4 ms·

This has already come up before the Supreme Court, with the argument that filtering was a less invasive technique to fulfill the government’s legitimate interes

This has already come up before the Supreme Court, with the argument that filtering was a less invasive technique to fulfill the government’s legitimate interests back in the early 2000s. That ship has sailed. Even the opposition admits that trying to get everyone to filter is not going to work and is functionally insignificant. The only question is whether age verification is still too onerous.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Terr_ 2y ago
> trying to get everyone to filter We never needed everyone to filter, just parents busy lobbying the government to impose crap onto every possible service and website across the entire world. Instead, they should purchase devices for their kids that have a child-lock and client-side filters. All sites have to do is add an HTTP header loosely characterizing it's content. 1. Most of the dollar costs of making it all happen will be paid by the people who actually need/use the feature. 2. No toxic Orwellian panopticon. 3. Key enforcement falls into a realm non-technical parents can actually observe and act upon: What device is little Timmy holding? 4. Every site in the world will not need a monthly update to handle Elbonia's rite of manhood on the 17th lunar year to make it permitted to see bare ankles. Instead, parents of that region/religion can download their own damn plugin.
- rapind 2y ago
  There's a peer / social issue at play as well though. If you believe that smart phones are disastrous for kids (I happen to think so), and don't allow your 13yo daughter to have one, you are pretty much forcing her to be the odd one out. Maybe that's OK for some parents, but you can't deny that this cost exists. Preventing your son from playing certain video games that all of his friends enjoy also has a social cost. This is why I think it's great when schools ban phones in class. When left up to the parents individually it's an absolute disaster. These are just some specific examples of where I the nanny state can be beneficial. For most things in general though I'd also prefer people govern themselves (and their kids) whenever possible.
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    > This is why I think it's great when schools ban phones in class. Agreed on the classroom angle, there are many reasons (e.g. cheating, concentration) to treat the availability of devices in a uniform way there. > If you believe that smart phones are disastrous for kids A focus on the handheld device also makes it easier to handle other related concerns that can't really be solved any other way, like "no social-media after bedtime."
  - iteria 2y ago
    So does being vegetarian or vegan. So does being not the dominant culture in any aspect of life. That's a decision for parents to make and honestly "they'll be left out" is such a crap parenting take. Especially since it's a bunch of parents together who don't want their kid to have access thinking this together. If they actually talked to each each or just made a stand so people could see, we wouldn't even have this so called social cost. I'm seeing this as a parent in real time. I'm actually changing my kid's friend's parent behaviors by simply being like, "Cool. But my kid isn't/is going to do that" I don't know when parenting happened by social committee, but I don't believe in it.
    - rapind 2y ago
      > I don't know when parenting happened by social committee, but I don't believe in it. It's always been the case. We've just become so individualistic, at least in some western cultures, that we rail against it. There's even an old saying "It takes a village to raise a child".
    - redczar 2y ago
      Your points only make sense in the absence of bad and/neglectful parents. For many decades it was required to prove age in order to consume porn. Porn on the internet ought to have the same requirement. I don’t know the best way to implement it but since the industry isn’t trying to find a solution then government should impose one.
      - RHSeeger 2y ago
- graemep 2y ago
  > just parents busy lobbying the government to impose crap onto every possible service and website across the entire world. Its not parents, primarily. IMO the pressure comes from a few lobby groups, media scares, companies with age verification products to sell and big tech - the last because it imposes compliance costs that removes competition, and new entrants in particular.
- anon84873628 2y ago
  Ah, the old "all we have to do" solution to complex technical problems. "Just" design it this way!
fc417fc802 2y ago
> The only question is whether age verification is still too onerous. You've skipped right past the "does it work" question. It doesn't. Porn is available on file sharing networks in far greater quantity than it is on reputable websites. The only realistic methods I'm aware of are whitelist filtering, sufficient supervision, or sufficient interaction and education.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Terr_ 2y ago

> trying to get everyone to filter We never needed everyone to filter, just parents busy lobbying the government to impose crap onto every possible service and website across the entire world. Instead, they should purchase devices for their kids that have a child-lock and client-side filters. All sites have to do is add an HTTP header loosely characterizing it's content. 1. Most of the dollar costs of making it all happen will be paid by the people who actually need/use the feature. 2. No toxic Orwellian panopticon. 3. Key enforcement falls into a realm non-technical parents can actually observe and act upon: What device is little Timmy holding? 4. Every site in the world will not need a monthly update to handle Elbonia's rite of manhood on the 17th lunar year to make it permitted to see bare ankles. Instead, parents of that region/religion can download their own damn plugin.

rapind 2y ago
There's a peer / social issue at play as well though. If you believe that smart phones are disastrous for kids (I happen to think so), and don't allow your 13yo daughter to have one, you are pretty much forcing her to be the odd one out. Maybe that's OK for some parents, but you can't deny that this cost exists. Preventing your son from playing certain video games that all of his friends enjoy also has a social cost. This is why I think it's great when schools ban phones in class. When left up to the parents individually it's an absolute disaster. These are just some specific examples of where I the nanny state can be beneficial. For most things in general though I'd also prefer people govern themselves (and their kids) whenever possible.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  > This is why I think it's great when schools ban phones in class. Agreed on the classroom angle, there are many reasons (e.g. cheating, concentration) to treat the availability of devices in a uniform way there. > If you believe that smart phones are disastrous for kids A focus on the handheld device also makes it easier to handle other related concerns that can't really be solved any other way, like "no social-media after bedtime."
- iteria 2y ago
  So does being vegetarian or vegan. So does being not the dominant culture in any aspect of life. That's a decision for parents to make and honestly "they'll be left out" is such a crap parenting take. Especially since it's a bunch of parents together who don't want their kid to have access thinking this together. If they actually talked to each each or just made a stand so people could see, we wouldn't even have this so called social cost. I'm seeing this as a parent in real time. I'm actually changing my kid's friend's parent behaviors by simply being like, "Cool. But my kid isn't/is going to do that" I don't know when parenting happened by social committee, but I don't believe in it.
  - rapind 2y ago
    > I don't know when parenting happened by social committee, but I don't believe in it. It's always been the case. We've just become so individualistic, at least in some western cultures, that we rail against it. There's even an old saying "It takes a village to raise a child".
  - redczar 2y ago
    Your points only make sense in the absence of bad and/neglectful parents. For many decades it was required to prove age in order to consume porn. Porn on the internet ought to have the same requirement. I don’t know the best way to implement it but since the industry isn’t trying to find a solution then government should impose one.
    - RHSeeger 2y ago
graemep 2y ago
> just parents busy lobbying the government to impose crap onto every possible service and website across the entire world. Its not parents, primarily. IMO the pressure comes from a few lobby groups, media scares, companies with age verification products to sell and big tech - the last because it imposes compliance costs that removes competition, and new entrants in particular.
anon84873628 2y ago
Ah, the old "all we have to do" solution to complex technical problems. "Just" design it this way!

fc417fc802 2y ago

> The only question is whether age verification is still too onerous. You've skipped right past the "does it work" question. It doesn't. Porn is available on file sharing networks in far greater quantity than it is on reputable websites. The only realistic methods I'm aware of are whitelist filtering, sufficient supervision, or sufficient interaction and education.