Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for privacy. But between setting up the birthdate when creating my children’s local account on their computers, and having to send a copy of their ID to every platform under the sun, I’d easily chose the former.
I’d even agree to a simple protocol (HTTP X-Over-18 / X-Over-21 headers?) to that.
You must log in or # to comment.
Show us your ID, then. Or even just your age. Now your children too.
Don’t want to? That’s why.
deleted by creator
remember the ridiculous percentage of 1/6 insurrectionists they rooted out, based on social media posts
To be fair, that was mostly because those people are absolute fucking morons who posted videos of themselves and their buddies involved in, or actually committing, crimes.
If they say they’re doing something “to protect the children,” you know it’s some truly heinous shit.
Because it will only be a simple birthdate until they decide to use those laws to go even further.
I don’t necessarily have an issue with that - as long as it can truly be done in a way where the only information the platform gets about me is whether I’m of age (they don’t even need to know my exact age). But I don’t have faith that it can actually be done like that, and I see it as a slippery slope toward even more surveillance.
They can have one bit. I’m ok with one bit.
As soon as they ask for a byte, they are gathering too much information about me.
I can accept that this is a significant issue, and if knowing that I’m an adult is required for certain online activities, I’ll go along, but we all know damned well this will creep.
What ever elements need to verify who I am stay private client side, and they can have a single flag that verifies I’m what I claim to be.
So you’re ok about your official ID being broadcast everywhere you go on the internet? Every step you take can be tracked by the government, google, Meta and more? No more fucking privacy what so ever?
Yes. That’s exactly what I’m saying.
and to prove its not actually about safety and instead about control: parents are already responsible for what kids do online and could be charged using existing laws. but… where is the overreach in that?!
It can be done like that, but then it’d be (trivially) fake-able by anyone with root permissions on their own computer. But then, my point is that kids shouldn’t be root of their computers, so let’s just parents vouch for children’s age, and leave everything more complicated out.
From what I understood, the rules (in California?) would be : a) Every operating system provider must collect the user’s age or date of birth during the initial account setup process. b) The OS must classify the user into one of the four defined age brackets: under 13 years old, 13–15 years old, 16–17 years old, or 18 years and older. c) This information must be made available to application developers through a real-time API as soon as an application is launched or downloaded.
Unless I’ve missed something, I could definitely live with that. I haven’t seen anything more acceptable when it comes to age verification. Point a) doesn’t need to prove age or date of birth.
Now there is a small issue that came to my mind since my first post, which might be quite problematic : if ANY website is able to tell whether ANY user is a child, it’ll be as easy to keep children out of certain sites that it’ll be easy to keep adults out of others.
Imagine a bulletin board with highly disturbing/predatory content which would ONLY show to kids? Whenever mom or dad checks, website is all normal. And that would be real bad, probably worse than our current, no age verified situation.
OS defined does seem the best way, but I would prefer it wasn’t legislated. The people writing these rules have no clue about the real world, so they end up doing stupid things.
You aren’t setting up your childrens accounts. You’re setting up your accounts to show that you’re not a child. And suddenly, every single thing you use, from apps to websites, is gatekept behind an API that is controlled by the government. If checking age on social media is all it ever does, then sure, whatever. But that isn’t all it will ever do. It will creep further and further, and the details you need to provide will increase, one shitty government term at a time. And then one day, they’ll able able to decide that people in your country shouldn’t be able to see safe sex information, or abortion information, and the framework to deny the whole country access is already there, and just one small tweak away from locking you out of information that is deemed inappropriate.
, one shitty government term at a time
Just like your admining. One ban at a time without giving any chance to defend onself.
#HorseShoeTheory
Won’t someone think of the poor bigots! They’re getting banned without getting to defend their bigotry!
Ada is a fantastic admin and she does an incredible job keeping shitty people off of blahaj.zone. Sounds like you’re mad you got banned for being shitty.
And yeah don’t bother replying. I’m going to burn this account.
