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

Meta Platforms: Lobbying, dark money, and the App Store Accountability Act

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

971–980 of 1001 posts

Re: Meta Platforms: Lobbying, dark money, and the App Store Accountability Act

#971

Post by nickburns »

SirMaster wrote: post #956
nickburns wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you given any movie theaters a permanent and persistent copy of your ID lately? Your phone number? Make them a list of anything and everything you've read about lately?

What is the fight over? It semes like some people are fighting over age restriction at all, and others are fighting over the specific exchange of age proof mechanisms.

Can we have the former without the latter? My own fight is squarely with the latter.

I think I'm beginning to realize, however, that the onus should be on both sides of the issue to find a reasonable common ground.

Re: Meta Platforms: Lobbying, dark money, and the App Store Accountability Act

#972

Post by dotancohen »

abustamam wrote: post #960
dotancohen wrote: post #954

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> identity theft Identity can not be stolen. Some financial institutions may not have proper fraud prevention policies, but that is a problem both caused by and to be resolved by the financial institution, not the consumer. Pretending it's the consumer's problem may protect the financial institution, but leads to entire categories of new problems far more devastating. Don't pretend some nebulous concept of identity h…

Identity theft is commonly understood to be exactly what you just mentioned. Obviously no one can steal me (which is exactly what I thought when I first heard the term as a broke college kid; who wants to be me anyway?) We aren't "pretending" it's a consumer problem. It is a consumer problem. When someone opens up a credit card or loan in my namd, whose life gets messed up? Not the banks! Pretending it's not a consum…

The only reason _you_ have a problem when somebody defrauds the bank, is because the banks sufficiently marketed the term Identify Theft. In reality, nothing of yours was stolen. In reality, the actual illicit act was somebody lying to the bank, and the bank not properly verifying who that person is.

Re: Meta Platforms: Lobbying, dark money, and the App Store Accountability Act

#973

Post by mullingitover »

mullingitover wrote: post #805
bix6 wrote: post #770

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My drivers license is a real id and has been for like 5 years? This is a non issue if you went to the DMV instead of waiting until now.

A Real ID isn’t reliable proof of citizenship.

To clarify: in a number of states a Real ID doesn't include a citizenship indicator, and a Real ID in those states is not sufficient identification for voting purposes.

For the majority of existing Real IDs, they will not be valid proof of eligibility to vote.[1]

> While your REAL ID would count as a photo ID when voting, in only a few states would it be considered proof of citizenship. Only five states — Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Vermont and Washington — offer the type of enhanced REAL IDs that explicitly indicate U.S. citizenship.

> Outside of those states, you would need another document to prove you were born in the U.S.

[1] https://thehill.com/homenews/nexstar_media_wire/5787733-woul...

Re: Meta Platforms: Lobbying, dark money, and the App Store Accountability Act

#974

Post by nostrademons »

jedberg wrote: post #901
nostrademons wrote: post #890

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're still accountable to customers/users. If you don't like their products, don't use them. I don't. The unfortunate thing about this lobbying effort is that it's making the government accountable to Meta, which is the worst of all worlds.

You know meta keeps a shadow profile on every person who is know to every one of their customers, right? So even if you don't use it, they almost certainly have you in their system. At least when the government is working, there are controls around what they can collect, what they can do with it, and who they share it with. And what they cannot do with it.

There aren’t really. The NSA keeps a shadier profile on you too, and the information Meta has is a subset of that. Snowden disclosures showed that.

Re: Meta Platforms: Lobbying, dark money, and the App Store Accountability Act

#975

Post by abustamam »

dotancohen wrote: post #972
abustamam wrote: post #960

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Identity theft is commonly understood to be exactly what you just mentioned. Obviously no one can steal me (which is exactly what I thought when I first heard the term as a broke college kid; who wants to be me anyway?) We aren't "pretending" it's a consumer problem. It is a consumer problem. When someone opens up a credit card or loan in my namd, whose life gets messed up? Not the banks! Pretending it's not a consum…

The only reason _you_ have a problem when somebody defrauds the bank, is because the banks sufficiently marketed the term Identify Theft. In reality, nothing of yours was stolen. In reality, the actual illicit act was somebody lying to the bank, and the bank not properly verifying who that person is.

You say nothing of mine is stolen but they hypothetically just racked up $10k debt on my identity. This is stuff that affects real things like my ability to get a mortgage, and I am also on the hook for that money unless I find a way to cancel that card. No matter the case, it very much is my problem, and they successfully took money from someone else (the bank) and made me pay for it. That's theft.

