11 ms·

I really wish we had less kneejerk cliche-recycling (eg "don't be evil" comments) commenters here just looking for confirmation bias because this is a difficult

by cletus 5y ago

I really wish we had less kneejerk cliche-recycling (eg "don't be evil" comments) commenters here just looking for confirmation bias because this is a difficult issue. First, kids use sites and apps when they're below the ToS age (usually 18 or sometimes 13, at least in the US). How are you meant to know that as a service provider? Don't get me wrong: it doesn't excuse you from doing due diligence. There's such a thing as wanton disregard for the truth. But we all know under 18s use IG, Snapchat, Tinder, etc. I'm not sure fining a company billions of dollars and putting executives in jail is the outcome anyone really wants if a 17 year old uses Tinder. Second, what is personal information, exactly? It's not as obvious as you might think to the point where lawyers who work for these companies can't agree among themselves. There are obvious things (eg IP addresses, dates of birth, SSNs, addresses, names). But what about media? Photos, videos and sound files may all contain PII, technically. Third, some will say "well don't store anything". Well, if a photo contains PII (which it can) then you can't operate a photo-sharing service at all for risk of storing PII of children. Also, this ignores legal obligations. If the Feds show up with a warrant about a particular user's actions then the argument "we log/store nothing" won't get you as far as you think. So I'm not saying Google didn't do wrong here but knowing the complexities I am sympathetic to the idea of resisting broad legislative overreach as you can end up with bad laws that do just that. And if we're going to start singling out tech giants for lobbying Congress, my question is why them in particular? We currently have a Senate that is essentially beholden to the personal interests of one unelected rich guy: Charles Koch. Koch lobbies against health care, taxes on the rich and infrastructure in the Senate. Around the country, he has been instrumental in defeating public transit and many other initiatives in many cities.