Oh fuck off. She never pointed to any comment or post of mine for the reason. And she kept being weasely as fuck about it. Probably because she knows I’m right.
Anyway, I’m not going to tell you what it was that I suspect got me banned. Go fucking suck her toes or whatever.
Oh fuck off. She never pointed to any comment or post of mine for the reason. And she kept being weasely as fuck about it. Probably because she knows I’m right.
Modlogs are public, and come with removal reasons
Your only removal reason was ‘racism/bigotry’ without any explanation. Go fuck yourself and the high horse you ride on.
I haven’t banned any blahaj based accounts with that ban reason in the last 12 months.
To give a summary of the remote accounts I’ve banned in that time though…
- Said that “all land is stolen” and then called people delusional when another person said that doesn’t make it ok.
- A troll with a mile long modlog who said that arab community “got what they deserved” when Trump implemented a travel ban
- Another person in the same thread as person number 2 who said basically the same thing
- Same as person 2 and 3
There were a couple of accounts that had been deleted, and no history was available. And a couple of accounts where content was removed, and/or a community ban was implemented, but no other instance bans.
I’m quite happy to stand by all of those bans. And if you aren’t sure why they’re ban worthy, well, banning you was the right choice…
There were a couple of accounts that had been deleted
Including mine. And you were shifty as fuck when I asked for reasons from that account.
Anyway,
Said that “all land is stolen” and then called people delusional when another person said that doesn’t make it ok.
This deserves instance ban?
A troll with a mile long modlog who said that arab community “got what they deserved” when Trump implemented a travel ban
And “White community is getting what they deserve” is perfectly ok to say? Maybe even “Asian community” or “Indian community”? They are honorary whites when it comes to oppression olympics.
Finally you’ve recently instance banned someone for misogyny and I went to that person’s profile and didn’t find anything. Slimey as fuck to allude you’re only banning racists.
I’m quite happy to stand by all of those bans. And if you aren’t sure why they’re ban worthy, well, banning you was the right choice…
As I said, the ultimate arbiter of morality and ethics. You can do nothing wrong. Go fuck yourself and the high horse you ride on.
If checking age on social media is all it ever does, then sure, whatever.
You’re forgetting an important detail: you submitted an official ID to prove your age. Which means your face, address, and legal name are also on record. So every time you get age-verified, you’re basically checking in with your full legal identity, leaving a breadcrumb path across the Internet of everything you do. That data can be used to track your online activities and build a database on who you are as a person, based on the things you access.
THIS is why age verification is a terrifying thing for computer access. It’s a form of government tracking that should be illegal. Cops can’t legally barge into your home anytime they want and go through your stuff. They can’t take your computer and scan it for data collection. Not without a court order.
With age verification embedded within your OS, it won’t matter if there’s a court order or not. If your computer is connected to the Internet, you’ve just publicly broadcast all your data to the world, and anyone - cops or not - can tap into that data and build a profile on you. You don’t even need to be browsing the Internet; if your OS is verifying your age, it could also be broadcasting that verification for every program you use locally on your computer. None of your data is safe; it’s all tied to your legal identity and trackable.
Thats not what the current OS-level age gating is though. Its literally pick what age the account user is on account creation. You could set yourself to be 120 and that would be valid.
“You gave us that previous bit of private information what’s a little bit more. You can trust us”
“current” is not what the lawmakers are thinking of though.
Nice to see lots of downvotes for stating factually correct statements while the parent post is literally all conjecture based on “well they would do that wouldnt they?” but is upvoted.
If they were planning on doing ID verification for this why would they take this half step? It doesnt make it easier for them down the road, if anything it makes it harder as there’s the ability to say “but we already have that”. If the plan was to mandate face ID why wouldnt they just go straight for that like the UK and Australia have for porn?
It doesnt make it easier for them down the road, if anything it makes it harder as there’s the ability to say “but we already have that”.
This is perfectly reasonable, but my feeling is that the real world isn’t reasonable in this way.
