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

731–740 of 750 posts

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#731

Post by AngryData »

SoftTalker wrote: post #659
lynx97 wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, why are those "real people" actually not willing to do their job? I am so pissed with parents who think the government is supposed to solve their own inability to raise a child.

We expect every other consumer product/toy that kids are intended to use to be safe by default. This is like asking why parents shouldn't be responsible for testing all their kids toys for lead paint. Yet when it comes to internet/social media technology, it's suddenly a parenting failure if they don't pre-vet every platform and website and device before allowing their kids to use it. As a society, we collectively pr…

We don't just assume every book and movie and telephone call are intended to be safe for kids by default. Why should we expect the internet to be like that?

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#732

Post by AngryData »

conradfr wrote: post #602
chirsz wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In China, people generally share porn through closed social network groups.

Given what we know about China's internet, is there any real privacy in those groups if authorities wanted to crack down on them?

Well the sheer volume and high percetages of users that do it make it difficult. Despite what people try to pretend the Chinese government can't arbitrarily decree things without pushback and political fallout for it. You can't arrest all offenders if it means holding tens of millions people in detention. And trying to ban porn completely is going to piss off a massive percentage of their population, even if they don't say it directly.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#733

Post by array_key_first »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #428
array_key_first wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why? Presumably so they can go to college and get a high paying job that may not exist in 10 years? Also so they don't end up stupid and useless like a potted plant. People with too little education are easy to manipulate and dim. They're perfect fodder for the propaganda machines. It would be nice if we could just let kids loose like wild animals and they'd, somehow, figure everything out. But no, we actually have…

None of your concerns are relevant. We're not talking about 6 year olds here but presumably 12-16 year olds. And the issue isn't whether they drop out of school, but whether school must be their sole focus.

12-16 year olds still do not have the restraint to be essentially self educating. I'm sorry, but this is a bad bad idea. The primary focus of children should be education.

They have their whole entire lives to be a cog in the capitalist machine. We don't need to speedrun children getting a soul crushing office job. They can spend time learning how to critically analyze text or how to learn choreography for a musical.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#734

Post by intrasight »

kbelder wrote: post #686
intrasight wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What PII? They get a boolean "old enough"

Old enough for the 13yr content, the 15yr content, or the 18yr content? And on what date does that change?

If your web site requires that a visitor be 18, then that's the "old enough?" question it will pose to the IdP.

I didn't understand your second question.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#735

Post by hackinthebochs »

array_key_first wrote: post #733
hackinthebochs wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of your concerns are relevant. We're not talking about 6 year olds here but presumably 12-16 year olds. And the issue isn't whether they drop out of school, but whether school must be their sole focus.

12-16 year olds still do not have the restraint to be essentially self educating. I'm sorry, but this is a bad bad idea. The primary focus of children should be education. They have their whole entire lives to be a cog in the capitalist machine. We don't need to speedrun children getting a soul crushing office job. They can spend time learning how to critically analyze text or how to learn choreography for a musical.

> They can spend time learning how to critically analyze text or how to learn choreography for a musical.

But to what end? There is zero value to many of these kids in learning to do these things. Again, we're pulling from a playbook on how to live a successful life that is decades out of date. A kid who has a potentially successful side hustle should be encouraged to follow it. And besides, we're only talking about a small number of kids here. Those that have shown aptitude and initiative for some alternate path. In many cases opportunity is fleeting and must be grasped when it appears. On the other hand, school will always be there.

How many skilled high school aged programmers in the late 90s were encouraged by their parents to stay in school and missed out on a decade head start on their careers? How many potential founders missed out on the golden era for computer startups? (Imagine if Bill Gates had followed his parents advice!) How many kids wasted years in college only to be saddled with a crushing debt burden and no relevant jobs to show for it? Those who have suffered for following the standard advice never seem to get a mention in these discussions. Not everyone must or should follow the same path. We as a society need to be more tolerant to experimentation and outliers.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#736

Post by EmbarrassedHelp »

streetfighter64 wrote: post #626
EmbarrassedHelp wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is actually extremely little evidence for anything when comes to individuals, sexual content, and their sexual fantasies. There is even less evidence available for anything when it comes to minors. I've read papers on the topic, and the good papers always point out that there is almost no focus on any potential positives. Many "authors" have already made up their minds before they've even started conducting res…

The difficulty of getting funding for such "research" is probably due to ethical concerns (regarding the methodology itself). As for focusing on potential positives, I'd be surprised to see any studies focusing on the potential positives of gambling or doomscrolling. Any arguments of "lack of evidence of harm" sounds a lot like what tobacco or asbestos companies used to claim not long ago.

