So..
<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/7757/cosponsors" rel="nofollow">https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/7757...</a><p>Find your rep on congress.gov, and write them.<p>Sponsors:
Brett Guthrie (R-KY)
CoSponsors: Frank Pallone (D-NJ)<p>Find and write your congress member: <a href="https://www.congress.gov/" rel="nofollow">https://www.congress.gov/</a><p>Guthrie is sponsored by: (Alpahbit is the biggest)
<a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/profiles/brett-guthrie" rel="nofollow">https://www.opensecrets.org/profiles/brett-guthrie</a>
/us_congress/summary?mpid=1048046<p>Frankie: (AIPAC, Anthropic and Comcast)
<a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/profiles/n00000781/us_congress/summary?mpid=1106330" rel="nofollow">https://www.opensecrets.org/profiles/n00000781/us_congress/s...</a>
Anybody else think it is weird that suddenly all Western countries suddenly want to lockdown the internet to "protect the children"? There is <i>surely</i> an international special interest group lobbying for this?
Facebook has been documented for sponsoring these bills in the USA.<p>But we also have years of research about how social media and other internet phenomena are ruining kids' lives.<p>I don't disagree with the principle of a lot of these laws, but many implementations are too flawed to be a mistake.
I think it's because they're afraid of what we might ask AI to help us build.
Politics works that way sometimes. It could be a fad. It could be the culmination of years of the intelligentsia, political, and corporate benefactors finding this to be the right time to move forward.<p>There has been a lot of propaganda since the mid teens targeting the social and psychological impacts of social media. It is certainly plausible that some group or the aforementioned entities had a big part of this. Regulatory capture is a real thing that makes companies or breaks companies.<p>This is not the first time media consumption has been labeled and targeted in a negative way and it will not be the last. We as a society have to adapt to changing landscapes.<p>We shouldn't burn books. We shouldn't ban dungeons and dragons. Video games do not make people in general homicidal. History is repeating itself.<p>Anecdotally, I have not ran into a single person who has suggested we need to age-gate social media. It is on the politicians mind, but not the lay-person, as far as I can tell.
I would have used the word "suspicious", but yeah.
Oh jeez, I wonder who on Earth could be behind this mass push for surveillance?
Of course. They meet in Davos every year.
Also in DC, eg, at the Bilderberg meeting.<p>Somehow the US ones always fly under the radar: Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, Jackson Hole banker meetup, Bohemian Grove, etc.
Why is it weird? Social media has existed for around the same amount of time for all western countries, and people have noticed the harm at around the same time everywhere.<p>Why do you require some special interest? Ordinary people are seeing the harm and demanding help. Tech companies did themselves no favors by locking down phones and accounts to the point that it's impossible for parents to police and/or check their kids phones.<p>So now that parents have been blocked from parenting, who else is going to do it?
I just listened to a radio program on my local NPR station about the topic of kids and social media. From what was presented, the research shows (longitudinal study) that there is very little evidence of social media impacting mental health--which is shocking because a majority of adults think there is a connection and the politicians are pushing that narrative. I have not personally vetted the research. Has anyone else?
There's quite a lot of statistics saying currently teens struggle with mental health even more than is historically normal for teenagers. [1, 2] Young people are also spending less time with friends, drinking less, and having less sex than ever before.<p>Obviously it's difficult to pin a 20-year trend on a single cause. But most parents have the sense their teens spend too much time on their phones; and with social media use as common as it is, almost every kid who commits suicide will have recently used social media. But it's not possible to prove causality in a way that will silence all objections.<p>I suspect it's particularly easy to convince politicians that social media is bad for mental health because of their lived experience. Consider the experience of being a professional politician on Twitter.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/science-research-data/young-people-canada-focus-mental-health.html#:~:text=Trends%20in%20feeling%20sad%20or%20hopeless%20among%20girls" rel="nofollow">https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications...</a>
[2] <a href="https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/child-adolescent-and-youth-mental-health-in-the-21st-century_1092c3cb-en/full-report/trends-and-patterns-in-the-mental-health-status-of-children-adolescents-and-young-people_696bf3a0.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/child-adolescent-and-yo...</a>
I find it kind of hilarious that we spent ages trying to make teenagers not hang out in public spaces, not to drink, not to fuck. And now they have finally obliged, we start to take their obedience as a sign of declining mental health.<p>Maybe kids would be better off if we stopped regulating every facet of their lives under the pretence of safety and make them feel if they make one mistake they will ruin their life because now they can't get into a good college or something.
> But most parents have the sense their teens spend too much time on their phones<p>I've been pondering recently how much time parents are spending on phones, that, 20 years ago they might have otherwise spent engaging with their kids.
Statistically parents spend more time with their kids now than in the 1900s, and the trend seems towards more and more time, especially among fathers.<p>There’s some “well we have no idea how much is quality time” argument, but just looking across my own families over time the reality is more like modern parents being way more present than their parents.<p>The issue lies elsewhere. It’s almost a zeitgeist, the direction and evolution of ideas, and less any actual cause. At least that’s how it seems to me.
>Young people are barely living<p>Yeah, I wonder what caused that?<p>The most freedom they actually get is on the Internet, that's why they all hang out there.
Is there any evidence social media is improving mental health?<p>It feels absurd to even ask.
> There's quite a lot of statistics saying currently teens struggle with mental health even more than is historically normal for teenagers. [1, 2] Young people are also spending less time with friends, drinking less, and having less sex than ever before.<p>Yeah. No surprise. The generation of my parents used to run free in the woods. My generation was limited to whatever bicycles offered. And when I have children, I'll probably have to be happy if they can walk to a friend's without some busybody calling the cops on them.<p>And drinking? Don't get me started on that one - same here. My parents' generation distilled their own spirits (that's banned in Germany these days). My generation had beer. My children? Assuming drinking is still a thing when they're at that age, I'll have to fear getting the cops called on me if they ever drink enough to end up in a hospital (which is a routine thing these days).<p>Generally: Third spaces (e.g. libraries, "youth centers") are closing down, others (malls, parks) try everything possible to eliminate youth loitering or, god forbid, making noise. And that's if they can actually afford something. It's ridiculous how expensive basic stuff such as fast food or ice cream has gotten.<p>In contrast to that, phones are free-ish (well, parents buy them for their kids anyway, and mobile data plans aren't a big deal either).<p>> and with social media use as common as it is, almost every kid who commits suicide will have recently used social media.<p>Bullying always used to be a thing, yes. But that's a legitimate complaint, the mechanics of social media and cameras being ever present have made bullying much more severe in scale. Hell if I were young today, I'd have probably ended up arrested multiple times if there was some video camera rolling around all time.
Hmmmm that's odd, because everybody I know who has worked (or works) at a major social network (or two or three), including me, thinks it is horrible for mental health of everybody involved.<p>I'd be very curious what kind of "research" NPR is talking about, and who funded it, because it flies in the face of what all of us at these companies have seen.
It's a good thing what random people thing is not taken a science these days, oh wait I guess science is on a historic decline as well.<p>Maybe it's not climate chance, pseudo intellectualism, late stage capitalism, etc. Nah, it's the kids in their group chat or scrolling through tiktok, that's it, that's the reason.
The tobacco company lobbyists probably applied their whitewashing know how to social media after being done with industrialized foods. They're also likely on Meta's payroll now.<p>Age checks are part if that. They will just feed the sureveillance capitalism machine and make the problem even worse.<p>Age checked social media is just like the parlor walls in Fahrenheit 451 and infuencers are Mildred Montag. Just another thing to keep people distracted and neutered.<p>I remember I used to hang out on IRC during my teens with all kinds of people: jewish lesbians from conservative families and other teens from Scandinavia who got drafted on somewhat right wing warez groups, middle aged goth rockers on music sharing channels. Quite an experience for someone who grew up in a post communist country to interact with so colorful and genuinely interesting people. In contrast to that social media is an entirely fake experience generated with bots, algorithms and AI, just like a techno feudal version of the communist propaganda riddled lalaland that I grew up in. Many a DPRK on steroids, except it herds people into getting enraged and engaged with brands in order to hopelessly buy useless junk instead of submitting to a <i>dear supreme leader</i>. Of course it gets people addicted, because it was designed with that in mind.
