6 ms·

Wild how out-of-bounds it apparently is to say, but even if age verification was empirically proven to protect kids, I’d still be against it. It's taboo in our

Wild how out-of-bounds it apparently is to say, but even if age verification was empirically proven to protect kids, I’d still be against it. It's taboo in our culture to say this, but what keeps me up isn't just what people are afraid of; it's how far they’ll go to feel safe. That’s how monsters get made. We’ll trade away the last scraps of online anonymity and build a legally required censorship machine, all for a promise of safety that's always just out of reach. And that machine sticks around long after anyone remembers why it was built, ready to be turned on whoever’s out of favor next, like a gun hanging above the door in Act One. But say this out loud and suddenly you're the extremist, the one who "doesn’t care about kids." We’re already past the point where the "solution" is up for debate. Now you just argue over how it'll get done. If you actually question the wisdom of hanging surveillance over the doorway of the internet, you get boxed out, or even labeled dangerous. It's always like this. The tools of control are always built with the best intentions, then quietly used for whatever comes next. History is clear, but polite society refuses to learn. Maybe the only real out-of-the-box thinking left is not buying the story in the first place.

Tadpole9181 1y ago
> But even if age verification was empirically proven to protect kids, I’d still be against it. Even with an effective implementation via something like zero knowledge proofs? It seems like it's entirely reasonable to say your position is (in this hypothetical) objectively wrong? Like arguing that even if we know firefighters save lives, you'd still be against it, because "fear and the desire to feel safe are how monsters are made". I disagree with these policies (because they aren't safe and I disagree that children in a danger best prevented through this kind of measure), but I also disagree with you vehemently. If I'm wrong and we can genuinely prevent harm and the worst cost is an inconvenience (again, without the risk of data leak), then I'm wrong and we should do it.
- jaredklewis 1y ago
  The parent is not saying they’re against protecting kids; the parent is saying even if these measures do protect kids (which is disputable) they’re against them because of the side effects. For example, it’s a wedge to let governments and corporations de-anonymize the internet and snoop on everyone. Not hard to imagine that kids in North Korea are exposed to less web porn. Doesn’t mean we want to live in NK.
  - Tadpole9181 1y ago
    TFA is talking about how to do it without the side effects. In light of that context, saying that you do not care if it is proven that it is a good thing to do and you can do it safely, is objectively the wrong take. You'd be hurting people for no reason?
    - electricboots 1y ago
      Just because you say it protects the children, doesn’t convince me it does. I think side effects is doing some heavy lifting, far beyond the scope assured anonymity, which seems questionable on its own, for this to be a reasonable hypothesis
      - Tadpole9181 1y ago
        Please read comments you reply to. They brought up the hypothetical that if it empirically proven that it is true. And I explicitly said I don't think that's the case.
    - jack1243star 1y ago
      You seem to swing about the concept of "objectively wrong" a lot, which I cannot understand. How can an opinion be objectively wrong?
      - Tadpole9181 1y ago
        To just go for the extreme: murdering someone for no reason is objectively wrong. The hypothetical that was brought up stops this from being an opinion and moves it into plain fact territory. If you can prevent harm with no downside, doing nothing is not an opinion, it's pretty clearly just immoral.
    - jaredklewis 1y ago
      I think zero knowledge proofs still have some side effects. For sure, it's a massive improvement on the measures being proposed and implemented now. Even TFA recognizes that a good zero knowledge proof system doesn't eliminate all risk; it just reduces and shifts it.
- vaylian 1y ago
  > Even with an effective implementation via something like zero knowledge proofs? Someone is still controlling the execution of this proof. It's possible to deny people access to gated information. It's not about protection. It is about control.
CJefferson 1y ago
Can you explain why you think the online world should be so different to the physical world, which is full of places where I need to use an ID to get age-limited items? I really don't feel monsters were made by stopping children buying porn and alcohol. Do you think those age restrictions should be removed too? Particularly as more of society moves from physical to virtual.
- jrflowers 1y ago
  > Can you explain why you think the online world should be so different to the physical world When you show a bartender your ID to buy a beer they generally don’t photocopy it and store it along with your picture next to an itemized list of every beer you’ve ever drank
- fellowniusmonk 1y ago
  If bouncers copied my id, my home address and a bunch of private data every time I went to a bar I'd never go out. This whole premise is absurd. There is tons of research and empirical and historical evidence that living in a surveillance state stifled free expression and thus narrows the richness of human creation and experimentation. How old are you that you think constant surveillance is any kind of way to live? It's a thin gruel of a life.
  - teddyh 1y ago
    > It's a thin gruel of a life. But it’s the only one they will ever know.
  - CJefferson 1y ago
    I'm happy to discuss different methods of age verification, I agree I don't want websites copying my ID. However, I'm not against the concept of age verification, and believe it can be done well. How old are you, to make that last comment just because you need your ID to buy a beer?
    - rpdillon 1y ago
felindev 1y ago
> We’ll trade away the last scraps of online anonymity and build a legally required censorship machine, all for a promise of safety that's always just out of reach. Good example would be EU's proposed "chat control" regulation. Wiretapping every (even encrypted) channel for off chance illegal material might be shared.
throwaway290 1y ago
> if age verification was empirically proven to protect kids, I’d still be against it. It's really wild. Imagine a hypothetical ideal implementation. ZKP. No privacy issues, completely safe. And yet people are STILL against it. I can understand pro privacy advocates but I really don't know what kind of person would think this. What's extra wild is there's no justification given for this in your comment. There's some completely unrelated stuff about censorship and anonymity. The point per headline is no privacy issues, you get to keep your privacy.
- ygritte 1y ago
  > Imagine a hypothetical ideal implementation. You say it yourself, it's hypothetical. In reality it will be one in a way that enables all kinds of abuse and security issues.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
  They are against it because they know a bait-and-switch set up when they see it. The people promoting this hardest are not concerned about child safety, what they want is a monitoring/censorship system for the internet for the in vast political and economic control it would enable. Even if they did implement a perfect ZKP initially, it would not be long before it got diluted and eventually becomes a full-on tracking system.
- kelseyfrog 1y ago
  The history on this is really clear: when you create a "for your safety" speech control, it gets used for all sorts of other stuff. In my dataset of free-speech limiting examples for safety reasons, 89% eventually expanded in scope to limit speech relating to LGBTQ, feminist, women's health, and politics. This isn't a hypothetical - it happens over and over again. Each time we have folk pointing this out, and each time we have people saying, "You're overreacting." ZKP or not, if you make Chekhov's gun, someone's going to use it. Privacy isn’t the point. Unless your ZKP also magically prevents scope creep and political misuse, hard pass from me. It’s like going to the gunsmith and saying, "Don’t build Chekhov another gun, you know it’s going to go off," and he just shrugs and says, "There’s no way it happens a twentieth time."
Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
> The tools of control are always built with the best intentions Not to be overly pessimistic, but I'd say tools of control are only occasionally built with the best intentions. Normally they are built with, though maybe not the worst but certainly bad intentions. Good intentions are the marketing spin that comes after the fact to ease adoption like lube on blunt object headed in your nether regions.