wswope 5y ago
> I really wish we had less kneejerk cliche-recycling (eg "don't be evil" comments). Looking at your profile, it’s very obvious that your writing here is an ego-driven deflection to absolve yourself of complicity in these unethical behaviors. You sound like an ex-Shell employee denying global warming. But who cares as long as you’re not as bad as the Koch brothers?
dmitriid 5y ago
You've listed the reasons why governments try not to regulate things until there's a blatant disregard of even common decency. We're way beyond blatant disregard.
rapind 5y ago
> I'm not sure fining a company billions of dollars and putting executives in jail is the outcome anyone really wants if a 17 year old uses Tinder. Honestly, why not? If society deems that illegal, and the enablers are responsible, then so be it. If said company can’t figure out how to profit while preventing this then why do I care? Lot’s of businesses aren’t viable without illegal practices. I’m doubtful this will be the actual fallout, but it wouldn’t bother me at all if it was. If your businesses success relies on scale, but that scale in turn presents insurmountable issues, then congratulations, you found an unsustainable business model. No big deal.
- missedthecue 5y ago
  "Honestly, why not? If society deems that illegal, and the enablers are responsible, then so be it." Why not? I can think of a couple different situations where a given democratic society deemed X to be illegal, but that does not make it right.
tchalla 5y ago
> I'm not sure fining a company billions of dollars and putting executives in jail is the outcome anyone really wants if a 17 year old uses Tinder. A provider offers a service is responsible to ensure it functions within the law. The "How" is the responsibility of the provider. If they can't do it, they can explicitly state they can not do so and work with the government to find constructive solutions. If they absolutely can not, it means that they have to bear the consequence of the law. If they can't accept the consequence, they can decide to shut shop.
- classified 5y ago
  It would be nice if things actually worked that way.
- GauntletWizard 5y ago
  The law is responsible for being just and reasonable, and not fining people for things they have no control over. There's no sure way to verify that a user is over 18[1], and I do believe that there's responsibility on parents to be monitoring their children - That if a 13 year old is creating accounts on over-18 websites, it is partially the parent's failing for allowing them too much unmonitored access. Quite frankly: I want 17 year olds to use Tinder, figure out how it works, and understand the problems therein. I want kids to be able to tip their toe in anonymously to adult activities. Any hard-line requirements create a nice hard line - People who have no experience with X, and people who are expected to be experts with X - And that's how you create a feeding ground for predators. 17 year olds don't have to be able to recognize that a 40-year old man who's hitting on them despite the fact the 17 year old lied about their age is not a quality catch - They have to have support networks and enough opportunity to test the waters to figure that out before they get caught in a predator's web. One of the most important tools towards that is the ability to create anonymous accounts and explore, with understanding but without consequences. [1] I won't iterate over the ways that is true, and I won't iterate over the ways that your perfect age verification is either a) broken or b) totalitarian and broken.
  - jfk13 5y ago
    > Quite frankly: I want 17 year olds to use Tinder... How about 16 yr olds? 15? 13? 10? 7? Should we draw a line for "dipping their toe anonymously in adult activities" somewhere, or should that line simply not exist? Do you believe that every 13 yr old is in fact being appropriately monitored by parents? If not, should there be some safeguards to mitigate the fact that in practice this is not reliable?
literallyWTF 5y ago
Without fail, there’s always someone who literally bends over backwards to defend these sorts of actions. I never understand it, do you expect some sort of payment or something?
- nevergoogle 5y ago
  > I never understand it, do you expect some sort of payment or something? Exactly that, if you look in their bio, they're ex-Google. Certainly they still hold stock, so are trying to protect the stock price. It's people like this that built Google, so it's no wonder it's an extremely unethical company.
- eeegnu 5y ago
  It's always worth examining the other perspective, it makes for actual discussion. If I want to see everyone in agreeance with no room for these opinions I'll use reddit.
- wswope 5y ago
  He's literally been paid by Google and Facebook - see profile.
  - literallyWTF 5y ago
    Huh would you look at that. Shills gonna shill I guess
squarefoot 5y ago
> I'm not sure fining a company billions of dollars and putting executives in jail is the outcome anyone really wants if a 17 year old uses Tinder. Jail, would be disproportionate, but, those giants are perfectly aware that kids under certain age have absolutely no idea of the value of money and how much it costs to bring it home, then spend it carefully so there will be some available for less important stuff. So you show them ads of the latest cellphone or pair of famous-rapper-sponsored shoes that cost half of what their parents bring home in a month, and they'll want that crap no matter the cost. This is no that different from targeting very old people with phone calls, among which some can be lured into buying unnecessary stuff, sign fraudulent contracts, or worse, just because a well dressed drone rang their door and spent the evening talking with them to conquer their trust. Quite frankly I'm disgusted by those manipulative people, and tech giants dwelling in the dark side to maximize their profits make no difference.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  It's also basically no different from the standard for broadcast media advertising. The US has cycled back and forth on whether it should be illegal from decade to decade, but the jury is pretty out on that point of philosophy as a whole.
- derangedHorse 5y ago
  >So you show them ads of the latest cellphone or pair of famous-rapper-sponsored shoes that cost half of what their parents bring home in a month, and they'll want that crap no matter the cost. This is no that different from targeting very old people with phone calls, among which some can be lured into buying unnecessary stuff, sign fraudulent contracts, or worse, just because a well dressed drone rang their door and spent the evening talking with them to conquer their trust. I don't see how companies not properly filtering out minors from their platform equate to them being similar to fraudsters who target the elderly. One is an example of (potentially) willful ignorance of the age of users on their platform, and the other is willful malice targeted at a vulnerable group.
specialist 5y ago
> First, kids use sites and apps when they're below the ToS age... How are you meant to know that as a service provider? You think major providers don't know who is a kid? Please. They have profiles for every person living and dead. They have 1000s of data points for every person. They only pretend to not know. CYA. A fiction that stops when they target ads towards those same kids.
specialist 5y ago
> And if we're going to start singling out tech giants for lobbying Congress, my question is why them in particular? Because they're the criminals. By their own admission. The real question is why it took Congress so long.
yblu 5y ago
I think you made some good points. But you should probably have disclosed you worked for Google and Facebook.
a1369209993 5y ago
> How are you meant to know that as a service provider? You aren't. You're supposed to stop spying on your users. > I'm not sure fining a company billions of dollars and putting executives in jail is the outcome anyone really wants if a 17 year old uses Tinder. If Tinder is spying on it's users then I am sure of that, since I want that outcome. (And now you're sure of it too.)
dredmorbius 5y ago
Is there absolutely no signal determinalble through the global expert on GD/ML/AI based behavioural signal extraction within the social and behavioural signatures of a profile which might indicate that it is principally used by an individual below the age of 16? If systems cannot be designed to comply with regulatory and legal requirements, then perhaps they should not be built. Alternatively, reasonable alternatives and methods should be defined in the law. And you should disclose your employer affiliation in comments such as this.