The world sucks and the kids have no hope. Social media/ internet is to distract everyone from the real world problems
Yes.<p>The research is quite confusing. This is because the strongest version of the argument is not "your child uses social media, and that makes them depressed". The strongest version is more like "when a society mass adopts social media, this irrevocably alters the culture in ways that causes massive changes in mental health, most prominently among young girls, including those exposed to the culture who don't even use social media."<p>This means you get a weird effect where experimental studies of high quality - which are usually the best evidence, are expected <i>by the strong argument</i> to show zero effect.<p>Correlational studies usually show either a weak effect (stronger in young girls) or no effect (it's extremely rare to see a study showing a positive correlational effect, though).<p>And where you get the <i>most</i> juice is looking at population level introduction of social media studies like those discussed here: <a href="https://www.afterbabel.com/p/phone-based-childhood-cause-epidemic" rel="nofollow">https://www.afterbabel.com/p/phone-based-childhood-cause-epi...</a><p>But even then it's very tricky, as those studies can't exactly be replicated, and we don't know whether changes will actually reverse the cultural artifacts
The problem is that argument is indistinguishable from the argument "the lack of proof is the proof!"
but also, you have to distinguish from "society has separately become anti-child"<p>which also did happen through the nineties and 2000s before social media, but how would you measure the effects of each on their own?
As is common in social science, it's really challenging to disentangle this kind of thing. But there are ways you can get at it.<p>One clever example discussed in the blog I linked:<p>> We also found five studies that used a similar design applied to the rollout of high-speed internet. It’s hard to have a phone-based childhood when data speeds are very low. So what happened in Spain as fiber optic cables were laid and high-speed internet came to different regions at different times?<p><a href="https://www.afterbabel.com/p/social-media-mental-illness-epidemic" rel="nofollow">https://www.afterbabel.com/p/social-media-mental-illness-epi...</a>
The kids are fine. The adults that are genuinely worried about the kids need to keep these specific adults out of the kids lives as much as possible.
[flagged]
But it's not just teenagers, it's also adults who are harmed by overexposure to algorithmically presented content. Obvs we can't restrict adults from legal content but we can legislate against algorythmic content.<p>The NPR bit sounds like what I'd imagine I could expect from people who are very good at pushing junk food -they've got good science behind flavoring and light addiction (like you don't get withdrawals from not eating doritoes) and the same with social media. they have very good science behind getting people to spend more and more time viewing their content not matter what. So I take that bit on NPR with a grain of salt. In my experience, NPR often presents studies based on small samples for whatever reason. Maybe to go against the grain, maybe to get people to think, who knows...
I remember when the advice was to NOT give out your personal information online.<p>Now it's "present your personal info when demanded or else".
Yeah, I remember when I finally had my own address and could stop entering nonsense. Felt like a rite of passage.
There's not a single point in history where everyone on the planet advised just one of those things simultaneously.
I don't know what that means.
There's not a single point in history where everyone on the planet advised <i>any one thing</i> at all, ever.
Would this website (HN) be a "covered platform" according to the bill?<p>As far as I can tell, the answer is no, because it doesn't do what's described in Section 201 (E):<p>"Uses the personal information of the user to advertise, market, or make content recommendations."<p>Neither does, for example, my bank's website, or someone's personal blog, or many other discussion sites like this one. So from what I can see, while the set of covered platforms is certainly not negligible, it's still a lot smaller than "basically every website on the Internet that anyone cares about". So the title of the EFF article is overstating the case; the thing the bill would require age checks for (in effect, if not by the explicit language of the bill) is not "get online" but something more like "get on social media".
Your bank almost certainly uses your personal information to advertise or market to you — and so seems like it would be covered by that definition.
That's true, but the bank also already knows my age.<p>Also, a bank would not satisfy section 201 (B), (C), or (D), so it wouldn't be a covered platform anyway. (I should have left "bank" out of my original post, I was really thinking more about discussion sites like this one, blogs, etc.)
Wouldn't imply their needing any more information than they'd already have.
> …is not "get online" but something more like "get on social media".<p>Which for ordinary people is the same thing, alas.
No, because:<p>with respect to which more than one-third of the material made available thereon is sexual material harmful to minors; and (C) with respect to which the provider of such platform knowingly makes available the sexual material harmful to minors described in subparagraph (B).<p>(look for line 19 to see the covered platform)<p>Of course, it's a delicious web they're trying to weave - pass it now by casting the think of the children spell, amend and reinterpret later to soften the guardrails until everything is in scope and demands commercial ID checks, driving ID check industry software and adoption, until psuedo-anonymity on the web is virtually gone. Or do it with any combination of other bills.
You're looking at section 102 of the bill, which is a different part than the one I was looking at (and that the EFF article is referring to). The bill is a mismash of several different proposed bills all squashed together into one. Title I, which is what you're looking at, is more restrictive about what platforms it applies to than Title II, which contains the section I quoted.
You need to be more realist.<p>"Uses the personal information of the user to advertise"<p>Is 99.9% of all websites. So long as websites don't sell things, they will be having ads.<p>This includes Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Twitter, Tumblr, Pinterest, Imgur, TikTok, Twitch, Youtube, etc. I think even Steam and other game platforms would fall into this category despite the fact they make money selling products. Naturally search engines also fall into this category.<p>Websites like HN are the exception, not the norm.<p>It's also disingenuous to say "a personal blog" would be exempt from this when most people don't have blogs in first place since they start microblogging instead. In fact, most people don't want to go through the trouble of maintaining their own blog, dealing with spam, hosting, hacking attempts, software updates, etc., when they can just use tumblr and pin the responsibility on the platform anytime something bad happens.
<i>> Is 99.9% of all websites.</i><p>Not at all. You named eleven. Even if I'm generous and raise that by a couple of orders of magnitude, it's still a miniscule fraction of <i>all</i> websites.<p>Of course it's close to all <i>big tech platforms</i>, but that's not the same thing. And if one of the results of this whole kerfluffle is to make more people realize that the big tech platforms are <i>not</i> the same as "the Internet" or "the Web", that would be a good thing.<p><i>> Websites like HN are the exception, not the norm.</i><p>Which makes it even more important to ask the question of whether "exception" websites like this one can continue to survive if this bill becomes law. Sure, HN users are a tiny fraction of all Internet users. But that's supposed to be one of the things the Internet is for--to give even very small communities a place where they can be a community, and not have to worry about all the other crap that's out there, and not have to be micromanaged by politicians and lobbyists and tech giants.<p><i>> It's also disingenuous to say "a personal blog" would be exempt from this when most people don't have blogs in first place since they start microblogging instead</i><p>Not all blogging platforms use targeted ads. And if this gives more of them an incentive not to, that would be a good thing.
It’s not just “social media”. Any site that’s funded by advertising fits that description.
But there are also other requirements in section 201 for a "covered platform", which advertising-funded sites that aren't "social media" most likely don't meet. For example, a typical personal blog, even if it shows ads, doesn't meet subsection (C), because its primary purpose is not to share user-generated content (e.g., comments by readers)--it's to share the blog author's content.<p>(HN itself doesn't meet at least one other requirement besides subsection (E): subsection (D), "Uses a design feature to promote user engagement on the platform".)
Only if it's targeted.
True, but in practice, the vast majority of advertising-funded sites use targeted advertising, because they use standard ad networks. There are very few ads networks that don’t do targeted ads.
Right but if we could kill that business model by making platforms chose between age verification and non-targeted ads, that would be a win right?<p>That's not so say I'm in favor of age verification, just pointing out the silver lining.
You're assuming that platforms that tried age verification in order to show people targeted ads would lose enough users to make that business model no longer viable. While I would fervently like to believe that's true, I'm not so sure it is. I think there might well be enough people who will hand over their personal identifying info without a second thought in order to continue to use targeted ad-supported platforms, to keep them in business. I hope I'm wrong.
Yeah, but you could also kill that business model without any legislation by simply... not visiting those websites.
Parents already have the ability to lock down Android or iOS devices for their own children, if they choose to do so.
Parental controls are extremely weak on all the major platforms. Apple, Google, Amazon, etc. they all have them so they can check the box but they are not good and certainly not a solution.<p>That said, it is better than nothing, but that’s about it.
You can control which apps children can install, how much time they are allowed to use those apps a day, decide if they have access to the web, which web sites they can visit, and decide who they are allowed to communicate with.<p>What features are missing that makes everyone giving up their privacy a better option?
> Parental controls are extremely weak on all the major platforms.<p>So pass laws and enact regulations that require them to be made strong.<p>Not only does this moot the demands for capture of photo ID, beefing up the parental controls that already exist in every major OS means that -say- adults caring for their dementia-damaged parents can restrict those adults' access to things that could be very dangerous to them and/or their finances. A strictly-age-based "protection" scheme absolutely does <i>not</i> do that.<p>One might argue that one could "merely" require a "This adult is seriously intellectually damaged. [0] Make sure to protect them from scammers and predators!" flag that can be flipped on by a Registered Caretaker. I humbly suggest that that is information you should <i>never</i> disclose to a company that makes its money by trading in dossiers of its users.<p>[0] Dear downvoters: I understand that this isn't the PC term for the effects of these sorts of ailments. If you've ever had to watch over and care for someone who gets cored out bad by this shit, it's hard to describe it as anything else.