Tadpole9181 1y ago

> But even if age verification was empirically proven to protect kids, I’d still be against it. Even with an effective implementation via something like zero knowledge proofs? It seems like it's entirely reasonable to say your position is (in this hypothetical) objectively wrong? Like arguing that even if we know firefighters save lives, you'd still be against it, because "fear and the desire to feel safe are how monsters are made". I disagree with these policies (because they aren't safe and I disagree that children in a danger best prevented through this kind of measure), but I also disagree with you vehemently. If I'm wrong and we can genuinely prevent harm and the worst cost is an inconvenience (again, without the risk of data leak), then I'm wrong and we should do it.

jaredklewis 1y ago
The parent is not saying they’re against protecting kids; the parent is saying even if these measures do protect kids (which is disputable) they’re against them because of the side effects. For example, it’s a wedge to let governments and corporations de-anonymize the internet and snoop on everyone. Not hard to imagine that kids in North Korea are exposed to less web porn. Doesn’t mean we want to live in NK.
- Tadpole9181 1y ago
  TFA is talking about how to do it without the side effects. In light of that context, saying that you do not care if it is proven that it is a good thing to do and you can do it safely, is objectively the wrong take. You'd be hurting people for no reason?
  - electricboots 1y ago
    Just because you say it protects the children, doesn’t convince me it does. I think side effects is doing some heavy lifting, far beyond the scope assured anonymity, which seems questionable on its own, for this to be a reasonable hypothesis
    - Tadpole9181 1y ago
      Please read comments you reply to. They brought up the hypothetical that if it empirically proven that it is true. And I explicitly said I don't think that's the case.
  - jack1243star 1y ago
    You seem to swing about the concept of "objectively wrong" a lot, which I cannot understand. How can an opinion be objectively wrong?
    - Tadpole9181 1y ago
      To just go for the extreme: murdering someone for no reason is objectively wrong. The hypothetical that was brought up stops this from being an opinion and moves it into plain fact territory. If you can prevent harm with no downside, doing nothing is not an opinion, it's pretty clearly just immoral.
  - jaredklewis 1y ago
    I think zero knowledge proofs still have some side effects. For sure, it's a massive improvement on the measures being proposed and implemented now. Even TFA recognizes that a good zero knowledge proof system doesn't eliminate all risk; it just reduces and shifts it.
vaylian 1y ago
> Even with an effective implementation via something like zero knowledge proofs? Someone is still controlling the execution of this proof. It's possible to deny people access to gated information. It's not about protection. It is about control.

