5 ms·

Did you read the article? It clearly states that tinder and grinder already monitor for minors. They state that they spend, and I'm guessing this wouldn't be a

Did you read the article? It clearly states that tinder and grinder already monitor for minors. They state that they spend, and I'm guessing this wouldn't be an exaggeration given their volume, millions of dollars on this effort. What lawmakers want is ID required. This is an extremely burdensome requirement. To have every new user of any online platform have to verify photo ID against a webcam is... very onerous. And even then whats to stop a kid from using his parents confirmed account? Alcohol is a transaction for a substance that is deadly and purchased in public. Comparing it to creating an online profile in the privacy of your home is a big stretch. It would be more like creating an account with... I don't know, maybe buying a can of figs off amazon. Can a child buy a can of figs without ID? Not easily, but he could. Could he hurt himself with it? Yes. Should we require ID for this: I'd say not. The article seems to not mention any of the age verification things the kids forged and their parents computer. But don't worry, if it was convenient for the powers that be, they would have framed this as: "Evil kids get into banking system by HACKING." Funny how I'm sure they won't be asking Amazon to verify ID everytime a purchase is made. I mean, plenty of kids have ordered down right dangerous things this way, probably even caused a death. The worst part of the authoritarian inclined who use the 'what about the children?' argument is that many times they ironically make it less safe for children since the solutions aren't particularly well thought through (see drinking age in the US) - all while making it worse for the rest of us. The thing about the outrage crowd is they point to a problem with while implicitly saying 'anyone who doesn't support 'the solution' is in favor of the problem'. I'm not in favor of the problem. I'm in favor of fixing the problem IF it can be fixed in a cost effective way. Many people can't accept that there aren't widespread easy and simple solutions to giant complex social problems. Accepting that this behavior is an emergent quality from our individual actions and pruning one's own actions is very hard. Most people shy from this and look for externalizations.