Super awesome as long as your kids never go anywhere they could access a non-locked-down device. And assuming that device parental controls work, which (at least on iOS) they don't [1].<p>1. <a href="https://www.macworld.com/article/2305919/apple-parental-controls-need-improvement.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.macworld.com/article/2305919/apple-parental-cont...</a>
There's a big difference between your kid accessing inappropriate things at a friends house for a few hours a month and having that stuff at his or her fingertips 24/7.<p>If parents were really concerned about this stuff they'd take the time to set up parental controls, but they don't. Which makes me pretty sure the push for all this isn't coming from parents.
Also, (b)locking at the device level has a crucial benefit: It brings enforcement into a physical realm where parents can detect and manage exceptions.<p>If Little Timmy has a phone you don't recognize in his hand, then you know that's a problem.
Same applies to alcohol at a friend's house, cigarette's behind the shop, and any other sort of restrictions when away from parents. Ultimately kid's will either take to heart their parent's guidnace or they won't.
> Super awesome as long as your kids never go anywhere they could access a non-locked-down device.<p>Please describe how requiring a government ID in order to use a computer prevents an over-seventeen from presenting their ID to unlock their computer and then handing that computer over to an under-eighteen? An over-seventeen handing over control of their unlocked computer to a visiting under-eighteen seems to me to be an under-eighteen "go[ing somewhere] they could access a non-locked-down device".<p>The only way I can see to even begin to combat that is to constantly surveil the operator of the computer to attempt to detect when its operator changes. Do you have a superior method?
You can’t patch every hole. Kids will always find a way.<p>More technological solutions to social problems.
If we expect the behavior of parents to change we must change their incentives.<p>Providing access to social media must be met with the same punishment as offering heroin to children. The monopoly on violence must be brought to bear on parents who neglect parental responsibilities.
That's just not true. If you give your kid WhatsApp access because that's how 95% of their peers text each other, then your kid has access to a hidden chat that can only be revealed by typing a secret code in the search bar.<p>Tell me how a parent is supposed to parent their kid when they can do that? Locking down WhatsApp is no solution because then they can't talk to anyone. (Other countries do not use SMS as much as the US does, it's mostly WhatsApp.)<p>Say you are sure your kid is being bullied or abused and you want to check their phone. You can't. From the password to encrypted apps kids can hide their communications in ways that are impossible for a parent to check.<p>Apps do not have "child modes" that disable all the secret stuff, although that would be nice.
And all age-checks will be identity-checks.<p>Oh, sure, you can imagine a system where they aren't, but is bill isn't going to get us that? Nope! It's going to get us something stupid and ripe for abuse, and the mere presence of what comes next will poison the environment against any better option.
call and email your congresspeoples, and tell them not to go through with this
And if they do it anyway? Sure, you can vote them out but it's hard to dislodge incumbents especially over policy choices rather than obvious problems like corruption. Then even after you've ejected them, you need to push their successor into the Sisyphean task of rewriting populist legislation.<p>Representative democracy is not adequate to the demands of the information age, where the informational asymmetry between individual and state is unprecedented in history. It's time to explore other models like administrative democracy.
We do not need to lose our rights to privacy because people want to control what their kids do and see. (I'm not even convinced this is true - this is likely just a convenient lie told by the politicians, because I don't see parents clamoring for this.)<p>We're below replacement rate, so it's not like most people are even having kids, anyway. Yet we have to give up our freedom for other people to raise little Christian tots (or whatever the motivation for this is billed as)?<p>I grew up in a Deep South Protestant household. Having access to the unfiltered internet got me interested in STEM. Bumping into occasional shock sites and porn as a preteen did not turn me into a satanist cannibal.<p>Keeping "Kids Safe" is a LIE.<p>This is about putting collars on every US citizen.<p>They'll filter you into groups.<p>They'll control what loans and jobs you can get.<p>They'll use this information to blackmail you should you ever run for office or gain wealth or power.<p>This is a threat to democracy and personal liberty.<p>Child safety is a LIE.
Isn't it interesting how they're doing it in every anglo country simultaneously? How does that work?
At global conferences like Davos, where national leaders and policy makers go to schmooze and exchange ideas, this idea has been discussed for years. I’m sure there has been some subsequent cross-border coordination and discussion.<p>For instance:<p><a href="https://idtechwire.com/spains-pm-proposes-mandatory-digital-id-for-social-media-users-at-davos/" rel="nofollow">https://idtechwire.com/spains-pm-proposes-mandatory-digital-...</a><p><a href="https://www.weforum.org/publications/reimagining-digital-id/" rel="nofollow">https://www.weforum.org/publications/reimagining-digital-id/</a><p><a href="https://www.weforum.org/stories/2021/01/davos-agenda-digital-identity-frameworks/" rel="nofollow">https://www.weforum.org/stories/2021/01/davos-agenda-digital...</a><p>Everyone ignores stuff like this because of people like Alex Jones who make it seem like a lunatic conspiracy theory. But these conferences happen, and they do influence policy. It’s not a “cabal” that issues orders—many participants are national leaders bringing their perspectives (see the link above about Sanchez)—but it does have an impact.<p>The banal truth is that many different world leaders have talked each other into this after years of discussion on the proper way to “manage” the Internet. They see cyberspace as a threat to top-down technocratic control and view Internet-enabled populism (aka democracy) as something to be quashed.
> <i>[World leaders] see cyberspace as a threat to top-down technocratic control and view Internet-enabled populism (aka democracy) as something to be quashed.</i><p>This has been true ever since the creation of the internet and web.<p>It's what the original 90s crypto wars were about: the right of individuals to access strong encryption to preserve the privacy of their communications from the government.<p>Absent that, pandora's box opens.<p>Age KYC is just the next fight against encryption and privacy dressed up in "for the children" clothes.<p>Strong encryption always has (and always will) facilitate criminal and illegal activity. Tough tits.<p>Law enforcement and intelligence agencies should work within the bounds of individual rights, not adjust them for convenience.<p>If the price of individual freedom^ is that it's harder to track and prosecute child exploitation, drug distribution, and mass terror attacks, then that's the way it needs to be.<p>^ "Individual freedom" as distinct from corporate freedom. Fuck non-human legal entities' rights to access encryption, aside from on behalf of their users.
When nobody's done something before, there are lots of unanswered questions.<p>Is it even possible? Will businesses my voters like and use a lot just leave my country entirely? Will companies be able to develop privacy-preserving age check infrastructure? Will the press present it as a 'Chinese-style Great Firewall' or be more supportive of it? Will the blocks all be trivial to bypass? Will the large number of porn users in my country form a cohesive voting block? Will a powerful pro-privacy, pro-free-speech lobby emerge to challenge this? And will they be backed by powerful, well-funded US interests like Facebook and Google?<p>Australia simply showed the world passing this sort of legislation isn't political suicide.
Because the internet is global and the negative effects of the internet are happening everywhere at the same time. Also, politicians look at other countries for ideas.
Because it is an organized attack. The lobbyists got their orders,
now they pull it through. It is kind of fascinating to see though -
I bet many people don't realise this coordinated attack. To me it
is blatantly easy to notice. I am glad to not be the only one here.
Globalism + Oligarchy
Details on how to do that here:<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48711871">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48711871</a>
Don't forget to enclose a check
and have your children on the phone telling them to not let companies store and leak their information before they are old enough to consent to this.<p>If they are asking you to leave a message, have your kids leave the message.
Then donate millions in campaign contributions to ensure they actually care at all what you think!
Coordinated opposition campaigns against misinformed and dangerous legislation has been effective in stopping bad laws [1]. After a website blackout, including a Wikipedia shutdown, lawmakers in Washington decided not to proceed with the Stop Online Privacy Act in 2012.<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act</a>
From your linked Wikipedia articles many corporations including Google were part of that opposite campaign. Exactly the type of people donating untold millions to our legislatures. Had nothing to do with any kind of grassroots pressure.
Woohoo, what about this great success (checks notes) 14 years ago?! You think political counterparties don't adapt and refine their tactics?
Money is a poor substitute for people who care.<p>The only people who think otherwise are terminally online losers who have never organized anything larger than a birthday party.
