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

Zuckerberg's "fix" for child safety could end anonymous internet access for all

reclaimthenet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 81 posts

Re: Zuckerberg's "fix" for child safety could end anonymous internet access for all

#71

Post by tzs »

inigyou wrote: post #34

[flagged]

There is very little publicly known about them. All the bylines appear to be pseudonyms used almost exclusively for posts there. No contact information other than email addresses at their domain.

They don't release any information about what funding sources they have, if any, other than donations and merchandise sales.

In this article [1] about X being ordered to obey the DSA requirements to make election data available to researchers they go on at great length about the importance of knowing who is funding the organizations asking for the data. Maybe they should set an example and disclose their own funding.

Also in that article they suggest X is being singled out for enforcement, ignoring that the the other platforms covered by DSA are at least partially responding to requests for data under DSA. That kind of biased framing is common in many of their articles.

I've never seen any reporting by them where I could not find the same thing covered with less bias from a source that is much more transparent over who funds and controls them.

[1] https://reclaimthenet.org/berlin-court-orders-x-to-share-hun...

Re: Zuckerberg's "fix" for child safety could end anonymous internet access for all

#72

Post by onetokeoverthe »

jauntywundrkind wrote: post #61
throwaway87543 wrote: post #32

Authentication & Authorization is a OS feature. But instead of the OS collecting everyone's age, just give parents the ability to verify their child's phone is in child lockdown mode. Then the phone narc's to the website: "the user is under age". Not "the user was born on Feb 29 2001." We can rely on parenting to ensure a child doesn't have a non child mode phone. Enable parents, not control everyone.

Colorado is trying to do this. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47097904 It's just terrifying to think of an internet that goes from open & usable, to requiring only approved government devices & systems. Within a very brief time.

[dead]

Re: Zuckerberg's "fix" for child safety could end anonymous internet access for all

#73

Post by TiredOfLife »

inigyou wrote: post #35
throwaway87543 wrote: post #32

Authentication & Authorization is a OS feature. But instead of the OS collecting everyone's age, just give parents the ability to verify their child's phone is in child lockdown mode. Then the phone narc's to the website: "the user is under age". Not "the user was born on Feb 29 2001." We can rely on parenting to ensure a child doesn't have a non child mode phone. Enable parents, not control everyone.

OS vendors don't want to add this feature, though. That could be because they make their money from a percentage of IAPs and ads. And when they are mandated, like in Brazil, we HN commenters hate that even more, because apparently in Brazil it's illegal to sell a phone without locked bootloader, or an OS that can run software from outside of an app store, because the user might install an OS or an app that doesn't co…

It's a feature that has existed for years. And is built into every OS.

Re: Zuckerberg's "fix" for child safety could end anonymous internet access for all

#74

Post by TiredOfLife »

throwaway87543 wrote: post #32

Authentication & Authorization is a OS feature. But instead of the OS collecting everyone's age, just give parents the ability to verify their child's phone is in child lockdown mode. Then the phone narc's to the website: "the user is under age". Not "the user was born on Feb 29 2001." We can rely on parenting to ensure a child doesn't have a non child mode phone. Enable parents, not control everyone.

You could call it something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_controls

Re: Zuckerberg's "fix" for child safety could end anonymous internet access for all

#75

Post by TiredOfLife »

iamnothere wrote: post #17
bubblewand wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Attempting to manage this as a parent is hellish. I can't speak for other parents, but some standards for parental controls—the presence of which and adherence to might be enforced by law, if need be, and need probably would be since none of this is stuff vendors couldn't have figured out on their own long ago if they cared to—we could leverage would be goddamn nice and is all I'd really want. Especially as devices g…

I agree that it should be easier. We’re on a frigging VC website. Shouldn’t there be a huge market opportunity here for parental control systems? Why is this not a problem that anyone is going after? I’m also surprised that “family monitoring” stalkerware companies like Life360 haven’t expanded into this market.

> Shouldn’t there be a huge market opportunity here for parental control systems?

It's so huge that it has been built into every operating system for years

Re: Zuckerberg's "fix" for child safety could end anonymous internet access for all

#76

Post by computerthings »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #46

I find it amazing that we continue to let parents ruin society with their overprotective bullshit. They should be parenting, not passing the buck. This isn't the first time overprotective parents have caused problems for everyone else. The US drug war (and the mass incarceration of poor and black people) was started mostly by organizations of parents who thought marijuana was going to kill their kids. The movie ratin…

[dead]

Re: Zuckerberg's "fix" for child safety could end anonymous internet access for all

#78

Post by throwawayffffas »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #59
throwawayffffas wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zuckerberg tries to avoid liability by passing the back to OS vendors. Article writer thinks that would be bad. Hence it's all the plaintiffs fault.

I don't think that's an accurate characterization of Zuckerberg's testimony. His primary argument for avoiding liability is one the article writer explicitly agrees with: the science of "social media addiction" is highly contested, and it's not clear that it's real nor that the plaintiff had it if it is real. Nor is "passing the buck" a fair characterization of the article author's criticism; he clearly does not thin…

Addiction is a red herring in the context of this article.

The thing that is a problem for the author is age verification on devices.

Facebook supposedly does not allow users under 13, but does nothing to enforce that rule. Instead of coming up with a way to enforce their own rule, Zuckerberg comes up with the idea of apple and google doing it for them because "they are in a better position".

That is Zuckerbergs idea. That's the idea the author objects with, but instead of putting the blame on Meta for trying to pass of enforcement of their own rules to the devices. The author inexplicably puts the blame on the plaintiff for merely starting the conversation.

Whether the plaintiff is wrong or right is not important. The issue is that when meta was told you should really enforce your own rules they said actually we would rather apple and google were forced to do it.

It's about externalities meta is trying to move the cost of age verification to Apple and Google to the detriment of everyones privacy, and the author is for some reason upset with some 20 year old girl for rocking the boat, instead of the trillion dollar company that does want to enforce their own terms of use.

Re: Zuckerberg's "fix" for child safety could end anonymous internet access for all

#79

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

throwawayffffas wrote: post #78
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's an accurate characterization of Zuckerberg's testimony. His primary argument for avoiding liability is one the article writer explicitly agrees with: the science of "social media addiction" is highly contested, and it's not clear that it's real nor that the plaintiff had it if it is real. Nor is "passing the buck" a fair characterization of the article author's criticism; he clearly does not thin…

Addiction is a red herring in the context of this article. The thing that is a problem for the author is age verification on devices. Facebook supposedly does not allow users under 13, but does nothing to enforce that rule. Instead of coming up with a way to enforce their own rule, Zuckerberg comes up with the idea of apple and google doing it for them because "they are in a better position". That is Zuckerbergs idea…

Perhaps "their own rule" is the confusion? Facebook didn't come up with this idea. COPPA, a long-standing federal law, heavily disfavors collecting any personal data from users under 13.

Re: Zuckerberg's "fix" for child safety could end anonymous internet access for all

#80

Post by IAmBroom »

gweinberg wrote: post #36

Had to wade through a lot of text to find out that apparently Zuckerberg and OP both apparently think the internet is something you access through phones.

Talk to someone under 30. Show them this cool "phone" app on their cellphones.
Post reply on HN