5 ms·

In no particular order: Age checks for porn sites: seems like if parents care about this, there are plenty of technological ways to restrict their children's a

In no particular order: Age checks for porn sites: seems like if parents care about this, there are plenty of technological ways to restrict their children's access? Is there a gap between what's available as a technological intervention and parents' want? Measures to clamp down on “anonymous trolls” by requiring that services give the option for users to verify their identity: for minors it seems like parents could restrict access to websites via technical means, for adults... don't use the website/app? Criminalizing cyberflashing (aka the sending of unsolicited nudes via social media or dating apps): as long as this parallels in-person flashing law, this seems reasonable? Cracking down on scam ads: not sure what this means, but fraud is fraud whether it's on the internet or not. This feels like more outsourcing of law enforcement to companies. If there are complaints about scam ads, then law enforcement should investigate, with subpoenas if needed, and prosecute. Does there need to be a separate law for this?

mschuster91 3y ago
> Age checks for porn sites: seems like if parents care about this, there are plenty of technological ways to restrict their children's access? Is there a gap between what's available as a technological intervention and parents' want? The real problem behind that are various Evangelical groups running scare campaigns against parents and pressure campaigns against ISPs and individual sites. The US was the first with FOSTA/SESTA, the UK followed suit, and here in Germany our media regulators are going nuts as well. > Measures to clamp down on “anonymous trolls” by requiring that services give the option for users to verify their identity: for minors it seems like parents could restrict access to websites via technical means, for adults... don't use the website/app? That one is more complex. There are many different and valid points that collide: - the EU GDPR effectively demands that services can be used anonymously, and so did the old §13 TMG law in Germany. - service providers (Facebook most infamously) try to skirt these laws because they sell "authenticity" of users as part of their product appeal, and others to combat spam - the people demand the ability to post on the Internet without having to reveal their identity - say, in customer or employer review sites, or when unionizing or protesting against the government - Employers and brands do not want anonymous reviews due to the libel potential - people wish to watch porn or sext anonymously, because of the risk that a link between their porn habits and identity poses - the best example here is the prosecution of gays via Grindr - governments do not like anonymous commenting either, partially because they're oppressive, and partially because of the potential for hostile acts by enemy nations such as the Russian and Chinese "fake news" campaigns Striking a balance between these points is very complex, and the fact that many politicians are frankly way too old (or incompetent) to understand what they are regulating doesn't make things better.
- djoldman 3y ago
  There are definitely multiple viewpoints on "anonymous trolls." I don't understand how allowing anonymity fails to address all of them. - the EU GDPR effectively demands that services can be used anonymously, and so did the old §13 TMG law in Germany. This allows anonymity. - service providers (Facebook most infamously) try to skirt these laws because they sell "authenticity" of users as part of their product appeal, and others to combat spam Consumers/users are not forced to use these products... as with any other product, they are forced to balance the commercial offerings' pros and cons. If they value anonymity highly, they may choose to not partake. - the people demand the ability to post on the Internet without having to reveal their identity - say, in customer or employer review sites, or when unionizing or protesting against the government This allows anonymity. - Employers and brands do not want anonymous reviews due to the libel potential They can decide (or not) to require anonymity for their offering, with attendant effects on engagement and community trust. - people wish to watch porn or sext anonymously, because of the risk that a link between their porn habits and identity poses - the best example here is the prosecution of gays via Grindr This allows anonymity. - governments do not like anonymous commenting either, partially because they're oppressive, and partially because of the potential for hostile acts by enemy nations such as the Russian and Chinese "fake news" campaigns It seems that oppression is bad, so without a compelling reason, anonymity should be allowed. "Fake news": adults should be allowed to believe in or be exposed to the information of their choice.. particularly because no one can be trusted to be the arbiter of "fake."
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    > It seems that oppression is bad, so without a compelling reason, anonymity should be allowed. "Fake news": adults should be allowed to believe in or be exposed to the information of their choice.. particularly because no one can be trusted to be the arbiter of "fake." The last six years should have proven that most adults are not capable of judging whether a piece or source of information is trustworthy or not, hence the call for government regulation in the face of digital warfare - and yes, what Russia and China did to Western populations would have been classified as an act of war some decades ago.
jcarrano 3y ago
It is ONLY about controlling the flow of information, all the rest are just excuses and rationalizations. If they really wanted to tackle illegal behavior then the laws are already there (that's why it is "illegal" in the first place). Governments are afraid of the internet.
- 1827163 3y ago
  Yes, and it's not only the government, it's authorities, i.e. those with power over others everywhere that wants control over the flow of information. In the government. In the police. The workplace. The family. And the family is often where the absolute worst tyranny occurs - towards children - where our natural rights are violated the most - and this is accepted as 'normal' by our sick society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_of_deviance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_of_deviance
- bodge5000 3y ago
  > Governments are afraid of the internet. And they don't understand it. And thats pretty insane, imagine electing a new leader who says "why don't we just print more money?". We all understand its important to elect a leader who understands economics, because they're going to be regulating it, but for some reason tech illiteracy is given a free pass
  - jcarrano 3y ago
    > imagine electing a new leader who says "why don't we just print more money?" They did _exactly_ that in my home country. You can guess how it went...
ta1243 3y ago
> Cracking down on scam ads: not sure what this means, but fraud is fraud whether it's on the internet or not. This feels like more outsourcing of law enforcement to companies. If there are complaints about scam ads, then law enforcement should investigate, with subpoenas if needed, and prosecute. Does there need to be a separate law for this? If a newspaper printed adverts to put your life savings into some NFT scam with a picture of Martin Lewis endorsing it, they would find themselves sued out of business very quickly. That doesn't seem to apply to facebook though.
- djoldman 3y ago
  I'm not sure the laws governing those two scenarios are different... are they? How much liability does a print newspaper have for its ad content?
1827163 3y ago
[flagged]