<a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/09/19/money-power-and-the-influence-of-ordinary-people-in-american-politics/" rel="nofollow">https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/09/19/money-power-...</a><p>seems like a lot more people believe that than the population you are describing
Maybe in your country but not in the hellhole that is the US.
Are you talking from experience? What legislation have you organised?
Espiallat ($9.5 million) vs Darializa (350k)<p>Money matters but a popular movement is more powerful still in some places look up DSA
Anything to protect identities online is valid. I wonder how many apps and websites will have to do or implement age verifications ? And how ?
It’s quickly being understood as a ploy for mass surveillance.
Once again banging my “there’s already an age check to get online and it’s the adult paying the ISP bill” drum.<p>Seriously, enough with mandating compliance with the surveillance economy. Build a society where parents can actually take care of their kids instead of hiding a surveillance state behind the guise of “protecting children” and blaming adults who want to preserve privacy or anonymity in the last space it exists within.
We're approaching forty years of this:<p>> <i>The term was coined by Timothy C. May in 1988. May referred to "child pornographers, terrorists, drug dealers, etc.".[1] May used the phrase to express disdain for what he perceived as "think of the children" argumentation by government officials and others seeking to justify limiting the civilian use of cryptography tools.</i><p>> <i>The phrase is a play on Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Digital rights activist Cory Doctorow frequently cites "software pirates, organized crime, child pornographers, and terrorists".[2][3] Other sources use slightly different descriptions, but generally refer to similar activities.</i><p>* <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...</a>
It's so tiresome. It never stops...
sometimes it's true. We ruined the brains of a whole generation of people. Should we stop doing that? If so, how?
Which generation of people and with what? Kazaa or porn? I presume the former because the latter is about as old as the civilisations.
Can you elaborate on what you think ruined the brains of a generation of young people? Actually, can you even tell us which generation you're referring to so we know what era of the internet you're unhappy with?
[dead]
Isn’t this already a thing because it requires an adult and a payment method to get a connection to your house.<p>I’ve already stated who I am when I paid.
Targeting the kids is so infuriatingly successful tactics.<p>It gives the adults the option to be apathetic. In reality, anyone who is a kid now will never know any better.<p>It just means we're the last generations that had the luxury of a world that remembered what privacy was.
You mean targeting with ads, sucking into feeds, making kids harm themselves and making money on this with lip service about corporate responsibility?<p>Sounds about right.
you dont need to buy your kid the internet.
Yeah but don't expect much sympathy on a forum full of uber rich folks whose very income is directly tied to the same revenue streams you mention.<p>I love freedom as a general principle, but internet 2026 is a undefendable cesspool of amorality, scams and worse. We are not in the 90s or early 00s anymore, and never will be again that era is gone.
They will always have reason. If it wasn't kids it will be national security or women....
EDIT: about half to two thirds of the responders didn't catch "I'm not a fan of these proposed solutions." I am not saying I like these solutions. I am trying to explain why they have support among the general public. Many of these responses are the usual "shoot the messenger" response you get online when you point out what the "other side" thinks and why they think it <i>even if you don't necessarily agree</i>. On this issue I think there's a need, but I have yet to see a good proposal to address it.<p>Once again, the response in places like this pretends everyone is an upper middle class or above tech-savvy nerd.<p>I'm not a fan of these proposed solutions, which do invade privacy and remove freedom, but the problems are real. These solutions are being pushed because our industry is doing nothing to police itself or provide parents with the tools they need.<p>In many cases we are doing less than nothing, because the profit motive is to prevent parents from having this control. "Social" media, gambling-adjacent gaming, and other addictionware, which is a huge profit center for our industry, wants to addict kids early. Gotta get those cigarettes into their hands, which means preventing parents from stopping it.<p>Right now if you are not a tech-savvy parent your choices are: (1) deny children access to devices or severely limit that access, or (2) allow your kids to be raised by super-addictive infinite scroll brain rot feeds, brainwashed by propaganda and influencer bullshit, and placed on an on-ramp to future gambling addiction via mobile games with engineered "compulsion loops."<p>Now imagine you are a non-tech-savvy household with two parents who work. You can't really limit access since you can't supervise it enough, so your choice is now binary: no access, kids raised by brain rot and propaganda. Pick one. You have no control, no ability to whitelist, because not only do you not have time to deal with this but the tools often cost money and are imperfect and ineffective.<p>Then you catch your 11 year old son watching extreme fetish porn that he lacks the maturity to contextualize, or hear him spouting off Nazi ideology or talking about how he's an "alpha male" and women should be his slaves. Or your daughter becomes anorexic by following influencers. Or you have a child who is questioning their sexual orientation or identity and is targeted by an online bullying ring. These are the commonplace examples. There's a lot of much worse shit too, like sextortion of kids. Search for "764."<p>That's why this push exists. It's not a conspiracy. It's because we -- our industry -- is an amoral shitshow that engineers addiction and refuses to police itself or provide parents with good tools to do so.<p>I'd also like to note that for the non-tech-savvy privacy is dead and has been dead for over ten years at least. If you are not tech-savvy your devices are recording everything about you and transmitting it to two dozen ad networks and data brokers.<p>Only nerds have privacy today and only if they invest the time to police their tech environment. If you're not a nerd there's nothing to lose. You already lost it long ago. We -- our industry -- took it away.
You are missing half of the story. This is not “caring legislators punishing big bad tech”. This IS big bad tech. Meta has spent $2B lobbying for this. More than wanting to get kids addicted, Big Tech and the intelligence community wants perfect observability into online activities.<p>This is a win/win for big tech. If they don’t get age verification, they can keep getting kids addicted to propaganda and consumerism. If they do get age verification, they get to see what everyone in the world thinks and is interested in, all linked to government ID.<p>Edit: the one outcome big tech does not want is anonymous age verification. This is technologically extremely possible, but that would be a lose/lose for big tech because they would lose kid (aka future consuming adult) addiction AND lose perfect tracking linked to government IDs.
Big Tech, most of all, wants a liability shield for the people it turns into school shooters. Because if Big Tech had to pay for the consequences of its algorithms it would be bankrupt.
I'm telling you why ordinary people support this, and I can tell you they overwhelmingly do... at least those with children.<p>I'm also aware of what you're talking about. That's called regulatory capture. They know this kind of regulation is coming and want to make sure they're the ones writing it so they can use it to entrench their oligopolies.<p>My point is that something like this <i>will happen</i> unless we find an alternative. The longer it goes on, the worse the backlash will be.
There is no technological fix for the issue you raise. The issue being parents not wanting to bother raising their kids, and thus giving the state and corporations control over what they can and can’t do. That’s a cultural issue. No idea how to solve it.
Were you raised solely and exclusively by your parents or did you also, say, attend school?
It's largely a wealth inequality issue.<p>Rich parents can have nannies, expensive software, or a parent who stays home from work. Poorer parents do not have time or energy to police this stuff or supervise their kids. They're too busy putting food on the table and paying rent or a mortgage.
Absolutely, it's the system failing and predatory actors seeing a crisis they can exploit.<p>I was at the laundromat and a woman with kids was complaining across the room about how she only had $700.00 in her account. Note, she had a car, wasn't homeless, but this is actual reality for a huge number of people in the US.
For me that would be a crisis. I always want to have at least a few thousands and then if something unexpected happens, that other people will go into a small debt for, I will just be able to spend the money and not go into debt. And it's not like it's hard to save up a few thousand dollars in a time frame of years, so I don't understand people who don't.<p>I think it may be that people grew up accustomed to having everything constantly taken away from them, so they learn not to save stuff.
> And it's not like it's hard to save up a few thousand dollars in a time frame of years, so I don't understand people who don't.<p>Seeing this as some sort of moral failing isn't the right way to look at it. It's possible that that this person could have done that, but it's also they they really may not have been able to, low wages, bad environment, health issues, all of these compound until "it's not hard to just" is a gross way to interpret their situation.
Rich parents can not prevent their children from accessing pornography and social media on the internet, and will also not be able to do so after this legislation.<p>Pornography is often delivered by people who don't care about US legislation, and social media is carefully left undefined, intentionally confounded with algorithms used to surface content (which people actually do object to at least the opaqueness of.)<p>I, like most, don't think that the totalitarianism is an unfortunate side-effect of the attempt to protect children online. I think legislation, and legislation like this, will <i>only</i> be successful in increasing surveillance and public manipulation, and that it will have virtually no effect on childrens' consumption of pornography and social media. If you really wanted to protect children, there's better legislation to write and technical solutions to implement.
