4 ms·

> 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 p

> 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."
- rpdillon 1y ago
  We don't always agree, but this is spot on. Administrations change, but system of surveillance and control persist. Just because we can imagine a way for a system to do good does not mean it will mostly be used for good.
- throwaway290 1y ago
  Can you overview how this limits free speech? And where do you find examples similar to age checks in the past for it to be checkov's gun? When you say even if this helps protect the children (which from what I've seen, probably yes) you are against it anyway, I would put your objection before the end of that sentence
  - kelseyfrog 1y ago
    I'm going to give you a homework assignment. Find twenty examples of free-speech limiting laws, policies, or practices. Then go through each one and determine if it was also used to limit political speech, feminist or LGBTQ related speech, or information on women's health. Report back with your findings.
    - throwaway290 1y ago
      I won't do it because it is offtopic until I understand why this is speech limiting. So if you can show how it's speech limiting please enlighten
      - kelseyfrog 1y ago
        This exercise will explain the answer to your question and give you the background needed to understand it. Please, don't be willfully ignorant to prove a point.
        throwaway290 1y ago
        You still trying to prove a point that free speech limiting laws will limit feminist/LGBT topics. I literally never argued with that. Try to prove how age screening limits free speech and we can continue
raxxorraxor 1y ago
ZKP still needs a provider I trust. Sure, the same is true for the web of trust, but it doesn't consist of shitty ID providers. And companies currently jumping on that train for bucks certainly aren't really convincing. And even then data leakage is entirely possibe, perhaps even very likely. There is plenty of justification. It allows government to put up and demand arbitrary walls. A single legislative change and any criticism is illegal. It is not a power government should have. I don't think people supporting such efforts really thought about implications. What about bots accessing content? The good ones I mean. You would cement knowledge to large data hoarders. You give big tech power with that. I could write whole pages...

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."

rpdillon 1y ago
We don't always agree, but this is spot on. Administrations change, but system of surveillance and control persist. Just because we can imagine a way for a system to do good does not mean it will mostly be used for good.
throwaway290 1y ago
Can you overview how this limits free speech? And where do you find examples similar to age checks in the past for it to be checkov's gun? When you say even if this helps protect the children (which from what I've seen, probably yes) you are against it anyway, I would put your objection before the end of that sentence
- kelseyfrog 1y ago
  I'm going to give you a homework assignment. Find twenty examples of free-speech limiting laws, policies, or practices. Then go through each one and determine if it was also used to limit political speech, feminist or LGBTQ related speech, or information on women's health. Report back with your findings.
  - throwaway290 1y ago
    I won't do it because it is offtopic until I understand why this is speech limiting. So if you can show how it's speech limiting please enlighten
    - kelseyfrog 1y ago
      This exercise will explain the answer to your question and give you the background needed to understand it. Please, don't be willfully ignorant to prove a point.
      - throwaway290 1y ago
        You still trying to prove a point that free speech limiting laws will limit feminist/LGBT topics. I literally never argued with that. Try to prove how age screening limits free speech and we can continue

raxxorraxor 1y ago

ZKP still needs a provider I trust. Sure, the same is true for the web of trust, but it doesn't consist of shitty ID providers. And companies currently jumping on that train for bucks certainly aren't really convincing. And even then data leakage is entirely possibe, perhaps even very likely. There is plenty of justification. It allows government to put up and demand arbitrary walls. A single legislative change and any criticism is illegal. It is not a power government should have. I don't think people supporting such efforts really thought about implications. What about bots accessing content? The good ones I mean. You would cement knowledge to large data hoarders. You give big tech power with that. I could write whole pages...