CJefferson 1y ago

Can you explain why you think the online world should be so different to the physical world, which is full of places where I need to use an ID to get age-limited items? I really don't feel monsters were made by stopping children buying porn and alcohol. Do you think those age restrictions should be removed too? Particularly as more of society moves from physical to virtual.

jrflowers 1y ago
> Can you explain why you think the online world should be so different to the physical world When you show a bartender your ID to buy a beer they generally don’t photocopy it and store it along with your picture next to an itemized list of every beer you’ve ever drank
fellowniusmonk 1y ago
If bouncers copied my id, my home address and a bunch of private data every time I went to a bar I'd never go out. This whole premise is absurd. There is tons of research and empirical and historical evidence that living in a surveillance state stifled free expression and thus narrows the richness of human creation and experimentation. How old are you that you think constant surveillance is any kind of way to live? It's a thin gruel of a life.
- teddyh 1y ago
  > It's a thin gruel of a life. But it’s the only one they will ever know.
- CJefferson 1y ago
  I'm happy to discuss different methods of age verification, I agree I don't want websites copying my ID. However, I'm not against the concept of age verification, and believe it can be done well. How old are you, to make that last comment just because you need your ID to buy a beer?
  - rpdillon 1y ago

felindev 1y ago

> We’ll trade away the last scraps of online anonymity and build a legally required censorship machine, all for a promise of safety that's always just out of reach. Good example would be EU's proposed "chat control" regulation. Wiretapping every (even encrypted) channel for off chance illegal material might be shared.

throwaway290 1y ago

> if age verification was empirically proven to protect kids, I’d still be against it. It's really wild. Imagine a hypothetical ideal implementation. ZKP. No privacy issues, completely safe. And yet people are STILL against it. I can understand pro privacy advocates but I really don't know what kind of person would think this. What's extra wild is there's no justification given for this in your comment. There's some completely unrelated stuff about censorship and anonymity. The point per headline is no privacy issues, you get to keep your privacy.

ygritte 1y ago
> Imagine a hypothetical ideal implementation. You say it yourself, it's hypothetical. In reality it will be one in a way that enables all kinds of abuse and security issues.
Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
They are against it because they know a bait-and-switch set up when they see it. The people promoting this hardest are not concerned about child safety, what they want is a monitoring/censorship system for the internet for the in vast political and economic control it would enable. Even if they did implement a perfect ZKP initially, it would not be long before it got diluted and eventually becomes a full-on tracking system.
kelseyfrog 1y ago
The history on this is really clear: when you create a "for your safety" speech control, it gets used for all sorts of other stuff. In my dataset of free-speech limiting examples for safety reasons, 89% eventually expanded in scope to limit speech relating to LGBTQ, feminist, women's health, and politics. This isn't a hypothetical - it happens over and over again. Each time we have folk pointing this out, and each time we have people saying, "You're overreacting." ZKP or not, if you make Chekhov's gun, someone's going to use it. Privacy isn’t the point. Unless your ZKP also magically prevents scope creep and political misuse, hard pass from me. It’s like going to the gunsmith and saying, "Don’t build Chekhov another gun, you know it’s going to go off," and he just shrugs and says, "There’s no way it happens a twentieth time."

Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago

> The tools of control are always built with the best intentions Not to be overly pessimistic, but I'd say tools of control are only occasionally built with the best intentions. Normally they are built with, though maybe not the worst but certainly bad intentions. Good intentions are the marketing spin that comes after the fact to ease adoption like lube on blunt object headed in your nether regions.