When I was 14 I could just type porn.com into the address bar to see porn. (I remember they had one of those fake customer testimonials - saying basically "wow! this site is so awesome because porn.com is the best address for a porn site" which was very funny. Besides that it was nothing, so next time I googled the word porn).<p>Should it be that easy or should there be some road blocks? Should I have been able to go into a store at 14 and buy a beer?
> I'm telling you why ordinary people support this, and I can tell you they overwhelmingly do<p>This is a claim without backing, and if there were backing to be had, it would constantly be thrown in people's faces by the various administrations that suddenly decided this was a problem that had to be stopped now by any means necessary.<p>They do not need any public support to implement this, they need opposition to sleep for 5 minutes. It is being advanced by the most unpopular governments in the entire histories of the countries that it is being introduced in.<p>Your children had access to porn 30 years ago, they will have access to porn after this. There is no actual impetus behind any legal blocking of gambling mechanics in games targeted at children, because they are unbelievably profitable (unlike children as a market for pornography.)<p>I'm telling you that if you fight invisible enemies, like these campaigners for online age verification (who don't exist), you are fighting a senseless battle.<p>I'm not dismissing the scenario and your illustration of the mindset of these fictional hoards - if I were concocting a biography and argument for age verification activists, I would come up with the same dynamics and resentments. But it's not real. There are no million-mom marches in DC for age verification on the internet, and certainly not ones so advanced that they've decided that no other method will work: <i>that device/OS/browser</i> level verification of identity is the only way from keeping little Kip from accessing Cambridge Analytics's Russian-Chinese hardcore trans pornography.<p>They don't exist. Or rather, the bulk of them are Keynesian Beauty Contest judges who have concocted a public opinion that they've followed like lemmings, and only update their vision of public opinion based on new claims from politicians and their PR departments currently pushing the legislation. <i>They</i> don't really believe that age verification is a good solution, but they <i>understand</i> why <i>most people</i> do. I claim that the vast majority of people don't. I'm not even sure I could find a single person to support it in real life if given a 2 minute speech about the obvious and basic privacy and civil liberties implications of such a move, and the many alternative ways to attack the same issue. And governments are <i>prioritizing</i> it, with no hint at all that they will see a reward at the polls. In fact, almost all of the people who are pushing it are unpopular lame ducks who have no ability or no reasonable chance to serve again. They're lining up their next jobs and securing their fortunes.
It's not the only way. The California way is much better. If we implemented that ten years ago there would be no excuse for ID verification now. But we didn't do that, did we? Instead we pushed for unlimited social media access for everybody, destroying an entire generation and now we're surprised when the chickens come home to roost?<p>Enough with this "but they can work around it" argument, too. Kids can get adults to buy cigarettes for them, we still ban them from buying cigarettes because it's a very useful roadblock.
big tech wants a safe harbor.
This is just the latest incarnation. They’ve already used the same tactic successfully to remove other freedoms not related to tech. Just compare the stories from older people about their childhood experiences (when they’re being completely open and honest) with the way children are raised now. My own parents did things that would get them on a terrorist watch list nowadays like building explosives and home made mortars or even just walking through town with a shotgun to go down to the creek for duck hunting at the ripe old age of 13 (with no adult supervision).
Personally I find everything you listed here safer than letting a kid have unfiltered unlimited access to TikTok.<p>You know a gun or a bomb is dangerous, so you'll probably be careful with it. The gun and the bomb are not engineered on purpose to hook you by exploiting your dopamine pathways and get you to shoot yourself or blow yourself up.<p>EDIT: I'm being a little hyperbolic here, but I'm also talking about aggregate harm and intent to harm. I'm really being hyperbolic to bash what I consider to be the key villain in this story: addiction engineering, a.k.a. "maximizing engagement." This is the root of all evil.
> You know a gun or a bomb is dangerous, so you'll probably be careful with it.<p>The statistics on people killed/injured by their kids accidentally discharging firearms in the US disagree[0]<p>[0] eg. <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/unintentional-shootings-children-everytown-gun-safety-rcna143411" rel="nofollow">https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/unintentional-shootings...</a> "At least 157 people were killed and 270 were injured last year in unintentional shootings by children" (2024)
I’m not a TikTok fan by any means but that really does feels to me like bordering on delusion…
Why?
Suggesting a video app is more dangerous than 13 year olds playing unsupervised with <i>actual</i> explosives and real guns...
Because willingly throwing away your safety from the government and the oligarchs for a tale as old as time, "think of the kids", is irrational to say the least.
> Personally I find everything you listed here safer than letting a kid have unfiltered unlimited access to TikTok.<p>This sounds like you have a media addiction. This is the kind of extreme hyperbole that we spent a year or two saturated with when a bunch of states and a bunch of billionaires decided that American people were saying too much on Tiktok about Israel, and something something China evil.
This kind of restrictions expects account control to work. For example, parent's account & separate child account on a device. For the same reasons you describe, it will be ineffective: not tech-savvy. Children will use their parent's/grandma's account on TV and phone, one that has long been verified as "adult" despite the Youtube recommendations consisting of 6-13yo content.<p>If there were an organic push by parents, they would be happy to buy and promote products <i>today</i>, without waiting for legislation to catch up. Where are these local parental control products?<p>Speaking of social media and Youtubes of the world, why can't I, as account owner/parent, totally blacklist some "recommendations"?<p>Age verification is not a fit tool for content filtering. Users want the latter, but get switcheroo'd into the former.
The logical conclusion is to shutdown Meta, Youtube, TikTok, Twitter to name the biggest offenders. And why on earth would algorithmic manipulation, brain washing and exploitation of adults be allowed via the same platforms?<p>I am not disagreeing with you, but the conversation to be had is far, far wider than "think of the children!". Part of any deal would have to be: privacy of citizens is not a business model. But then you are facing the full might of Corp Inc, including their legislative powers.
> Or you have a child who is questioning their sexual orientation or identity and is targeted by an online bullying ring.<p>It is <i>far</i> more common for that child to be targeted by <i>parents</i>, and maybe by people they know in person, especially because of the lousy social environment their <i>parents</i> have pushed them into, and therefore to have limited offline support systems, and you are now trying to take away all they do have.
This is an outrage zone. Leave your rationality at the door please.
The truth hurts and you're getting downvoted for it.<p>The public at large have real issues with the current state of the internet and people here don't want to hear it or address it so we get this.
Exactly. People are genuinely angry that the social media giants seem to have known for years that their products are harmful.<p>And, more so, that they've had a decade to reduce or mitigate the harms but have consistently (some might think deliberately) failed to do so.<p>So now we have the sledgehammer of legislation being wielded to do the job instead.<p>It's not an ideal outcome by any means, but what did people think was going to happen?
HN is a venture capital place, we are the ones financially benefiting from destroying children's minds so of course we don't want them to put a stop to it.
Maybe. I see a lot of canned responses to privacy, freedom of speech, "it's not <i>really</i> about protecting children," etc. That might all be true but it doesnt address the problems that people have with the current state of things.<p>I've said it in other threads but the worst thing you can do is tell people their problems aren't real.
btw, what have schools done in the past 2 decades to educate children about content consumption?
Banning smart devices from schools seems the way forward.<p>What kids get to see at home is up to the parents.
I remember when having a phone in school got it confiscated, now I see videos of teens with their phones within class are heavily normalized.
same thing most parents did, and here we are... don't expect miracles from massively underpaid profession which should be the opposite, literally <i>the</i> way to prepare the future of the nation, or fuck it up
Frankly, our liberty and privacy do not deserve to die because of children.<p>They are going to track everything everyone does, and the next generation will turn that tracking into coercion and control. This is everything we were warned about in 1984.<p>Kill products that advertise to kids before you kill privacy.<p>Make it illegal to advertise to children instead of making people submit their state-issued ID.<p>Fine parents for letting children online instead of tracking adults in databases.<p>All of this moral hand-wringing is a lie anyway. They do not care about children. If they did, the kids would get $3 school meals for free instead of 30 million of them going into nutritional deficit.<p>What hurts a kid more - not getting the necessary nutrition, or them being exposed to porn? I know my friends sent me shock sites when I was a preteen - that didn't turn me into a murdering lunatic. Whereas if I hadn't eaten and grown up healthily, perhaps I wouldn't have made it into a stable career.
