4 ms·

I think this analysis presumes that the initial problem is real and the concern for it is made in good faith. The senate isn't immune to concern trolling and "p

by Spivak 2y ago

I think this analysis presumes that the initial problem is real and the concern for it is made in good faith. The senate isn't immune to concern trolling and "protecting the children" is probably the most famous and most used smokescreen for people with ulterior motives. Accepting the premise is not usually a good strategy. And we don't even have to speculate anymore what they are because the plan is out in the open. So when someone shows up with what is ostensibly a non-problem in the real world but the solution to which happens to be the legal tool they need for this other less popular worse thing they've loudly said they want I think it's normal and intellectually honest for that to be the analysis. "The EFF doesn't care about child safety" is exactly what they wanted you to say to dismiss any reasoned opposition.

TZubiri 2y ago
That's a great way to be excluded from a political conversation, pretend that the other side does not exist and that we are a strawman from a conspiracy. How about recognizing the inevitable conflict between two priorities: kid safety and online privacy? Simple thing really. Again, you don't need to do this, but you will be ignored and put in a kiddy table while the adults talk in the senate and in school boards. Most schools have deep inspecting firewalls btw. Go tell them that it's an invasion onto kid's privacy, and that you should be able to speak with them without their parents or guardians snooping. See how they look at ya
- LorenPechtel 2y ago
  It's not that we pretend the other side doesn't exist. Rather, we recognize that it's a false flag recruitment effort. And note that I haven't noticed anyone objecting to any client-side filtering approaches--I've even suggested one. We are objecting to mandated server-side verification because we know it's a camel's nose.
- Spivak 2y ago
  If your philosophy on how to best protect the children under your care is to install monitoring and filtering software on devices you own and require id verification to bypass (such as teacher's overrides) then that is your right. That being said if I a parent at such a school I would assist my child in every way possible to make sure that their own browsing is exempted or shielded from such systems because I do think it's a violation of their privacy and that's my right as a parent but I digress. If that same philosophy requires everyone to be subject to such a monitoring and filtering system by law then that's where I take issue. Because having teacher's credentials by virtue of being an adult isn't enough. I'm still being monitored and identified. Do you really not see the difference between an opt-in filtering system controlled by the responsible party for specific children and a global mandatory filtering system controlled by literally the worst human beings alive? That have an explicitly adversarial relationship to you and control the global definition of child appropriate to suit their agenda?

by Spivak 2y ago

TZubiri 2y ago

That's a great way to be excluded from a political conversation, pretend that the other side does not exist and that we are a strawman from a conspiracy. How about recognizing the inevitable conflict between two priorities: kid safety and online privacy? Simple thing really. Again, you don't need to do this, but you will be ignored and put in a kiddy table while the adults talk in the senate and in school boards. Most schools have deep inspecting firewalls btw. Go tell them that it's an invasion onto kid's privacy, and that you should be able to speak with them without their parents or guardians snooping. See how they look at ya

LorenPechtel 2y ago
It's not that we pretend the other side doesn't exist. Rather, we recognize that it's a false flag recruitment effort. And note that I haven't noticed anyone objecting to any client-side filtering approaches--I've even suggested one. We are objecting to mandated server-side verification because we know it's a camel's nose.
Spivak 2y ago
If your philosophy on how to best protect the children under your care is to install monitoring and filtering software on devices you own and require id verification to bypass (such as teacher's overrides) then that is your right. That being said if I a parent at such a school I would assist my child in every way possible to make sure that their own browsing is exempted or shielded from such systems because I do think it's a violation of their privacy and that's my right as a parent but I digress. If that same philosophy requires everyone to be subject to such a monitoring and filtering system by law then that's where I take issue. Because having teacher's credentials by virtue of being an adult isn't enough. I'm still being monitored and identified. Do you really not see the difference between an opt-in filtering system controlled by the responsible party for specific children and a global mandatory filtering system controlled by literally the worst human beings alive? That have an explicitly adversarial relationship to you and control the global definition of child appropriate to suit their agenda?