by cletus 5y ago

wswope 5y ago

> I really wish we had less kneejerk cliche-recycling (eg "don't be evil" comments). Looking at your profile, it’s very obvious that your writing here is an ego-driven deflection to absolve yourself of complicity in these unethical behaviors. You sound like an ex-Shell employee denying global warming. But who cares as long as you’re not as bad as the Koch brothers?

dmitriid 5y ago

You've listed the reasons why governments try not to regulate things until there's a blatant disregard of even common decency. We're way beyond blatant disregard.

rapind 5y ago

> I'm not sure fining a company billions of dollars and putting executives in jail is the outcome anyone really wants if a 17 year old uses Tinder. Honestly, why not? If society deems that illegal, and the enablers are responsible, then so be it. If said company can’t figure out how to profit while preventing this then why do I care? Lot’s of businesses aren’t viable without illegal practices. I’m doubtful this will be the actual fallout, but it wouldn’t bother me at all if it was. If your businesses success relies on scale, but that scale in turn presents insurmountable issues, then congratulations, you found an unsustainable business model. No big deal.

missedthecue 5y ago
"Honestly, why not? If society deems that illegal, and the enablers are responsible, then so be it." Why not? I can think of a couple different situations where a given democratic society deemed X to be illegal, but that does not make it right.

tchalla 5y ago

> I'm not sure fining a company billions of dollars and putting executives in jail is the outcome anyone really wants if a 17 year old uses Tinder. A provider offers a service is responsible to ensure it functions within the law. The "How" is the responsibility of the provider. If they can't do it, they can explicitly state they can not do so and work with the government to find constructive solutions. If they absolutely can not, it means that they have to bear the consequence of the law. If they can't accept the consequence, they can decide to shut shop.

classified 5y ago
It would be nice if things actually worked that way.
GauntletWizard 5y ago
The law is responsible for being just and reasonable, and not fining people for things they have no control over. There's no sure way to verify that a user is over 18[1], and I do believe that there's responsibility on parents to be monitoring their children - That if a 13 year old is creating accounts on over-18 websites, it is partially the parent's failing for allowing them too much unmonitored access. Quite frankly: I want 17 year olds to use Tinder, figure out how it works, and understand the problems therein. I want kids to be able to tip their toe in anonymously to adult activities. Any hard-line requirements create a nice hard line - People who have no experience with X, and people who are expected to be experts with X - And that's how you create a feeding ground for predators. 17 year olds don't have to be able to recognize that a 40-year old man who's hitting on them despite the fact the 17 year old lied about their age is not a quality catch - They have to have support networks and enough opportunity to test the waters to figure that out before they get caught in a predator's web. One of the most important tools towards that is the ability to create anonymous accounts and explore, with understanding but without consequences. [1] I won't iterate over the ways that is true, and I won't iterate over the ways that your perfect age verification is either a) broken or b) totalitarian and broken.
- jfk13 5y ago
  > Quite frankly: I want 17 year olds to use Tinder... How about 16 yr olds? 15? 13? 10? 7? Should we draw a line for "dipping their toe anonymously in adult activities" somewhere, or should that line simply not exist? Do you believe that every 13 yr old is in fact being appropriately monitored by parents? If not, should there be some safeguards to mitigate the fact that in practice this is not reliable?