Look, I'll do my part with my kids (as in no social e-life before 16, which anyway somewhat aligns with various state bans flying all around the world, if there will be peer pressure then so be it new Commodore flip phone looks ideal for that), I know what sort of cancer to young developing defenseless mind screens have. I can see it all around. Child psychologists all agree, but few parents want to hear that.<p>But its unfair to kids who have shitty weak lazy parents, and screens are like fentanyl to young mind, there is literally nothing more attention-grabbing in the world for them. Their potential lost to... nothing worth mentioning, just empty dopamine kicks one after another. Its a miniscule fringe situation you say? More than half of kids before 2 are exposed to hours of screens (I see similar articles almost daily these days). This is mankind's future, your pensions, the society that will be taking care of you (and trust me you will need it, the only way to avoid that is to die young). But this isn't about selfish take-care-of-me situation, I just care and worry about how subpar lives such addicts have, spread across whole mankind. Compared to life filled with nature, hobbies, passions, physical social interactions.<p>I've seen it personally many times, I had kids in my early 40s so most of peers are a solid decade ahead. What began as boasting of having 'digital kids' when younger is now just a sad story of hard addictions thats actively avoided in any conversation, after few drinks parents end up 'what should we do when we have bad kids' sort of questions. When I look at given parents the apple really doesn't fall far from the tree, how could it, after all its just genes and parental upbringing that define people's personalities more than anything else.
> But its unfair to kids who have shitty weak lazy parents, and screens are like fentanyl to young mind, there is literally nothing more attention-grabbing in the world for them.<p>As much as I generally agree with your comment, it's not "the screens". It's the entire industry hyperoptimizing every bit out of their social networks/media for attention; gambling mechanics in live-service games. In other words, not a "handful" of apps, but too many of the apps and websites you come across.<p>You'll surely remember the numerous attempts at edu software/games of the 90s. Instead, the current attention monopolies won and have been perfecting their addiction mechanics for the past 20 years.
Maybe www users do not need "platforms" run by third parties, usually in Silicon Vallley, who conduct data collection, surveillance and advertising services as a "business model"<p>What if after "age checks" are put in place many www users stop using these "platforms"<p>No doubt EFF would try to argue that's somehow bad<p>But such argument is total nonsense. It's as if EFF has ties to Silicon Valley<p>Less use of these third party "platforms" is a huge win for internet privacy and privacy in general<p>The internet isn't going away. By and large, it's financed by internet subscribers paying monthly bills to telecoms. It's provided by those telecoms in return for those fees. It's not provided by so-called "tech" companies in Silicon Valley running "platforms" offering "free services"<p>There is no "age check" to open an account for internet service.^1 Yet EFF argues there will be an "age check" to "get online"<p>Would EFF argue that having internet service does not constitute "being online" and that an "account" with a so-called "tech" company performing data collection, surveillance and ad services is necessary to "be online"^1<p>If so, that's really quite strange considering the issue we are supposedly debating is internet privacy. The "business model" of these "platforms" and the concept of internet privacy are in direct conflict<p>The ridiculous arguments EFF is making around age verification seem to be aimed at trying to preserve the Silicon Valley status quo, to protect the surveillance "business model" of Silicon Valley, whilst "minimising" its harmful effects, including the effects of these companies relentlesslly challenging peoples' personal boundaries to the point where "age checks" sound reasonable<p>The legislation is aimed at certain companies in Silicon Valley conducting data collection, mass surveillance and pushing content at kids to drive ad services revenue. It's not aimed at internet service or anyone's ability to "get online". EFF's opposition looks like support for these companies<p>1. The California bill specifically excludes telecommunications services and broadband internet service
> What if after "age checks" are put in place many www users stop using these "platforms." No doubt EFF would try to argue that's somehow bad<p>I would love for people to stop using the evilcorp platforms. But what will actually happen is that normal people will just scan their IDs and continue as before and only weird geeks will refuse. Normal people will continue posting valuable information on YouTube, Reddit, Instagram, etc. and it will become increasingly impossible to access any of it without scanning your ID.
Just a story from Germany in early 2000. I had a website and just installed a php script to have a forum on my website and just forgot about it. Today, I could do the same, but I had a 24/7 job to monitor everything someone writes there because it could bring me personally into jail. The same with the comment section of my blog. Thats the reason why this big platforms exist and are used. Because no one other than they want to take the risk. At least in Germany are not much people that want to do that.
So, the mafia now reveals its evil face. It wants to censor young people's
way to access information, without conforming to an "age check". This is the
first step, the next is to require of this of everyone else.<p>This is the biggest attack on personal freedom since decades. It is time to
crush those lobbyists that push for this.<p>By the way, even ignoring the propaganda by the lobbyists here, at which point
did the "discussion" suddenly become to deny young people access to information?
Because this is implied here. Some people were underage when wikipdia first emerged.
The age sniffing here tries to undermine and revert all of that.
> This is the first step, the next is to require of this of everyone else.<p>This is the threat day one. They get both groups' information.<p>Next, they'll start to purge information they don't like because it has been corralled off from the rest of the internet.<p>If they get lucky to trap a politician or billionaire in their net (and they will), they'll use that information to control how they vote or fund interests.<p>Next, they'll start to clamp down of people in the group they don't like. They'll lose jobs, banking, get extra audits, and have friction applied to their lives and chances of success.<p>Over time the fundamentalist group embraces government monitoring and control. The youth are brought up on it. The oligarchy use it to remove their enemies.<p>Within two generations we're living in 1984.
> mafia<p>IMO porn and drug mafia is far more likely to be lurking in reddit and here and spreading misinformation. Russian bots help here too.
The right way to age-restrict is for parents to configure certain devices as kids devices, and then it would be easy for any service to know if they are communicating with one of those devices.<p>This gives parents control, and honestly would work great.
The ongoing refusal for parents to parent necessitates a shift in their legal liabilities.<p>Giving kids access to social media should have the same criminal penalties as giving them heroin. We have to direct the monopoly on violence against parent who neglect their responsibility. We cannot expect parents to resume their obligations without shifting the incentive landscape to make distribution and access to social media as painful as possible. If parents won't parent, we must force their hand.
I like to look back in history for parallels. In 1912 the USA required that all radio transmitters be licensed. There were classifications established for commercial and amateur stations. So at that time Feds understood the power of giving citizens the ability to communicate with the masses.<p>Fast forward to the 1990s and politicians were clueless about what the internet was doing or would do in future. So what is the correct response when every citizen has the power to, using the archaic term, "broadcast" to the world.<p>The genie is out of the bottle and needs to be managed for the common good, which is always going to piss off some individuals. It's going to be interesting watching nation states fight over how best to do this.
You still got CB, FRS, GMRS, LORA, several ISM bands, etc.<p>There's no big conspiracy here, just a limited amount of the spectrum.
> It's going to be interesting watching nation states fight over how best to do this<p>As others have said, there is a coordinated push to drive this legislation everywhere. There is no fight in nation states. Just capitulation.
There's a limited amount of radio spectrum, so it has to be managed. Though technically not unlimited in the strictest sense, internet communications don't have a real limit on how many people can communicate with each other, except limits artificially created.
This is something that is the parent's responsibility.<p>We all know what this is really about. It's not okay to arm the government against it's own Citizens to prevent any sort of criticism, I don't care what side of the isle you're on.
toy story 5
People should have cared more when it was discovered that the previous administration colluded with the major social media companies to ban individuals that had a counter-narrative to the government and political rivals, which altered the outcome of our elections.<p>This is the definition of fascism, and it was just brushed under the carpet by the tech community.
Everything that happened during the pandemic period is an embarrassment most would like to forget. The authoritarians however remember everything and see how little friction there is against them expanding their power, especially if they can wrap it up in a threat.
You're distorting pretty hard about what happened there (mister random numbered throwaway account) but even if you weren't, that is not the definition of fascism.
Dear goverments, if you care about KIDS, provide them a separete internet outside of ICANN with mandatory ID. Let the rest of the people create an anonymous, adult internet with no ID's.
If you want to stop this instance of "think of the children", build a working and cheap alternative that respects privacy. It is technically possible, so if you feel as strongly about it as your words suggest, do it. Once it's ready, spread awareness through old-media, new-media, politicians, everything and every means.
I was a bit upset to see vitriolic opposition online to systemd adding a field to store, entirely locally to a Linux system, the user's age.<p>I think opponents to these bills frame it as current state vs complete, invasive third-party identity verification. That's a very unfortunate framing because, as you say, it would be possible to take the wind out of the identity-verification proponents' sails by implementing better on-device controls.
Here's my working and cheap alternative that respects privacy: <i>Don't do it!</i><p>Seriously now, if you give in to demanding people, they will just demand more. <i>Appeasement does not work.</i>
Alternative what? Government?
I'll see your "government wants biometric surveillance" conspiracy theory and raise you a "pedofiles want to keep kids on social media" theory.