Consider all the infractions of liberty that have been approved in the name of combating “terrorism.” The no-fly lists. The universal warrant-less searches. All domestic communications recorded and archived for who-knows how long. The pervasive surveillance. The huge extension of CBP power to do things like raid Greyhound busses that aren’t even crossing borders.
None of these steps were prevented with the argument “But we’re already doing something about that issue.” That argument never even came up, to any noteworthy degree, in the public discourse.
Look at it this way: All sorts of websites that aren’t for kids already have banners requiring the visitor to affirm that they’re legal adults. So, we’re there: “We already have that.” But no one is seriously making that argument. Because, of course, those banners do next to nothing: Visitors can just lie. So it will probably be for OS level age verification. Thus, in creating a system that doesn’t work, the excuse for extending the system, to exert more control in the future, is built in from the start.
People who are interested in asserting more control over others are never content with the amount of control they have. They always want more. It is the gaining of more control that motivates them.
I actually used this same example further up. Yes the GWOT made some terrible legislation that has done real damage, but it wasnt a slippery slope. They didnt make laws a little bit invasive but generally ok before slowly nudging it further until it got to the point where it was able to be used for ill. They went in hard and fast with abusable legislation which could be criticised for what it actually was, not what it would lead to in further legislation down the line (and it was criticised at the time).
…it wasnt a slippery slope. They didnt make laws a little bit invasive … before slowly nudging it further
I disagree.
There was a certain (large) amount of government surveillance and eavesdropping going on before the GWOT, which was used as an excuse to massively expand it. There was already inspection and security and traveler record-keeping at airports before the GWOT, which was used as an excuse to expand those. CBP had long had the legislative authority to do all kinds of nastiness within 100 miles of a border before the GWOT, which was used as an excuse to step their activities up, to legal limits and beyond.
In every case, an initial claim of urgent, exceptional authority was used to create both the physical infrastructure and the cultural permission required to make later, expanded claims of urgent, exceptional authority much easier to implement when an excuse presented itself. That is the slippery slope, we really slid way down it, it’s a real phenomenon. It doesn’t have to be smooth or gradual, it can happen in jerks and waves. It doesn’t have to come as a result of a plot, a plan, a deliberate conspiracy, it can be an accretion of individually opportunistic acts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog
And there are several states that do have the age thing for porn here in the US, the biggest of which is Texas.
So exactly the same argument, while referencing an experiment where the frogs did jump out of the boiling water unless they were lobotomised. Very convincing.
C’mon, don’t be that dense, it’s is a metaphor explaining that people are more likely to accept change if done gradually as opposed to all at once.
unless they were lobotomised.
Look around. Think of the average person, half of the people are below that person’s intelligence and a good number of them vote.
No, I don’t believe you’re actually this stupid, sealion
You are a sealion. “Factually correct” but still acting like a shitbird
Funny huh
It seems obvious to me that, invasive as it is - an OS-level “are you 18 yes/no” check at installation would not satisfy the “protect the children” crowd at all, nevermind too that immediately when/if it goes into action - every single user would suddenly have their OS downgraded to the kiddy-level unless they declare their age.
mlem is not showing me votes. so dunno what you are talking abt.
my point is that we have laws already that are perfectly appropriate to the “concern” stated, “child safety.”
any new laws will only give more access to important data to corporations who are known to do bad things with it.
that does not make it worth it. my opinion would change if there was a legit large inrush of charges using exiting laws that then did nothing to help, then one could argue we need more law. but thats just not the case today.
You’re forgetting an important detail
I wasn’t forgetting it. As it stands, at the OS level, you aren’t supplying anything to prove your age. It’s just a data field that software can read. And my point was that if that field, and social media was all it ever was, then, it’s not great, but I can understand why the OP isn’t too upset by it.
My point was more that it will never be just that.
