18+, unmoderated content, user, text 13+, drug themes, self, audio and so on...
ASACP/RTA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Sites_Advocatin...
PICS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_for_Internet_Content_...
POWDER https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_for_Web_Description_R...
Tools avaliable for decades.
But as said multiple times, the childs are the distraction, the targets are privacy and freedom.