I was talking about adult content, which does not appear to be plagued by the same recommendation algorithm feedback loop that social media companies are using.

Sex and sexual content interacts with the brain differently then addictive short form videos.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#737

Post by cassepipe »

numpad0 wrote: post #461
cassepipe wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I know about feudalism, this is a non-obvious statement. Care to develop ?

The proposed system moves sources of identity from the nation to private banks under it. So banks own people. Propose a financial regulation to the national congress/parliament and you stop existing, digitally or potentially physically as well. That's feudalism. Or Chinese struggles-of-nations warlord era situation which is often grouped up into that concept as close enough things.

I am not sure the proposal was for the bank to "own" the identity rather than being the manager of it the same way they already manage your money.

The state establishes your identity at birth. The bank already has access to your identity. If a service needs to know your identity, it asks the bank and it is illegal for them to store than information anywhere on their servers. It means only the bank is repsonsible for the safety of your id and selling and buying id information will be illegal.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#738

Post by pocksuppet »

Nursie wrote: post #713
tardedmeme wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What rate limit would you recommend? My cellphone provider will be pleased be paid to deliver all those 2FA text messages. Who's sending them? How are they getting paid? Maybe I'm actually my own phone company, so I get paid for delivering them to myself.

> Who's sending them? Your bank, like they have 2FA for every other access to your account. 2FA also doesn't need to be via SMS, and even when it is that's dirt cheap. Rate limits can be a couple of approvals per hour with daily limits of a small handful. Or a leaky-bucket style algortihm where you can do a few at a time, but you only get one more per hour. Whatever way it's done it precludes your large-scale automat…

So the government would stop you from accessing more than two porn sites per hour and five porn sites per day?

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#739

Post by pocksuppet »

mindslight wrote: post #523
tzs wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it is about making everyone identifiable how come California's version doesn't require providing any identifying information when setting it up on a child's device?

Because "making everyone identifiable" isn't an explicit design goal. Rather it is merely an implicit imperative (of Facebook et al, who are pushing these laws) that casts its shadow over the design. That shadow is what results in a design based around sending identifying information from the client to the server. Once this dynamic is normalized, servers will demand ever-more identifying information and evidence that…

The California law makes it illegal for Facebook to demand anything more than just your age. That seems like the opposite of what they want.

Re: Online age verification is the hill to die on

#740

Post by array_key_first »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #735
array_key_first wrote: post #733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

12-16 year olds still do not have the restraint to be essentially self educating. I'm sorry, but this is a bad bad idea. The primary focus of children should be education. They have their whole entire lives to be a cog in the capitalist machine. We don't need to speedrun children getting a soul crushing office job. They can spend time learning how to critically analyze text or how to learn choreography for a musical.

> They can spend time learning how to critically analyze text or how to learn choreography for a musical. But to what end? There is zero value to many of these kids in learning to do these things. Again, we're pulling from a playbook on how to live a successful life that is decades out of date. A kid who has a potentially successful side hustle should be encouraged to follow it. And besides, we're only talking about…

There is a lot of value, it's just that children are very bad at estimating value. That's why they'd rather spend all their time eating candy and going to the skate park - they're children. Apparently some adults see it that way, too, which is shocking to me.

Again, kids do not need to speedrun being cogs in the machines. Could SOME of them hypothetically become millionaires like 5 years earlier?

I mean... I guess? But that's frankly one of the stupidest justifications for anything ever that I have ever heard. The reality is 99.9999% of people are destined for the same thing: a normal career, with a normal salary. Most people are not going to be "entrepreneurs", and most "entrepreneurs" that I have met are not even entrepreneurs, they're scam artists. Which is a different thing, although you could say technically they're both self-made.

Look, it's a game of average. Are there SOME people out there who could benefit from less education? Sure. For the majority of people, education leads to higher lifetime income, and it's not even close. We have the statistics on this. We don't know ahead of time which one someone will be. So, we should optimize for the best odds.

> hose who have suffered for following the standard advice never seem to get a mention in these discussions.

No no, those people get WAY too much mention. What actually doesn't get enough mention are the people who are forced into lifetime poverty because they never graduated high school and are therefore essentially unemployable. Which is about 10,000x more common than the Bill Gates types. So, give me fucking break.

I know some people who didn't graduate high school, and I know a lot of people who opted to go straight into the workforce post highschool instead of getting a degree. None of those people are doing good.

Post reply on HN