Yep. This is pretty much it. Require having popular operating systems to have child accounts as an option would be reasonably ok. But regular accounts shouldn’t need any verification. ID checks wouldn’t need to be anywhere near this either. Its on the parents, they didn’t setup a child account? They are to blame.
because its designed to feed surveillance data to Palintir, which allows governments all over the west to monitor any dissident movements, or relatives of “dissidents” against right wing governments. dont know of any computer system requiring your ID/ or birthday, you can always fake a birthday.
right now the biggest threat to conservative governments is anyone “left” of them.
It’s techno-fascism
Wrong technical solution to a made up problem.
Governments have commissioned enough studies to know that education, training, and parental controls filtering content at the receiving end are more effective & less infringing of civil rights than laws imposing restrictions & penalties on website operators to comply with online age verification. Laws could instead allocate resources to promote the former in a major way, setup independent evaluations reporting the effectiveness of child protection technologies to the public, promote standards & the development of better standards in the industry. Laws of the latter kind simply aren’t needed & also suffer technical defects.
The most fatal technical defect is they lack enforceability on websites outside their jurisdiction. They’re limited to HTTP (or successor). They practically rule out dynamic content (chat, fora) for minors unless that content is dynamically prescreened. Parental control filters lack all these defects, and they don’t adversely impact privacy, fundamental rights, and law enforcement.
Governments know better & choose worse, because it’s not about promoting the public good, it’s about imposing control.
What would you say if, to be allowed to open your fridge (the one you own and purchased with your money) in order to pick something to eat out of it, you were required to make a blood test (say through some mechanism included in the door handle) to prove that you don’t have any serious disease preventing you from, say, eating a slice of that delicious cake, or whatever?
The idea might not be completely stupid (one with some serious disease should not not eat what can harm them) but the implementation is not right. It’s considering 100% of the population as suspects by default; just because they exist and have a fridge.
Replace ‘fridge’ with computer, ‘cake’ with online content, and ‘disease’ with ‘being a minor’. That’s how sad that is.
My calculator doesn’t need to know how old anyone is. Nor does my refrigerator. I suppose a case could be made for a router if you are all onboard for age gating everything privacy and freedom be damned. An OS isn’t just Mac or Windows… the CA law is just so so dumb as written that I have zero faith in anything from Silicon valley.
At least my printer already has a scanner I can put my ID into. How am I going to tell my smart fridge, that I’m not too old for the snacks with cartoon characters on the wrapper?
Voice recognition with the latest brainrot phrases built in, grouped by generation.
“That’s gnarly, bro” - Millennial
“Skibidi Ohio Toilet brah” - Gen Z
"6 7 6 7” - Gen Alpha
There is a difference between providing the capability, and requiring that capability.
Under this law, something as simple as sharing a Google Drive could make you an “app store” under this law.
These laws are specifically designed to be broadly interpreted. We have no idea just how widely the nets will be cast, either tomorrow, or 10 years from now. It is prudent to assume the absolute worst case.
How can you provide the capability for parents to keep their children off inappropriate websites if you don’t require that sites adhere to a conduct?
(I’m simply asking why this makes it an inherently bad solution—not suggesting that there aren’t better solutions.)
Tools should be provided if you want to do that but shouldn’t be standard. People should have freedom of choice on how to use their own property, in terms of computers, and how they manage/raise their children.
Because they don’t care about your age. They want to tie you to your ID, so everything you say and do online can be tracked and tied to you as a person.
Meanwhile the leader of one of their countries has raped women and teenagers and even a couple of children, but they don’t do anything about it. But you can be jailed for decades for seeing a picture or video of it. But the actual act? They don’t care about that. (I’m saying you can be jailed for simply seeing CSAM online, but if you’re a billionaire actually doing the things, you won’t be tried for the actual CSA being recorded.)
So as you can see, it’s not your age, but your identity.
Most people think the Nazis only locked up Jews. Some realise they also locked up minorities. Historians know it was also anyone who disagreed with them. Anyone who spoke out against them. Anyone who wouldn’t wear the armband. And they’re afraid history will repeat. And they’re right to be afraid.
Most people think the Nazis only locked up Jews. Some realise they also locked up minorities.
They started with the impoverished, queer, and disabled.
