5 ms·

> I'm so tired of tech people saying "it has to suck because the law requires it", when they clearly haven't read it. [..] The AVMSD isn't new, it was codified

> I'm so tired of tech people saying "it has to suck because the law requires it", when they clearly haven't read it. [..] The AVMSD isn't new, it was codified in 2010. It has a website[1] You know, if you were going to rant about people not reading things, you probably should have first validated your own assumptions. AVMSD was just updated ( https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/revision-avmsd https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/revision-a... ) which just recently went into effect. The updated law requires online video platforms to age gate content for children. How, exactly, do you propose they do that with an implementation that doesn't suck?

delusional 5y ago
> if you were going to rant about people not reading things, you probably should have first validated your own assumptions I did, but I didn't stumble on this revision. Now that you linked it, I see hints everywhere that I should have noticed the first time around. Thanks for bringing it up. Although, I'm rather unhappy if my rant was taken to be about reading comprehension though. It really wasn't. I'm annoyed at people blaming laws for poor implementation. To tackle the revision though, lets looks at the revised text. It's kind of hard to get a hold of, since the EU document database is apparently down, but i managed to find a copy[1]. The relevant text seems to be: establishing and operating age verification systems for users of video-sharing platforms with respect to content which may impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors; Even here, it only calls for age verification. Again, there's no requirement for checking credit cards or passports. If we look at one of the drafts of the now enacted law[2], we see that they seem way more concerned with the differentiated moderation between platforms than the adequacy of the age verification process. We have to keep in mind that watershed (only showing adult content after a certain time) is considered an appropriate way of deterring minors from watching. The EU commission clearly don't think we should disallow children at any cost. I don't think it's on my to find a better implementation for YouTube, but with all the smart engineers they have access to, I would think they could come up with something less intrusive. [1]: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TC1-COD-2016-0151_EN.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TC1-COD-2016-0... [2]: https://www.eu.dk/samling/20161/kommissionsforslag/kom(2016)0287/forslag/1328077/1638572.pdf https://www.eu.dk/samling/20161/kommissionsforslag/kom(2016)... Page 20 around the middle of the page.
- jdminhbg 5y ago
  > I don't think it's on my to find a better implementation for YouTube, but with all the smart engineers they have access to, I would think they could come up with something less intrusive. So you don't even have any idea what a better implementation might look like, not even a completely technically infeasible one? And the thousands of smart YouTube engineers, whose jobs revolve around making access to content frictionless to the point of being accused of making it addictive, just haven't thought "we should make this not suck?"
- danShumway 5y ago
  > I don't think it's on my to find a better implementation for YouTube, but with all the smart engineers they have access to, I would think they could come up with something less intrusive. The sentiment behind this sentence is the driving motivation for almost every single bad tech law on the Internet. Programmers aren't magic, there are limits to what they can and can't do. Almost every bad tech law starts out with someone saying, "I don't know how this is going to work, but you're required to make it work, and if it falls apart it's your fault." You see this show up in the encryption debates, in the copyright directives, in debates about moderating content and identifying abuse, in the debates about age restrictions. It's universal, it comes from this belief that if you just require things, they'll magically happen because people can "nerd harder". It is, of course, usually very good for tech laws to legislate outcomes rather than methodology. However, that doesn't get rid of the obligation to determine whether the outcomes being legislated are actually possible.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    > it comes from this belief that if you just require things, they'll magically happen We should be somewhat sympathetic that non-experts may not know the difference between a possible and an impossible technical goal, and we have to accept that for a politician there isn't much electoral advantage to be gained from trying to explain the difference to their voters. However, each time I hear an impossible goal proposed, I can't help imagining the politician saying "We managed to land people on the Moon and return them safely, so surely we can do the same with the Sun now."

delusional 5y ago

> if you were going to rant about people not reading things, you probably should have first validated your own assumptions I did, but I didn't stumble on this revision. Now that you linked it, I see hints everywhere that I should have noticed the first time around. Thanks for bringing it up. Although, I'm rather unhappy if my rant was taken to be about reading comprehension though. It really wasn't. I'm annoyed at people blaming laws for poor implementation. To tackle the revision though, lets looks at the revised text. It's kind of hard to get a hold of, since the EU document database is apparently down, but i managed to find a copy[1]. The relevant text seems to be: establishing and operating age verification systems for users of video-sharing platforms with respect to content which may impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors; Even here, it only calls for age verification. Again, there's no requirement for checking credit cards or passports. If we look at one of the drafts of the now enacted law[2], we see that they seem way more concerned with the differentiated moderation between platforms than the adequacy of the age verification process. We have to keep in mind that watershed (only showing adult content after a certain time) is considered an appropriate way of deterring minors from watching. The EU commission clearly don't think we should disallow children at any cost. I don't think it's on my to find a better implementation for YouTube, but with all the smart engineers they have access to, I would think they could come up with something less intrusive. [1]: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TC1-COD-2016-0151_EN.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TC1-COD-2016-0... [2]: https://www.eu.dk/samling/20161/kommissionsforslag/kom(2016)0287/forslag/1328077/1638572.pdf https://www.eu.dk/samling/20161/kommissionsforslag/kom(2016)... Page 20 around the middle of the page.

jdminhbg 5y ago
> I don't think it's on my to find a better implementation for YouTube, but with all the smart engineers they have access to, I would think they could come up with something less intrusive. So you don't even have any idea what a better implementation might look like, not even a completely technically infeasible one? And the thousands of smart YouTube engineers, whose jobs revolve around making access to content frictionless to the point of being accused of making it addictive, just haven't thought "we should make this not suck?"
danShumway 5y ago
> I don't think it's on my to find a better implementation for YouTube, but with all the smart engineers they have access to, I would think they could come up with something less intrusive. The sentiment behind this sentence is the driving motivation for almost every single bad tech law on the Internet. Programmers aren't magic, there are limits to what they can and can't do. Almost every bad tech law starts out with someone saying, "I don't know how this is going to work, but you're required to make it work, and if it falls apart it's your fault." You see this show up in the encryption debates, in the copyright directives, in debates about moderating content and identifying abuse, in the debates about age restrictions. It's universal, it comes from this belief that if you just require things, they'll magically happen because people can "nerd harder". It is, of course, usually very good for tech laws to legislate outcomes rather than methodology. However, that doesn't get rid of the obligation to determine whether the outcomes being legislated are actually possible.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  > it comes from this belief that if you just require things, they'll magically happen We should be somewhat sympathetic that non-experts may not know the difference between a possible and an impossible technical goal, and we have to accept that for a politician there isn't much electoral advantage to be gained from trying to explain the difference to their voters. However, each time I hear an impossible goal proposed, I can't help imagining the politician saying "We managed to land people on the Moon and return them safely, so surely we can do the same with the Sun now."