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

Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

news.dyne.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 486 posts

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#81

Post by closeparen »

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #55
sillysaurusx wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure it’s possible to have different priorities without being stupid or ignorant of history. Once you concede a certain right, such as a right to privacy, you rarely if ever get it back. Most people seem not to care about this, despite ample evidence that it’s something worth caring about. Stupid is the obvious term for it, though obtuse could work as well. Of course, I don’t blame them. They haven’t lived in…

> They haven’t lived in a context where they need to care. You might believe you don't need opsec, and then new laws are passed, or your national supreme court overturns the case that gave you your rights, or someone invades; and now suddenly you're wanted for anything from overstaying a visa, outright murder, or simply existing. USA, right now, peoples lives are being destroyed because the wrong people got their dat…

There is no world where a totalitarian government’s law enforcement ambitions on some object-level question are thwarted by the same government’s enforcement of privacy law. Countries with GDPR that are thinking of rounding up and kicking out the refugees know perfectly well who and where the refugees are.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#82

Post by deadbabe »

hei-lima wrote: post #71

I was a kid with unrestricted, unsupervised internet access, and it definitely affected many things in my life. If I happen to have a child in the future, they won't go through that. The Brazilian government passed a law requiring age verification for every site categorized as 16+. It can't be self-declared, so companies usually resort to facial scans and ID verification. I DO NOT want photos of our Brazilian childre…

What did it affect in your life? Ultimately something with affect a kid’s life.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#83

Post by smallmancontrov »

catapart wrote: post #59
gruez wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The people pushing for "child protection" went to the island. What does this even mean aside from a thinly veiled accusation that such efforts are being pushed by a shadowy cabal of pedophiles elites? I'm sure you can find some overlap between people who want to push age verification laws and people who went to the island, but what about everyone else pushing for the law but who didn't go?

Like who? Name some names of people pushing for this, and we can dissect their motivation.

These laws were passed almost exclusively by the party of self-proclaimed free speech warriors led by Epstein's best friend.

    State             | Effective Date | Legislature Control
    ------------------+----------------+----------------------
    Alabama           | Oct 1, 2024    | Republican
    Arizona           | Sep 26, 2025   | Republican
    Arkansas          | Jul 31, 2023   | Republican
    California        | Jan 1, 2027    | Democratic
    Florida           | Jan 1, 2025    | Republican
    Georgia           | Jul 1, 2025    | Republican
    Idaho             | Jul 1, 2024    | Republican
    Indiana           | Aug 16, 2024   | Republican
    Kansas            | Jul 1, 2024    | Republican
    Kentucky          | Jul 15, 2024   | Republican
    Louisiana         | Jan 1, 2023    | Republican
    Mississippi       | Jul 1, 2023    | Republican
    Missouri          | Nov 30, 2025   | Republican
    Montana           | Jan 1, 2024    | Republican
    Nebraska          | Jul 18, 2024   | Nonpartisan (unicameral)
    North Carolina    | Jan 1, 2024    | Republican
    North Dakota      | Aug 1, 2025    | Republican
    Ohio              | Sep 30, 2025   | Republican
    Oklahoma          | Nov 1, 2024    | Republican
    South Carolina    | Jan 1, 2025    | Republican
    South Dakota      | Jul 1, 2025    | Republican
    Tennessee         | Jan 13, 2025   | Republican
    Texas             | Sep 19, 2023   | Republican
    Utah              | May 3, 2023    | Republican
    Virginia          | Jul 1, 2023    | Divided
    Wyoming           | Jul 1, 2025    | Republican

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#84

Post by TomGarden »

For many it's not about the children. For many it is.

I haven't made my mind up on this topic, but Jesus, the comments here strawmanning everyone who supports this kind of thing as disingenuous or worse... Wow.

I'm not sure how we make any corner of the internet usable within the next few years without verification given all the misinfo, bots & AI slop anyway.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#85

Post by gruez »

aga98mtl wrote: post #70
gruez wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The people pushing for "child protection" went to the island. What does this even mean aside from a thinly veiled accusation that such efforts are being pushed by a shadowy cabal of pedophiles elites? I'm sure you can find some overlap between people who want to push age verification laws and people who went to the island, but what about everyone else pushing for the law but who didn't go?

> but what about everyone else pushing for the law but who didn't go? Who exactly is influential & organized enough across many western countries to push legislation that no one is asking for? Notice that epstein said he worked for [withheld] in some of his emails.

>Who exactly is influential & organized enough across many western countries to push legislation that no one is asking for?

The anti-social media sentiment has been brewing for a while now, not least due to books like The Anxious Generation (2024). It's also reflected in opinion polls and media coverage. Unless you want to imply there's some massive conspiracy by The Elites™ (ie. not just a few lobbyists Meta hired, but those in academia and media as well), it's probably organic.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#86

Post by ori_b »

bilekas wrote: post #39
smartmic wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s only too late when we stop fighting back and accept it as a given. Don’t underestimate civil disobedience and the hacker spirit.

While I agree with you, my worry is that younger generations have been conditioned to just expect privacy invasions, and I hear the same "Well I have nothing to hide" more and more with my younger family at least.

"Pass me your phone, I want to screenshot a few things and post on social media".

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#87

Post by bigfatkitten »

gruez wrote: post #77
catapart wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like who? Name some names of people pushing for this, and we can dissect their motivation.

How about the first country to ban social media for kids, Australia[1]? So far as I can tell the PM/party leader was not in the files. Of course, if you make your inclusion criteria absurdly wide (eg. anyone who voted or advocated for age based restrictions in any shape or form), you'll probably find some pedophiles or even epstien island visitors from sheer luck alone. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Safety…

This has been on Labor’s agenda, in various forms for many years.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-09/government-abandons-p...

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#89

Post by hunterpayne »

mpalmer wrote: post #69
jjk166 wrote: post #24

The people pushing for "child protection" went to the island. It's not even about control, it's about shifting liability away from platforms so they can further gut moderation, reducing their expenses and getting away with doing nothing to stop the actual bad actors.

It's mostly Meta lobbying for this, in every state. Sensationalizing and exaggerating does not help.

But why is Meta lobbying for this? The bills they push move compliance onto the app stores. And Meta doesn't run an app store. I think the execs think its some sort of 4D chess move to put liabilities onto their competitors. I'm not sure it will work out that way. Seems like FB has a lot more to lose than they think.

Re: Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control

#90

Post by abcde666777 »

tangotaylor wrote: post #44
jmcgough wrote: post #4

What's sad is how effective this is. Religious groups figured out a few years ago that anti-porn groups accomplish nothing, but if you start an anti-trafficking group you can restrict porn access.

Their real goals are even worse than that. Some of these groups have admitted they're also about suppressing LGBT+ content. As the Heritage Foundation admitted: > Keeping trans content away from children is protecting kids. No child should be conditioned to think that permanently damaging their healthy bodies to try to become something they can never be is even remotely a good idea. https://arstechnica.com/tech-polic…

I mean, I don't disagree with the sentiment of keeping trans ideology away from kids, in exactly the way I'd want to protect them from any kind of religious indoctrination.
Post reply on HN