klodolph 8y ago
> Did you read the article? That's an inappropriate response. Don't respond that way in the future. > What lawmakers want is ID required. Yes, like for alcohol. > This is an extremely burdensome requirement. To have every new user of any online platform have to verify photo ID against a webcam is... very onerous. New regulations are regularly called "extremely burdensome". I would say that alcohol regulations are extremely burdensome in most parts of the country where I live (USA). This is why I used alcohol as a comparison point. The government regulates how many alcohol licenses are given, sometimes operates liquor stores themselves, conducts enforcement operations including "sting" type operations with underage informers. The hours and days when alcohol can be sold are regulated and in most places, minors are not allowed to serve alcohol or work the register for alcohol sales. In some states, most types of alcohol can only legally be sold in state-licensed liquor stores. In NY, for example, each liquor store must be owned and operated by an individual living within a certain physical radius of the store's location. The question here is about weighing the burden against harm reduction. > And even then whats to stop a kid from using his parents confirmed account? Condoms aren't 100% effective. Why should laws be 100% effective? > The worst part of the authoritarian inclined who use the 'what about the children?' argument is that many times they ironically make it less safe for children since the solutions aren't particularly well thought through (see drinking age in the US) - all while making it worse for the rest of us. The effects of raising the drinking age in the US have been well-studied, and provide a wealth of data because laws were passed at a state-level and at different times. From a harm-reduction versus cost perspective, I am in favor of the 21 year drinking age in the US. Based on the studies. > The thing about the outrage crowd is they point to a problem with while implicitly saying 'anyone who doesn't support 'the solution' is in favor of the problem'. I'm not in favor of the problem. I'm in favor of fixing the problem IF it can be fixed in a cost effective way. I think you might be directing your comment at some kind of nebulous "authoritarian" or "outrage crowd" and I'm not a part of that, so if that's the case, I'd appreciate it if, when you respond to my comment, you respond to the content of the comment itself and not some third party. You seem to believe that the burden to verify age is too onerous for online dating apps. I think that we should require age verification for dating services across the board, and it should be up to the online apps to compete with offline dating services on equal footing. If it turns out that the reason why online dating services succeed is only because they don't have to bear the cost of age verification, then I'd be shocked.
- towelr34dy 8y ago
  Actually, asking if you read the article was me being kind in my assumptions. Alcohol is responsible 88,000 deaths per year. You are literally comparing something with 0-10 deaths per year (if that) to almost 100,000 deaths per year. That type of grotesquely disproportionate comparison is part of 'outrage' culture. It's something I dislike and have no trouble calling people out on. Not a single cost/benefit analysis. No consideration of the cost, just a wave of the hand (they will bear it). No discussion even of what type of age verification should be or any pros and cons. The fact that tinder has revolutionized sexuality for a generation is... or made dating safer for women... or made dating safer for LGBT in places where it can be dangerous to date as an LGBT... better bury that in bureaucracy. No care about privacy. Doesn't matter if over regulation just pushes people to less regulated platforms like online classifieds, maybe hosted in a non-us country. If you don't seem to consider the consequences of laws, or even the fact that the logic you use is based on grotesquely unbalanced comparisons, I see little possibility for dialectics.
  - klodolph 8y ago
    > Actually, asking if you read the article was me being kind in my assumptions. Your assumption here appears to be that anyone who disagrees with you must be misinformed. > You are literally comparing something with 0-10 deaths per year (if that) to almost 100,000 deaths per year. That type of grotesquely disproportionate comparison is part of 'outrage' culture. It's something I dislike and have no trouble calling people out on. Please respond to content, not to your own emotional responses (likes and dislikes). Being offended is not an argument for or against anything. Harm comes in different forms, and we are going compare harm prevention strategies even though some strategies try to prevent liver disease and death (age verification for alcohol) and others try to harm prevention strategies for child sexual abuse (age verification for dating apps). It is appropriate and normal to compare different things. > Not a single cost/benefit analysis. No consideration of the cost, just a wave of the hand (they will bear it). No discussion even of what type of age verification should be or any pros and cons. Yes, I would also like to see a cost/benefit analysis. On this, we agree. > If you don't seem to consider the consequences of laws, or even the fact that the logic you use is based on grotesquely unbalanced comparisons, I see little possibility for dialectics. You have come up with a great many explanations for how I am somehow an inferior person, but this is inappropriate behavior and you should in the future respond to content unless someone is acting inappropriately.
tracker1 8y ago
As to extremely burdensom... require a minimal one time fee to create the account to pay for a person to confirm their identity. Require an ID upload and a separate picture that matches a CC/Debit card to cover the cost. If you don't have ID, a matching CC or debit card and $5, then maybe you should have other priorities other than getting onto DATING-APP
- towelr34dy 8y ago
  Actually, what we need is a single chip system given to you when you are born and charge people for it. If they can't pay, put 'em to work. The chip will hold all our info. Then when we want to do something on the internet or IRL, a computer will read our chip and we will use the system. It will have... no abuse or secondary consequences. But it will perfectly protect minors from getting on dating sites. I wonder what other historical characters/political systems would love such a system?
  - tracker1 8y ago
    Okay, my suggestion was nowhere NEAR the hyperbolic suggestion you are making.