mschuster91 3y ago

> Age checks for porn sites: seems like if parents care about this, there are plenty of technological ways to restrict their children's access? Is there a gap between what's available as a technological intervention and parents' want? The real problem behind that are various Evangelical groups running scare campaigns against parents and pressure campaigns against ISPs and individual sites. The US was the first with FOSTA/SESTA, the UK followed suit, and here in Germany our media regulators are going nuts as well. > Measures to clamp down on “anonymous trolls” by requiring that services give the option for users to verify their identity: for minors it seems like parents could restrict access to websites via technical means, for adults... don't use the website/app? That one is more complex. There are many different and valid points that collide: - the EU GDPR effectively demands that services can be used anonymously, and so did the old §13 TMG law in Germany. - service providers (Facebook most infamously) try to skirt these laws because they sell "authenticity" of users as part of their product appeal, and others to combat spam - the people demand the ability to post on the Internet without having to reveal their identity - say, in customer or employer review sites, or when unionizing or protesting against the government - Employers and brands do not want anonymous reviews due to the libel potential - people wish to watch porn or sext anonymously, because of the risk that a link between their porn habits and identity poses - the best example here is the prosecution of gays via Grindr - governments do not like anonymous commenting either, partially because they're oppressive, and partially because of the potential for hostile acts by enemy nations such as the Russian and Chinese "fake news" campaigns Striking a balance between these points is very complex, and the fact that many politicians are frankly way too old (or incompetent) to understand what they are regulating doesn't make things better.

djoldman 3y ago
There are definitely multiple viewpoints on "anonymous trolls." I don't understand how allowing anonymity fails to address all of them. - the EU GDPR effectively demands that services can be used anonymously, and so did the old §13 TMG law in Germany. This allows anonymity. - service providers (Facebook most infamously) try to skirt these laws because they sell "authenticity" of users as part of their product appeal, and others to combat spam Consumers/users are not forced to use these products... as with any other product, they are forced to balance the commercial offerings' pros and cons. If they value anonymity highly, they may choose to not partake. - the people demand the ability to post on the Internet without having to reveal their identity - say, in customer or employer review sites, or when unionizing or protesting against the government This allows anonymity. - Employers and brands do not want anonymous reviews due to the libel potential They can decide (or not) to require anonymity for their offering, with attendant effects on engagement and community trust. - people wish to watch porn or sext anonymously, because of the risk that a link between their porn habits and identity poses - the best example here is the prosecution of gays via Grindr This allows anonymity. - governments do not like anonymous commenting either, partially because they're oppressive, and partially because of the potential for hostile acts by enemy nations such as the Russian and Chinese "fake news" campaigns It seems that oppression is bad, so without a compelling reason, anonymity should be allowed. "Fake news": adults should be allowed to believe in or be exposed to the information of their choice.. particularly because no one can be trusted to be the arbiter of "fake."
- mschuster91 3y ago
  > It seems that oppression is bad, so without a compelling reason, anonymity should be allowed. "Fake news": adults should be allowed to believe in or be exposed to the information of their choice.. particularly because no one can be trusted to be the arbiter of "fake." The last six years should have proven that most adults are not capable of judging whether a piece or source of information is trustworthy or not, hence the call for government regulation in the face of digital warfare - and yes, what Russia and China did to Western populations would have been classified as an act of war some decades ago.

jcarrano 3y ago

It is ONLY about controlling the flow of information, all the rest are just excuses and rationalizations. If they really wanted to tackle illegal behavior then the laws are already there (that's why it is "illegal" in the first place). Governments are afraid of the internet.

1827163 3y ago
Yes, and it's not only the government, it's authorities, i.e. those with power over others everywhere that wants control over the flow of information. In the government. In the police. The workplace. The family. And the family is often where the absolute worst tyranny occurs - towards children - where our natural rights are violated the most - and this is accepted as 'normal' by our sick society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_of_deviance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_of_deviance
bodge5000 3y ago
> Governments are afraid of the internet. And they don't understand it. And thats pretty insane, imagine electing a new leader who says "why don't we just print more money?". We all understand its important to elect a leader who understands economics, because they're going to be regulating it, but for some reason tech illiteracy is given a free pass
- jcarrano 3y ago
  > imagine electing a new leader who says "why don't we just print more money?" They did _exactly_ that in my home country. You can guess how it went...

ta1243 3y ago

> Cracking down on scam ads: not sure what this means, but fraud is fraud whether it's on the internet or not. This feels like more outsourcing of law enforcement to companies. If there are complaints about scam ads, then law enforcement should investigate, with subpoenas if needed, and prosecute. Does there need to be a separate law for this? If a newspaper printed adverts to put your life savings into some NFT scam with a picture of Martin Lewis endorsing it, they would find themselves sued out of business very quickly. That doesn't seem to apply to facebook though.

djoldman 3y ago
I'm not sure the laws governing those two scenarios are different... are they? How much liability does a print newspaper have for its ad content?

1827163 3y ago

[flagged]