911–920 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know what's even better? Not sending anything . There's no value in sending that bit of information rather than in using what's already readily provided.
Which Internet standard are you referring to? I’d like to check browser support.
There's also "Voluntary Content Rating", and the "RTA" marker.
Companies shouldn't be allowed to grow so big that they can manipulate laws as they want.
> organizations like the Digital Childhood Alliance (DCA)
I know most of this affects only the US, but I'm wondering where this will go in the EU if the Age Verification Tech goes ahead in America. There's been lots of efforts to increase surveillance disguised as protection for kids in the EU and UK. The Swiss implementation of eID may be hint that governments may/will take the responsibility to implement and maintain the tech, but the multiple intrusions and lobbying by P…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Parents shouldn't beat or rape their kids yet many thousands do. Parents should teach their kids about sex yet we still have sex ed in schools. Parents shouldn't deprive their kids of an education yet a minority do for religious our personal reasons; we still have compulsory schooling. Parents shouldn't give cigarretes or alcohol to kids yet we still have laws to prevent their sale to minors. I'm always unsure what y…
Kids are not property of the parents. Because with property rights comes responsibility. And that's the catch-22 imposed on parents. Society wants to lord over the power as if the child is their property but none of the responsibility. Anything that went wrong is the parent's fault. It's always more and more requirements upon the parent, a nearly one way imposition of power where law or society says what you must do…
Response-ability. The ability to respond. Which you have, if you want it or not, for anything and everything you can respond to.
You see children on the streets getting beat up? Your response-ability. You see someone throwing garbage to the ground? Your response-ability.
What you DO with it, whether you act on it, or you deny to have it, doesn’t matter. It is purely the ability, the capacity to. And not responding is also a response. We typically share response-abilities with others around us who are similarly capable. Ownership doesn’t inherently come with increased response-ability. Power does.
Maybe you are confusing responsibility with (legal) liability?
See also: Duty to rescue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue - at least as applied and lived in EU, LatAm, Africa; and some US states on paper
These discussions remind me so much of the US discussions about federal ID documents as verification. There's a vocal portion of people which opposes any solution because "privacy, government overreach, surveillance ...". So instead of a solution like e.g. zero-proof age verification, that tries to minimize intrusions on privacy, the result is the worst of all worlds, maximum surveillance (but I guess it's ok if it i…
For there to be a solution, there needs to be a problem. These bills are not addressing a problem. Assume the online platform has a video feed of my kid, or their SSN, or a zero-knowledge-proof of age, or whatever. Now, what will the platform do with it? Concretely? As in: Name one bad outcome a reasonable parent would care about that's prohibited under these bills. If the bad thing happens due to willful negligence,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
'Nobody is allowed to do it' remains a valid option.
How would a porn site operate on the internet?
If a kid wants to sneak some porn, he's going to have to hide his digital nudeymag under his digital mattress, and when it's discovered, he'll have to accept his fate as decided by his parents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Name one bad outcome a reasonable parent would care about that's prohibited under these bills. the bad outcomes don't need to be prohibited under these bills. it's already illegal to, for example, distribute pornography to minors. which i think is something that a reasonable parent would have a problem with. but if there is no way to determine who is a minor and who isn't, then it's impossible to determine the diffe…
> distribute pornography to minors. which i think is something that a reasonable parent would have a problem with. I'm sorry what? This is not even close to consensus, as you present it. Also, a thought exercise, just for you: 1. Should stabbing people be illegal? 2. Should we make it impossible to stab people? Think about those things, and how they relate to eachother. What would the consequences be of #2?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When the government is working as intended, and have not abdicated their duties to the people, the government at least has controls over what they can and cannot do. Yes, they have a monopoly on violence, but they also in theory have lots of controls. For example, the government cannot silence your speech, but a private company can. The government cannot share your data with others, a private company can. Unfortunate…
I get all of these hypotheticals, but, again, we know that it's not true. The government routinely collects and shares information that it shouldn't. We can't talk about it like it doesn't because it was designed not to. We have to contend with reality.
At least the government shouldn't on a theoretical level?