> the actual illicit act was somebody lying to the bank

Yes, this is known as fraud, and the entire concept of identity theft.

Re: Meta Platforms: Lobbying, dark money, and the App Store Accountability Act

#976

Post by robocat »

richrichardsson wrote: post #900
kakacik wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you did, you just lower the chances. I've created Netflix kids account specifically for mine. On its own it suggests also various documentaries on top of cartoons. We took the first one it suggested, and IIRC in second episode there was a very gruesome and detailed part with polar bear eating baby seals, one chew at a time. One way to traumatize 4-year old, I'd say an effective one.

Netflix age recommendations are a complete joke. There was one documentary series that apparently appropriate for 7+ and had "motherfucker" within the first 30 seconds of one episode. I don't know which parallel reality they're from where that is an appropriate word for a 7 year old to learn.

> motherfucker

Defines most fathers. Then again, I sincerely say thank you to many "insults".

Re: Meta Platforms: Lobbying, dark money, and the App Store Accountability Act

#977

Post by bluGill »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #682
bluGill wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I have to watch my kids 100% of the time they can't walk to the park. Nothing to do with street design - most suburbs have a park a safe walk near any house. That kids are not walking there is nothing to do with street design.

> That kids are not walking there is nothing to do with street design. Some state legislatures are pushing back against this. Utah passed a law in 2018 which amends the definition of neglect to exclude this kind of thing. https://le.utah.gov/~2018/bills/static/SB0065.html (c) "Neglect" does not include: [...] (iv) permitting a child, whose basic needs are met and who is of sufficient age and maturity to avoid harm or…

Remember the first post that started this "require adults to secure the device before letting minors near them?" - if I have to secure all devices that means I can't let my kids out of my reach since they might find a device someplace. Raspberry pi's are cheap, you can dumpster dive old, but working devices. There is free wifi all over.

In short the original post was subtly but very opposed to those very laws you are looking at.

Mind you there is nothing about OS level age verification that stops any of the above - which is why I'm against it.

Re: Meta Platforms: Lobbying, dark money, and the App Store Accountability Act

#978

Post by dylan604 »

zimpenfish wrote: post #826
dylan604 wrote: post #787

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a social security card literally says it is not for identification It no longer says this, and has not for a long long time. My parent's cards did, but mine does not. Also, I'm old (for this forum at least), so this isn't a recent change.

> It no longer says this, and has not for a long long time. Don't know about "a long long time" but the feds have been treating Social Security Cards as identification since 1943 (military, some agencies) or 1963 (IRS) (cf [0]) [0] https://www.straightdope.com/21341325/why-does-my-old-social...

I think you're misunderstanding why they are requesting an SSN. You cannot use an SSN to do an in person ID like a photo ID. Same reason a birth certificate cannot be used as an ID. These documents can be used to look up information about you, and a lot of places might use your SSN as a database unique ID, but that kind of info is not identification when someone shouts "papers!" at you.

conflating the two meanings of identification feels deliberate at this point

Re: Meta Platforms: Lobbying, dark money, and the App Store Accountability Act

#979

Post by Xelbair »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #966
Xelbair wrote: post #962

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ever heard of things like laws? like culture? like changing procedures instead of means? unless you want to argue semantics and go 'actually they're all part of technology', but that makes your argument even less meaningful.

Right, I would argue they are part of technology, because bureaucracy clearly is, laws move in scope of what's possible and economically feasible, and culture is entirely downstream of that. Or, put another way, you cannot "just change culture" , not any more than you can make a river flow uphill by pushing water with your hands. You can splash some water around and make a little puddle, but it'll quickly flow back t…

>Right, I would argue they are part of technology, because bureaucracy clearly is, laws move in scope of what's possible and economically feasible, and culture is entirely downstream of that.

then you’re using different definition that everyone else, and bring nothing into discussion other than confusion.

>Or, put another way, you cannot "just change culture"

it isn't shaped just by technology. There are economic factors and cultural exchanges between different cultures.

This is purely tautological line of thinking, that brings nothing to discussion.

Re: Meta Platforms: Lobbying, dark money, and the App Store Accountability Act

#980

Post by bitpush »

rockskon wrote: post #495
bitpush wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But didnt Apple fire the first shot with ATT? Apple was never against ads (see ads.apple.com or numerous ads on App Store) they were against Facebook's ads.

[flagged]

lol, this is a first for me.
Post reply on HN