klodolph 8y ago

> Did you read the article? That's an inappropriate response. Don't respond that way in the future. > What lawmakers want is ID required. Yes, like for alcohol. > This is an extremely burdensome requirement. To have every new user of any online platform have to verify photo ID against a webcam is... very onerous. New regulations are regularly called "extremely burdensome". I would say that alcohol regulations are extremely burdensome in most parts of the country where I live (USA). This is why I used alcohol as a comparison point. The government regulates how many alcohol licenses are given, sometimes operates liquor stores themselves, conducts enforcement operations including "sting" type operations with underage informers. The hours and days when alcohol can be sold are regulated and in most places, minors are not allowed to serve alcohol or work the register for alcohol sales. In some states, most types of alcohol can only legally be sold in state-licensed liquor stores. In NY, for example, each liquor store must be owned and operated by an individual living within a certain physical radius of the store's location. The question here is about weighing the burden against harm reduction. > And even then whats to stop a kid from using his parents confirmed account? Condoms aren't 100% effective. Why should laws be 100% effective? > The worst part of the authoritarian inclined who use the 'what about the children?' argument is that many times they ironically make it less safe for children since the solutions aren't particularly well thought through (see drinking age in the US) - all while making it worse for the rest of us. The effects of raising the drinking age in the US have been well-studied, and provide a wealth of data because laws were passed at a state-level and at different times. From a harm-reduction versus cost perspective, I am in favor of the 21 year drinking age in the US. Based on the studies. > The thing about the outrage crowd is they point to a problem with while implicitly saying 'anyone who doesn't support 'the solution' is in favor of the problem'. I'm not in favor of the problem. I'm in favor of fixing the problem IF it can be fixed in a cost effective way. I think you might be directing your comment at some kind of nebulous "authoritarian" or "outrage crowd" and I'm not a part of that, so if that's the case, I'd appreciate it if, when you respond to my comment, you respond to the content of the comment itself and not some third party. You seem to believe that the burden to verify age is too onerous for online dating apps. I think that we should require age verification for dating services across the board, and it should be up to the online apps to compete with offline dating services on equal footing. If it turns out that the reason why online dating services succeed is only because they don't have to bear the cost of age verification, then I'd be shocked.

towelr34dy 8y ago
Actually, asking if you read the article was me being kind in my assumptions. Alcohol is responsible 88,000 deaths per year. You are literally comparing something with 0-10 deaths per year (if that) to almost 100,000 deaths per year. That type of grotesquely disproportionate comparison is part of 'outrage' culture. It's something I dislike and have no trouble calling people out on. Not a single cost/benefit analysis. No consideration of the cost, just a wave of the hand (they will bear it). No discussion even of what type of age verification should be or any pros and cons. The fact that tinder has revolutionized sexuality for a generation is... or made dating safer for women... or made dating safer for LGBT in places where it can be dangerous to date as an LGBT... better bury that in bureaucracy. No care about privacy. Doesn't matter if over regulation just pushes people to less regulated platforms like online classifieds, maybe hosted in a non-us country. If you don't seem to consider the consequences of laws, or even the fact that the logic you use is based on grotesquely unbalanced comparisons, I see little possibility for dialectics.
- klodolph 8y ago
  > Actually, asking if you read the article was me being kind in my assumptions. Your assumption here appears to be that anyone who disagrees with you must be misinformed. > You are literally comparing something with 0-10 deaths per year (if that) to almost 100,000 deaths per year. That type of grotesquely disproportionate comparison is part of 'outrage' culture. It's something I dislike and have no trouble calling people out on. Please respond to content, not to your own emotional responses (likes and dislikes). Being offended is not an argument for or against anything. Harm comes in different forms, and we are going compare harm prevention strategies even though some strategies try to prevent liver disease and death (age verification for alcohol) and others try to harm prevention strategies for child sexual abuse (age verification for dating apps). It is appropriate and normal to compare different things. > Not a single cost/benefit analysis. No consideration of the cost, just a wave of the hand (they will bear it). No discussion even of what type of age verification should be or any pros and cons. Yes, I would also like to see a cost/benefit analysis. On this, we agree. > If you don't seem to consider the consequences of laws, or even the fact that the logic you use is based on grotesquely unbalanced comparisons, I see little possibility for dialectics. You have come up with a great many explanations for how I am somehow an inferior person, but this is inappropriate behavior and you should in the future respond to content unless someone is acting inappropriately.

tracker1 8y ago

As to extremely burdensom... require a minimal one time fee to create the account to pay for a person to confirm their identity. Require an ID upload and a separate picture that matches a CC/Debit card to cover the cost. If you don't have ID, a matching CC or debit card and $5, then maybe you should have other priorities other than getting onto DATING-APP

towelr34dy 8y ago
Actually, what we need is a single chip system given to you when you are born and charge people for it. If they can't pay, put 'em to work. The chip will hold all our info. Then when we want to do something on the internet or IRL, a computer will read our chip and we will use the system. It will have... no abuse or secondary consequences. But it will perfectly protect minors from getting on dating sites. I wonder what other historical characters/political systems would love such a system?
- tracker1 8y ago
  Okay, my suggestion was nowhere NEAR the hyperbolic suggestion you are making.