6 ms·

Assume, just for the sake of the discussion, obviously, that it may be possible, using some certain commonly accepted methods, and with some reasonable, commonl

Assume, just for the sake of the discussion, obviously, that it may be possible, using some certain commonly accepted methods, and with some reasonable, commonly accepted margin of error, to detect that a user, signed into an account, is NOT a child. Will this help?

pkaye 7y ago
Its better to filter out content that is targeting kids.
derefr 7y ago
What is a "user"? Is it the owner of the account? Or is it the person using the account at the moment? When I'm signed into the YouTube app on my smart TV, and anyone who sits in front of the TV can use the app to play content, then who is the "user" of the app? Can you detect that my child is currently the one sitting there flipping through videos?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
danShumway 7y ago
Depends on whether you're willing to tolerate false positives. To start with, I'm not a huge fan of the idea that the Internet as whole could be legally obligated to assume I'm a child unless I provide every site I visit with a drivers license, for example. But let's take your assumption to the next level: let's assume that there's some privacy-respecting way of doing this (I don't believe there is, but we'll temporarily pretend it exists). I'm also not a huge fan of the idea that the Internet as a whole could be legally obligated to assume I'm a child based on criteria that are outside of my control. I personally think most of our experience with filters online have taught us that they're best implemented close to the consumer, not close to the source. To be clear, both Youtube and the FTC are turning this into a dumpster fire. But the idea of filtering content that's designed for children is better than the idea of filtering consumers. It's just that this implementation of that idea is garbage and unnecessarily hurts creators.
- ronilan 7y ago
  Filtering? It’s a discussion about privacy.... (What content/functionality is available to what user is a different question, and, I think we both agree, should be left for the provider to decide.) (And I always find internet-as-whole arguments as a straw man. We are taking about YouTube and Kids. Nothing more.)
  - danShumway 7y ago
    Youtube and Kids are making these decisions based on FTC requirements. The FTC's rulings here have implications for the Internet as a whole. > Filtering? It’s a discussion about privacy The point being, there's no way to determine whether someone is an adult without violating their privacy, and even if there was, the false positives would be (imo) an unacceptable tradeoff. If you want to have a version of COPPA that works without violating privacy, you have to focus on either labeling or filtering content that's uploaded to a service. Trying to filter users based on their age just doesn't work.
    - ronilan 7y ago
      Assume, just for the sake of the discussion, obviously, that it may be possible to determine, without violating their privacy (and actually without doing a damn thing), that someone might be a child? Will this help? (There’s an elephant in the room. All-of-internet wants it straw elephant out (I think). The lawyers just got confused.)
      - danShumway 7y ago
        You will still have false positives. You will either have false positives in that children will slip through, which the FTC is not a fan of. Or you will have false-positives in that adults will be unfairly restricted (which everyone else should have a problem with). Even in that scenario, content filtering is more feasible and practical than detecting and banning children. But, pushing that problem aside as well, sure. Assuming that you didn't have false positives, and assuming that you didn't have to violate anyone's privacy, and assuming that the solution wasn't obscenely expensive, that theoretical solution would be very helpful. It would basically solve the entire problem, for pretty much everyone. But that theoretical solution doesn't exist. If we're willing to make those assumptions, I would also like a special gun that only shoots bad people and doesn't work in schools or churches. And it would be nice to give law enforcement with warrants access to lawful information without requiring encryption backdoors. Of course, we'll also need to implement the new training regiment that gets rid of any corrupt prosecutors or officers. I'll happily posit things for the sake of discussion, but there's a point where I'm suspending so much reality that the discussion just breaks down. I can't stop looking at the proposed solution and saying, "yeah but this thing you're talking about doesn't work." I guess I'm just not sure what you're getting at.

pkaye 7y ago

Its better to filter out content that is targeting kids.

derefr 7y ago

What is a "user"? Is it the owner of the account? Or is it the person using the account at the moment? When I'm signed into the YouTube app on my smart TV, and anyone who sits in front of the TV can use the app to play content, then who is the "user" of the app? Can you detect that my child is currently the one sitting there flipping through videos?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

danShumway 7y ago

Depends on whether you're willing to tolerate false positives. To start with, I'm not a huge fan of the idea that the Internet as whole could be legally obligated to assume I'm a child unless I provide every site I visit with a drivers license, for example. But let's take your assumption to the next level: let's assume that there's some privacy-respecting way of doing this (I don't believe there is, but we'll temporarily pretend it exists). I'm also not a huge fan of the idea that the Internet as a whole could be legally obligated to assume I'm a child based on criteria that are outside of my control. I personally think most of our experience with filters online have taught us that they're best implemented close to the consumer, not close to the source. To be clear, both Youtube and the FTC are turning this into a dumpster fire. But the idea of filtering content that's designed for children is better than the idea of filtering consumers. It's just that this implementation of that idea is garbage and unnecessarily hurts creators.

ronilan 7y ago
Filtering? It’s a discussion about privacy.... (What content/functionality is available to what user is a different question, and, I think we both agree, should be left for the provider to decide.) (And I always find internet-as-whole arguments as a straw man. We are taking about YouTube and Kids. Nothing more.)
- danShumway 7y ago
  Youtube and Kids are making these decisions based on FTC requirements. The FTC's rulings here have implications for the Internet as a whole. > Filtering? It’s a discussion about privacy The point being, there's no way to determine whether someone is an adult without violating their privacy, and even if there was, the false positives would be (imo) an unacceptable tradeoff. If you want to have a version of COPPA that works without violating privacy, you have to focus on either labeling or filtering content that's uploaded to a service. Trying to filter users based on their age just doesn't work.
  - ronilan 7y ago
    Assume, just for the sake of the discussion, obviously, that it may be possible to determine, without violating their privacy (and actually without doing a damn thing), that someone might be a child? Will this help? (There’s an elephant in the room. All-of-internet wants it straw elephant out (I think). The lawyers just got confused.)
    - danShumway 7y ago
      You will still have false positives. You will either have false positives in that children will slip through, which the FTC is not a fan of. Or you will have false-positives in that adults will be unfairly restricted (which everyone else should have a problem with). Even in that scenario, content filtering is more feasible and practical than detecting and banning children. But, pushing that problem aside as well, sure. Assuming that you didn't have false positives, and assuming that you didn't have to violate anyone's privacy, and assuming that the solution wasn't obscenely expensive, that theoretical solution would be very helpful. It would basically solve the entire problem, for pretty much everyone. But that theoretical solution doesn't exist. If we're willing to make those assumptions, I would also like a special gun that only shoots bad people and doesn't work in schools or churches. And it would be nice to give law enforcement with warrants access to lawful information without requiring encryption backdoors. Of course, we'll also need to implement the new training regiment that gets rid of any corrupt prosecutors or officers. I'll happily posit things for the sake of discussion, but there's a point where I'm suspending so much reality that the discussion just breaks down. I can't stop looking at the proposed solution and saying, "yeah but this thing you're talking about doesn't work." I guess I'm just not sure what you're getting at.