4 ms·
I'm happy to discuss they are very different, and I agree the current systems (in the UK in particular), are awful. However, I think tech people risk losing th
by CJefferson 1y ago
I'm happy to discuss they are very different, and I agree the current systems (in the UK in particular), are awful.
However, I think tech people risk losing this battle by saying (it seems to me, and in the post I originally replied to) "any attempt at any age checking on the internet is basically 1984", rather than "we need some way of checking some things, keeping people's privacy safe, this current system is awful."
Of course, if some people believe the internet should be 100% uncensored, no restrictions, they can have that viewpoint. But honestly, I don't agree.
- rpdillon 1y agoI'm a huge proponent of legislation that requires sites so send a header that indicates they are serving adult content in that request. I'm also a huge proponent of basic endpoint security that allows a parent to put the device into a mode that checks for those headers and blocks the response. This doesn't require any of the draconian 1984 measures that folks are insisting upon. The problem is there is no real incentive to implement true age-verification in this manner (this is why nobody has deployed ZKP), but rather to identify everyone. So while it would be ultra easy to imagine an onboarding scenario during device setup that asks: 1. Will this device be assigned to a child? 2. Supply the age so we can track when they cross over 18 3. Automatically reject responses with the adult header and lock down this setting But Google and Apple won't do that, because they don't care, and the politicians won't bake it into their laws, because they don't are either: their goal is to alter culture, and protecting children is just an excuse.