literallyWTF 5y ago

Without fail, there’s always someone who literally bends over backwards to defend these sorts of actions. I never understand it, do you expect some sort of payment or something?

nevergoogle 5y ago
> I never understand it, do you expect some sort of payment or something? Exactly that, if you look in their bio, they're ex-Google. Certainly they still hold stock, so are trying to protect the stock price. It's people like this that built Google, so it's no wonder it's an extremely unethical company.
eeegnu 5y ago
It's always worth examining the other perspective, it makes for actual discussion. If I want to see everyone in agreeance with no room for these opinions I'll use reddit.
wswope 5y ago
He's literally been paid by Google and Facebook - see profile.
- literallyWTF 5y ago
  Huh would you look at that. Shills gonna shill I guess

squarefoot 5y ago

> I'm not sure fining a company billions of dollars and putting executives in jail is the outcome anyone really wants if a 17 year old uses Tinder. Jail, would be disproportionate, but, those giants are perfectly aware that kids under certain age have absolutely no idea of the value of money and how much it costs to bring it home, then spend it carefully so there will be some available for less important stuff. So you show them ads of the latest cellphone or pair of famous-rapper-sponsored shoes that cost half of what their parents bring home in a month, and they'll want that crap no matter the cost. This is no that different from targeting very old people with phone calls, among which some can be lured into buying unnecessary stuff, sign fraudulent contracts, or worse, just because a well dressed drone rang their door and spent the evening talking with them to conquer their trust. Quite frankly I'm disgusted by those manipulative people, and tech giants dwelling in the dark side to maximize their profits make no difference.

shadowgovt 5y ago
It's also basically no different from the standard for broadcast media advertising. The US has cycled back and forth on whether it should be illegal from decade to decade, but the jury is pretty out on that point of philosophy as a whole.
derangedHorse 5y ago
>So you show them ads of the latest cellphone or pair of famous-rapper-sponsored shoes that cost half of what their parents bring home in a month, and they'll want that crap no matter the cost. This is no that different from targeting very old people with phone calls, among which some can be lured into buying unnecessary stuff, sign fraudulent contracts, or worse, just because a well dressed drone rang their door and spent the evening talking with them to conquer their trust. I don't see how companies not properly filtering out minors from their platform equate to them being similar to fraudsters who target the elderly. One is an example of (potentially) willful ignorance of the age of users on their platform, and the other is willful malice targeted at a vulnerable group.

specialist 5y ago

> First, kids use sites and apps when they're below the ToS age... How are you meant to know that as a service provider? You think major providers don't know who is a kid? Please. They have profiles for every person living and dead. They have 1000s of data points for every person. They only pretend to not know. CYA. A fiction that stops when they target ads towards those same kids.

specialist 5y ago

> And if we're going to start singling out tech giants for lobbying Congress, my question is why them in particular? Because they're the criminals. By their own admission. The real question is why it took Congress so long.

yblu 5y ago

I think you made some good points. But you should probably have disclosed you worked for Google and Facebook.

a1369209993 5y ago

> How are you meant to know that as a service provider? You aren't. You're supposed to stop spying on your users. > I'm not sure fining a company billions of dollars and putting executives in jail is the outcome anyone really wants if a 17 year old uses Tinder. If Tinder is spying on it's users then I am sure of that, since I want that outcome. (And now you're sure of it too.)

dredmorbius 5y ago

Is there absolutely no signal determinalble through the global expert on GD/ML/AI based behavioural signal extraction within the social and behavioural signatures of a profile which might indicate that it is principally used by an individual below the age of 16? If systems cannot be designed to comply with regulatory and legal requirements, then perhaps they should not be built. Alternatively, reasonable alternatives and methods should be defined in the law. And you should disclose your employer affiliation in comments such as this.