Oh for goodness’ sake, can’t the government (federal or states) create a service that will simply give out a token when someone has passed the age they want (eg 18), and provably goes through a multipart mixer, or just give you a zero-knowledge proof on the device of your choice, anytime you need?<p>On a related note, if they will require a specific kind of ID to vote, can’t they just make sure everyone can receive that ID?<p>Of course they can. They don’t want to. And they pretend like they don’t know how to. What this government is lacking, is a distribution system.<p>To be fair, they will need digital IDs or NFC chips in IDs since deepfakes can now fake the physical IDs next to your face in real time.
It can't, because the government doesn't know shit about technology. Someone who knows tech, is close to the government, and isn't corrupt, would have to propose it and explain what this zorro-proof knowy doohicky is. The government knows ID checks because you get checked at bars.
Never been ID checked at a bar in my life. The whole concept is alien to me.
Zorro proof!
Horse shit. The government has extremely deep expertise in computer science readily available on their payroll and at their beck and call. They literally have DARPA, for instance.
Note that the EU is proposing to do this [0]. The ZKP part is a bit of a WIP and there have been some questions about the quality [1].<p>[0] <a href="https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/faqs/eu-age-verification-solution" rel="nofollow">https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/faqs/eu-age-verific...</a><p>[1] <a href="https://proton.me/blog/eu-age-verification-app-hacked" rel="nofollow">https://proton.me/blog/eu-age-verification-app-hacked</a>
What about services for AI agents? I don't mean services where the agents use a human's account, but one where they use a permissionless or a dedicated account that they self-registered. By politician grade logic, I guess it won't be long before AI agents are mandated to have a separate annual registration, permit, and fee, not that we should agree to any of it.
Who wants this?
All governments in the world, both sides of politics.<p>It's for the kids, you understand - to protect the kids.<p>There is no more noble purpose than to protect the kids.<p>Only a monster would not want to protect the kids.
Kids want it themselves. All popular people want it too. Imagine if we don't do this for the kids? Either this or kids will get hurt. All my friends want it too. One eastern country didn't protect their kids and look where it's at. This is the only way to save kids and we need to act fast! You should rather be against child labor than this.<p>Tried to collect more logical fallacies here.
It's <i>by</i> the kids (the goats).
Think of the children [1]<p>[1] - <a href="https://nochan.net/b/Internet-Crap/20230829-Think-Of-The-Children/" rel="nofollow">https://nochan.net/b/Internet-Crap/20230829-Think-Of-The-Chi...</a>
"kids" is just another word for "people" by the way - everyone is a kid, and everyone is an adult, except for people who die very young. We should not make the mistake of thinking of them as two separate independent categories of people.
Parents who want to raise healthy children.<p>Politicians who want to track everyone all the time.<p>The rare few politicians who want it to be easier to raise healthy children.<p>Tech CEOs who don't want to be liable for harming children's development.<p>Tech CEOs who want to track everyone all the time.<p>The rare few tech CEOs who want to improve the world (by not harming children's development) and whose business model doesn't require it or who compete with one that does (e.g. operators of edutainment websites if those even still exist).<p>App coders who don't want to train a neural network to check IDs themselves.
Meta has spent $2B lobbying for this.<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47410870">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47410870</a>
Anyone who wants to centralize power: so big tech, big government, big corporations, and big dummies who think this is progress
Government
These people are around you.<p>Watch this "regulate 3d printers because of children" hearing: <a href="https://youtu.be/sue88CXzPcQ?t=2285" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/sue88CXzPcQ?t=2285</a><p>Normal people that call themselves good names like "moms for actions" drag us into this totalitarian hell.
The GOP. This is part of Project 2025. They want to outlaw porn.<p>> Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should
be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed
as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that
facilitate its spread should be shuttered.<p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20241103190346/https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FOREWORD.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20241103190346/https://static.pr...</a>
Unfortunately I don't think it's that cut and dried.<p>Here is the list of cosponsors in case anyone was curious if their "representative" is on the list <a href="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/s1748/cosponsors" rel="nofollow">https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/s1748/cosponsors</a>
A lot of it would go away if they just stopped consuming it. They consume it at least as much as anybody else. The only difference is the self loathing and belief that they need to be - and are qualified to be - the moral police.
Why not just outlaw sex? If looking at sex is illegal they might as well go all the way.
Because in their philosophy sex serves a purpose (procreation and the deepening of the marital union).<p>Anything that doesn’t support those two aims (contraception, abortion, gay marriage, pornography etc.) is therefore immoral but there’s nothing wrong with sex in its ‘proper’ context.
[flagged]
IIRC the onlyfans creators were deemed the desired kind of immigrants. What’s the plan here, lure them in and throw them in jail?
[dead]
[dead]
Wouldn't it be great if we could just legislate fixes for everything? /s<p>This seems to be a result of what people call the uniparty system, but that's not really an accurate term:<p>This actually embodies what the establishment on both sides of the aisle want: <i>CONTROL</i><p>They want this for many different reasons: they have an unbridled lust for power, or perhaps they are willing to burn down fair elections for the good of all mankind, but actually let's be more generous!!<p>Most likely because they are afraid, unjustly or not:<p>* of real terrorists that they think, sometimes correctly, are using E2EE<p>* of children's immature minds having neural pathways being changed by things they're not quite ready for, or perhaps becoming addicted to the very real and powerful nature of porn)<p>* or, you know, whatever! Maybe they're parents and want to protect their kids and everyone else's kids.<p>Really, <i>why</i> doesn't actually matter too much.<p>The fact is that they just don't understand the technology and the FUNDAMENTAL TRADE-OFF BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY AND FREEDOM, that tension between privacy/human rights/dignity and technological "bad things" that are always in the news.<p>They get told one simple thing by lobbyists or even well-meaning constituents, and then they form their worldview around it. And <i>THEN</i> they write legislation (or, more likely, get handed ready-made legislation by lobbyists with an axe to grind)<p>We, the knowledgeable in this area (regardless of our party persuasion -- I'll work on my people, you work on yours!) should start to educate <i>our</i> non-technical legislators. We have to be the trusted voice of reason when it comes to tech, because they're hearing a lot of things from a lot of different voices.<p>How? By getting involved. Get involved at the LOCAL level, because THOSE people are the ones that serve as the feedramp for national or international politics. After 20 years, your education might percolate upwards to the people who are actually writing new laws. You don't need to be a "crazy" sounding activist or conspiracy theorist: in fact, that works against you (usually). Just be an adult, try to understand what they're trying to accomplish, and explain how they can accomplish it or that it can't be done that way for specific and reasonable <i>reasons</i>.<p>These are all just my opinions as I see increasing amounts of this sort of legislation being pushed by Meta and other actors. This comment also has a very US-centric bias, so please correct me if you're in another country where things work differently.
Anom caught way more E2EE terrorists than any other attack, and it wasn't even an attack on encryption.
Sounds great. What have you done?
[flagged]
This would be amazing .
That sounds like a reasonable aim. Online services should be responsible for implementing age verification checks on content that children shouldn't be accessing, just like vendors of alcohol and nicotine products are responsible for age verification.<p>The EFF likes to frame everything that might even slightly rein in online service providers as being a terrible assault on online freedom and therefore, in their view, shouldn't be done. But I don't see them coming up with any better solutions. Just endless complaints, while soliciting donations to keep generating these endless complaints.
There's a big difference here, in the US anyways, neither alcohol nor nicotine have first amendment protections. Basically all content delivered over the US does.<p>That's a much thornier legal issue
What content shouldn't children be accessing? Is the content a 7, 11 or 16 year old shouldn't access different between age brackets? Who makes that determination? Is this access restriction at the whole site level, or per-post? Does safe-harbor apply, or is a site-operator liable for age-inappropriate content it hosts for its clients? On S3, for example, is each object tagged with an age category, or would it have to be a totally separate S3, like GovCloud?
It requires manual moderation. Companies like Facebook, Google, and co. have spent much effort telling you that's impossible. In fact, that is a type of half-truth that is a lie. The full truth is that it's impossible _at their scale_.<p>Their business models require little to no human moderation, because it simply doesn't scale (for their business to stay profitable).<p>Personally, my feeling is that if you can't take care of your product, you should go out of business.
Nah, it should be like in California. When you set up an account you should put how old thr user is, and websites should get a header that says whether it's over 18 or not. No ID checks, just good parenting.
