Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • The main problem is providing infrastructure for a government that can over use it in future if move to ultra right/left/authoritarian spectrum

    Just for example Russia build infrastructure for blocks website for child safety, but it started to used much further

    by tom910
  • > The main problem is providing infrastructure for a government that can over use it in future if move to ultra right/left/authoritarian spectrum

    If that was considered the real problem, we would be fighting against surveillance capitalism. Instead we cheer for LLM companies who made it an order of magnitude worse.

    Let's be honest, the only time we care about being tracked is to access porn, for some reason. And if we're being honest, we are already tracked when doing it.

    by palata
  • > The main problem is providing infrastructure for a government that can over use it in future if move to ultra right/left/authoritarian spectrum

    The US is an instructive example in real time. Roughly everyone worries about what happens when their opponent gains control of the government and then promptly forgets how much they worried when their side has it.

    by rootusrootus
  • This idea sounds like the death of social media. Remove anyone under 18 ensures they won't signup after. Forcing id verification means 70-80% of adult accounts will be dead. Network effects disappear. Those who remain will be businesses pushing something, hackers/spammers and some die hard group.
    by ipaddr
  • Have you been on instagram lately? We're already there.
    by hylaride
  • yay?
    by B56b
  • Could we instead disallow algorithmic skinner-box addiction machines for everyone?
    by actionfromafar
  • I think this is really the only serious alternative.
    by gampleman
  • How about taking some personal responsibility for your life?

    This shouldn't even be a consideration concerning adults.

    by jonathanstrange
  • Exactly. Fix the addiction machine, not just who gets checked at the door.
    by anmalkov
  • How can you tell what one is? Reddit in 2010? Facebook in 2005? IRC in 1999?
    by inigyou
  • Age Verification is not about “saving kids from spying/social media”.

    Same as Regulatory Encryption Backdoors are not about “protecting kids from child predators”

    This is framing. Abusing kids is bad. But that is not what this about. Let’s keep the discussion on topic: the goal is 1984-level oversight… not just of the kids

    [Edit: I guess HN agrees: meanwhile the title changed from “saving kids from spying” to “is actually mass-surveillance” - good]

    by catoc
  • The headline already summarizes the premise of the article in fewer words.
    by anigbrowl
  • I don’t think saving them from spying is the main concern. Instead it’s the direct negative effects of the usage upon the kids that’s the concern. Not that age verification isn’t problematic
    by foo-bar-baz529
  • Then ban underage smartphones altogether, that would probably make the single biggest improvement in child safety and mental health. Trying to police content is an utter waste of time.
    by rootusrootus
  • The possibly too subtle point of this article is that the spying is what makes the negative effects so powerful. Social media spies on what you are viewing and then sends you more of that, and send the info to other people so they can send you more of that too
    by krupan
  • We're cooked. The young kids I teach are unfortunately completely accustomed to go guardian spying on them at school. The admin constantly reinforce the need to dissect the internet, treat Chromebooks as media consumption devices, not computers. I hear it will be even worse here next year. Not sure how.

    These people are obsessed with risk mitigation that it's not even worth having tech class anymore. No risk. 100% control all the time.

    by techteach00
  • This reminds me of being refused entry to a nightclub in the US because I’d forgotten my passport, even though I had a European ID card and I’m over 40. Offline, age checks already often become rigid “approved identity document” checks. Online, that problem seems even worse, because the check can become a persistent identity layer across the web.
    by anmalkov
  • Maybe it is just a lax west coast thing but they hardly ID here. Bartenders straight up don't ever card at all. Only place you'd get carded is if they put a bouncer out front, which only happens when it is getting really busy, and even then they are mostly there to keep out teenagers and break up fights, only give you a 1 second glance at your card to not chance a liquor license violation.

    Certain night clubs (haven't seen these antics in CA but have in NYC and Miami) often do stupid stuff to guys though. If you show up with a group of guys they will probably not let you in. You need an even ratio of men and women. They will let in a group of all women with hardly any check.

    by asdff
  • I always remember when a club opened the door for me without question, because I was holding several pizza boxes. Got to skip the line and everything. Clearly belonged inside.
    by nitwit005
  • In Canada the approach is going to be that social media and AI companies will need to figure out a system where those under 16 can’t access content. The government will be able to grant exemptions if the company can satisfy regulators that they have built and maintained adequate, alternative structural safeguards to protect children on their platform.

    Further to that, companies are required to do this in a strict data minimization approach, results need to be anonymized and destroyed immediately after the check is complete.

    The internet has grown into a bit of a letdown to some degree, especially social media. If I have to upload an ID or insert a grey hair into a scanner, that website or app will be dead to me and I will move on to something else or nothing at all.

    by speak_plainly
  • > The internet has grown into a bit of a letdown to some degree, especially social media.

    You have a flair for understatement.

    > If I have to upload an ID or insert a grey hair into a scanner, that website or app will be dead to me and I will move on to something else or nothing at all.

    Same. I joke that when I retire I'm throwing out every computer in my house. Turns out the gov't may effectively do that for me, because I will not be handing out my ID to web sites. That is a hard line for me.

    by rootusrootus
  • My main concern is transparency. How do we know that the ruling/governing class is not abusing these monitoring systems and exempting themselves from monitoring?

    If we are all subject to the same monitoring and there are no exceptions, that would be fair. However, if some people are exempt from monitoring because of their connections, relations, etc. then that would be unfair.

    And if some people are allowed to harass and stalk others based on some attribute (race, religion, nationality, etc.) because they are in a monitoring position (while others are not) then that would be unfair as well.

    We need full transparency.

    by seethishat
  • > If we are all subject to the same monitoring and there are no exceptions, that would be fair.

    It might be fair, by some definition, but it would still be wrong. The government shouldn't be monitoring us to the extent required to implement age verification on the 'net.

    by patrickmay
  • They are 100% abusing until proven otherwise. Naive to think otherwise.
    by cryptoegorophy
  • >How do we know that the ruling/governing class is not abusing these monitoring systems and exempting themselves from monitoring?

    Ah, so except for THE ENTIRE FUCKING PROBLEM, this is fine.

    >And if some people are allowed to harass and stalk others based on some attribute (race, religion, nationality, etc.) because they are in a monitoring position (while others are not) then that would be unfair as well.

    Yes, we wouldn't want racial profiling in our Orwellian hellscape. That would truly put it over the edge.

    by at_compile_time
  • > We need full transparency.

    A couple years ago I would have tended to agree with you, transparency would be a good first step. But then I have recently seen demonstrated that transparency just proves that you do not need to hide corruption as long as a powerful bloc of voters actually agrees with your corrupt position. I think what we really are going to need is consequences defined ahead of time, along with an enforcement mechanism not easily corrupted itself. This is hard. But it is a topic we will hopefully be spending quality time working out over the next few years anyway.

    by rootusrootus
  • > If we are all subject to the same monitoring and there are no exceptions, that would be fair.

    Not everyone is an exhibitionist. Some people thrive when they are very public about their life. Some prefer a much more private life.

    by vaylian
  • > How do we know that the ruling/governing class is not abusing these monitoring systems and exempting themselves from monitoring?

    It's not even just about the current people in charge or with access. Who's next? The "trust us" approach doesn't work when trust has already been broken with the people, or in a scenario where the data will change hands to an unknown future administration.

    The best way to win my trust is to not even want the data in the first place.

    by al_borland
  • > exempting themselves from monitoring

    Wasn’t that in the Chat Control proposal? i.e. politicians and other important individuals are exempt

    by wqaatwt