Aims aside, did you even read the article? This will mostly end anonymity online and require heavier policing of content.<p>A child might see something they shouldn't walking down the street, strolling thru the park, visiting the local zoo, or visiting an ice cream parlor. Should those places be requiring identification and hiring extra security guards to wander around making sure nobody is saying it doing anything politically objectionable?<p>Let's not accept creeping digital tyranny with self-assuring complacency... call or write (preferably snail mail) your congresspeople!!
I hate this analogy because it isn't true. This isn't like a clerk checking your age before you buy booze this is like a clerk taking a photocopy of your ID and a list of everything you bought and then storing those records forever every time you buy alcohol.
they literally do that though. They don't all just look at your ID any more, some scan it with a scanner or phone and that literally does what you just said. Paying with a card also does it.
Most stores already have continuously-recording CCTV, which effectively does that too.<p>At least online there can be a separation between the age verification provider and the online content provider, so that the latter doesn't learn anything from the former except that the user's age is above or below a specific cut-off point. So it can actually be more privacy-preserving than purchasing age-restricted goods over the counter.
> vendors of alcohol and nicotine products are responsible for age verification.<p>You don't wind up in a database for buying alcohol.<p>This proposal puts your name right next to the category of porn you're into, which will be a great way to coerce all those politicians into voting for the "correct" bill. Would be a shame if they found out a state senator watched porn, so maybe they'd better vote yes on the proposal.<p>In time, this will be used to shape what people are "allowed" to think. Porn will gradually be purged from the internet and then go away entirely as the US becomes more fundamentalist and Christian.<p>Then people who are neither of those things will start to be denied jobs and loans. Politicians that don't fit the mold will stop winning.<p>This is about turning the US to Christianity. (Read: this is really about controlling the massses and using religious fundamentalism as a tool to do so.)<p>Technology is the perfect tool for control. Just as we were becoming a liberal/libertarian society and letting people live their lives how they wanted, the wrong people started using technology not as an enabler of free minds, but as an inescapable straitjacket.<p>You've read 1984, right?<p>The sensors have been widely deployed. The internet will become your Big Brother. You won't be able to buy, sell, or even move between state lines without being in the good graces of the state.<p>Be a good citizen and comply.
> You don't wind up in a database for buying alcohol.<p>I don't think this is a good assumption. It's not uncommon for stores to scan your ID when you buy alcohol.<p>> This proposal puts your name right next to the category of porn you're into, which will be a great way to coerce all those politicians into voting for the "correct" bill. Would be a shame if they found out a state senator watched porn, so maybe they'd better vote yes on the proposal.<p>This is not quite how typical systems are structured. Rather, the service provider outsources the age assurance to some third party Age Verification Provider (AVP), which then just returns an age estimate or a yes/no. Commonly, the AVP will have a stated policy that they don't share your identity with the client.<p>Obviously, you have to trust the AVP to comply with this policy, which is not ideal. There are approaches (e.g., zero-knowledge proofs) that provide some technical privacy protections, but they're not currently in wide use.<p>Note: this is not an endorsement of age assurance; I'm just trying to clarify the situation.
> You don't wind up in a database for buying alcohol.<p>Yes you do, if they scan your ID with any technology they're uploading a picture to that company's server. If you use a payment card then your bank and the card network also know.
> as the US becomes more fundamentalist and Christian.<p>As Christian I would say "more fundamentalist and <i>less</i> Christian". I am not sure this is religiously based. We have similar things happening in European countries that are not religious. Its a moral panic and "think of the children".<p>> You don't wind up in a database for buying alcohol.<p>My (just turned 18) daughter said a pub in the UK scanned her driving license so they may well be connecting to some database before letting young people buy alcohol. IIRC the EU wants its age verification app to be used for things like this.<p>This is a time of "first they came for the....".
Age verification can be done by a third party, so that the online service isn't provided with any details of your identity, just that you passed an age verification check.<p>But if you're still worried about online pornographers getting a copy of your identity, maybe don't use their websites? It's an easily avoidable risk. Perhaps use your imagination instead, or read an erotic novel bought in cash from a second-hand bookshop, or something like that.
That third party? Persona.
Do you hear yourself? You're a guy telling people that if they don't want to be put on a list for reading a book, they should read other books.<p>> erotic novel bought in cash from a second-hand bookshop<p>Your confidence that this will remain an option probably means that you aren't aware of the many court battles, lives ruined, and leftover frozen conflicts resulting from attempts to publish novels. Its a confidence you could only have developed since the mid-1960s.<p>There is absolutely no physical reason why the government couldn't record all of the books you buy, arrest secondhand booksellers that don't keep those lists faithfully, and even sit outside of secondhand booksellers identifying everyone walking into the building and putting them on a list of people who are interested in obtaining books through unorthodox methods.<p>If everyone had been like you, there wouldn't be erotic novels available from bookstores. Or communist novels, or gay novels, etc.. And through the mails, it would become federal. The government mainly opened mail to search for possible birth control information being sent.
Parents won't parent without a change in incentives.<p>That's why giving children access to social media must be punished to the same degree as giving children heroin. If it's a parent's responsibility, it must be made a parent's liability. Anything without the full threat of the government's monopoly on violence is just a pretty slogan. We should see access to social media as the neglect that it is.
Age restriction puts the burden and punishment on citizens.<p>Your proposal to punish parents does the same.<p>How about a solution that puts burden on corporations for once?
Bingo. And now GP should go look who is behind age verification and ponder why they'd be pushing for this if it didn't benefit them.
That's great messaging, but what exactly are you materially proposing that's different?<p>If you make corporations liable for minors using their product, they're just going to require identity verification to use their product, and we're back to effectively the same proposal, right? Unless I've misunderstood you.
And that's fine. I'm pretty sure my nephew's high school friends will all quit Facebook for once and move to a decentralized platform or even install their own servers. The teenagers can go pretty far and learn advanced stuff if they want to. I bet their minecraft home is more complex.<p>And I already know their opinion on the age restrictions.
I am specifically not proposing any material solution.<p>It seems like it’s been easy for every corporate-backed actor to come up with solutions that burden everyday citizens.<p>Now we’re yet again burdened to solve a problem corporations created.
Because corporations don't have children?<p>Incentivizing parents to parent aligns the obligation, agency, and responsibility. People who don't want that level of responsibility can not have children.
I don't know, if the biggest companies in the world were setting up outside schools and in cul-de-sacs and aggressively selling colorful heroin with cartoon mascots my first reaction wouldn't be to blame parents for failing to prevent the childhood heroin addiction epidemic and call for arresting them.<p>I think it would be more fair and useful to focus enforcement on the parties with power making intentional decisions to make the world a worse place. I guess that makes me anti-agency and anti-responsibility though.
Certainly a lot of people do need to approach parenting better.<p>However, I simultaneously think that a lot of “personal responsibility” culture is very convenient ideology for corporations.<p>Nothing is ever their fault. <i>Everything</i> is a failing of personal obligation, agency, and responsibility.<p>A whole bunch of things that make good parenting so difficult are directly the fault of corporations.<p>There is zero mandatory paid parental leave in the United States. I wonder how much corporate money goes into maintaining that status quo?
Because there are bad parents, all people must give up all anonymity?<p>You are asking for society to bear the burdens of the people you want to change. That is bad policy.
I hope someone punishes your parents for letting you on here.
Comparing Social Media to Heroin seems quite hyperbolic to me as someone who has had people in my life die of opioid addiction.<p>Social Media isn't even as bad as Tobacco I'd say let alone Heroin.
Since the beginning of the computer age kids have found ways around parental controls. I'm <i>very</i> skeptical that it's a good idea to punish parents for that, especially since the kids are likely more tech-savvy than the parents.<p>And, in many cases, "parent" singular. Putting a single mom in court, in jail, because she works 2-3 jobs and her kids are more knowledgeable than she is about computers? C'mon.
If this was true, then the "parents should parent" camp doesn't have a valid argument. Practically speaking, if parenting to this level of involvement is not possible, then why do they keep pushing for it as a solution?
Just put the age verification in the browser already.<p>Then introduce some new headers the browser sends to servers with some proof that the user was verified and the browser would need a response (like CORS) for it to work.
USB anal probe can be integrated the same way.
Or we could have UBI and parents could parent their kids without corporations babysitting for them.
UBI isn’t enough — they will just raise prices.<p>We need social programs like social housing, universal healthcare, free education, and universal food stamps. We need to actually use the abundance of resources we have to meet our fundamental needs (shocker I know).
Wouldn't corporations still declare war on parents over their kids?
What you describe, but at the OS level, is already the law in California. We got angry about it a few months ago when it passed, do you remember?
Wrong. Try again.