13 ms·

School bullys, parents, friends, community members, church leaders and many others I imagine. The idea was that it would have your real name and it was verified

by matt-p 1y ago

School bullys, parents, friends, community members, church leaders and many others I imagine. The idea was that it would have your real name and it was verified by your ID.

yupyupyups 1y ago
>parents You do understand that there are creeps out there grooming children, right? Parents definitely do need to have oversight over their own kids. Children should absolutely not have privacy on the internet. The ID requirement is terrible, but saying that children need privacy to explore their sexuality on the internet is very problematic. If this is the position the UK government holds then that brings into question their desire to protect children online in the first place.
- matt-p 1y ago
  I do, of course. It's just worth considering that not every parent is how you or I might like or imagine them to be. For some children their parents finding out they're gay would cause a great deal of real world physical or phycological harm. It's a really tricky thing to navigate, but aside from saying 'no children should be allowed access to the internet unsupervised' it gets really difficult.
- kelipso 1y ago
  Yep, I feel like there is a cognitive dissonance somewhere in there. On one thread about social media and internet affecting young people negatively, you have people saying parents should control their kids' exposure to the internet. And in another thread about ID laws, you have people saying kids should have privacy to roam the internet.
  - watwut 1y ago
    To be fair, those are not actually in opposition. Because they dont believe parents can actually do it. They just want to throw responsibility and blame on parents, so that government dont restrict porn access. Parents are just a tool and scapegoats.
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    Parents have plenty of capacity to exercise control over their children. For example, how about a law that says websites have to restrict access to pornographic content if the client's user agent sets an HTTP header indicating they don't want to see it? Now you don't have any privacy problems because the header contains no personally identifying information -- you don't even have to be under 18 to opt into it. But then parents can configure the kid's devices to send that header, without even impacting the kid's privacy to view content that isn't designated as pornographic, since the header is an opt-in to censorship rather than the removal of anonymity. Also notice that an academic discussion of sexual identity isn't inherently pornographic but is something that can require privacy/anonymity.
    - yupyupyups 1y ago
      Porn peddlers would probably pinky-promise not to disobey the user-agent and expose the kids to the content (and get them while they're young). However, as we have already seen, asking nicely in the HTTP headers doesn't actually work, it may even help porn peddlers better target children. We also know from recorded interviews with these predetors that they don't seem to actually mind exposing kids to porn. https://x.com/arden_young_/status/1732422651950612937 https://x.com/arden_young_/status/1732422651950612937
      - imtringued 1y ago
        Your argument is bullshit. There is no content filter on this planet that will prevent children from seeing blocked content. The children that know how to circumvent the protections will circumvent them. The providers of blocked content will figure out a way around them too. Content filters only affect law abiding users and providers. The hallmark of an effective policy is to make it as easy as possible to comply with it. Setting a header is pretty damn easy to implement and enforce by the government. It also displays trust in law abiding citizen, who will comply with the law, because they know that it serves their best interests, rather than being shoved down their throats against their will. The alternative will have exactly the same or - far more likely - worse results, because the cost of verifying every user's age is far too high to be implemented by the vast majority of sites on the internet. It's more likely that when law abiding citizens are faced with laws that are impossible to implement that they just throw up their hands up and close up shop or move somewhere else. In the second scenario their services might still be accessible in the UK and need to be blocked by the UK government, the online safety act achieves essentially nothing in this scenario.
  - JoshTriplett 1y ago
    That's not cognitive dissonance unless it's the same people saying both.
    - account42 1y ago
      Yes and even then only if the opinions stated are not more nuanced than implied here.
  - account42 1y ago
    Don't assume that HN is a single person.
  - BlueTemplar 1y ago
    I have noticed recently a tendency to refer to teenagers too as 'children', or worse : 'kids'. This is a dangerous semantic drift that ignores how teenagers are in the process of developing into adults, and so need the parent supervision of them to be slowly relaxed. (Especially since, if handled poorly, they tend to rebel, and cause much more damage.) And, as a reminder, not all erotic or erotic-adjacent (or other "adult topics") works are porn, and depending on the jurisdiction the age of consent is often less than 18 (16 in UK, though I am sure there are important details hidden behind this single number), though I do understand that there might be new, unique challenges here in the Internet era, with laws that might not have caught up yet.
- Larrikin 1y ago
  Shutting down the conversation by saying parents should have the last say is how we got these ridiculous laws in the first place. What happens when someone wants to explore their sexuality by finding someone other than the pre-approved person from the parents? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Shafilea_Ahmed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Shafilea_Ahmed
  - autoexec 1y ago
    I'm not sure how online privacy laws (or a lack of them) would spare a child who objected to marrying someone their parents wanted to force her to. Murdering your children is/was already illegal and the parents did that anyway. We can't worry about what the small number of psychopathic parents might do if kids don't have online privacy. We should instead try harder to make sure that kids are protected against their abusive parents regardless of the situation. There should have been places Shafilea could have gone to or reached out to for meaningful help and protection long before it got to the point of a murder. That said, I personally think good parenting means giving children privacy, even online, and doing so increasingly at ages set according to the maturity/capability of the child. That's the sort of thing a parent is in a better position to assess than the government. I also think that this particular law is garbage. I just don't think "We must protect children from their parents by allowing them to access the internet in secret and anonymity" is a very compelling argument.
- MSFT_Edging 1y ago
  Minors are still humans who deserve rights. They should not be considered property of parents, regardless of fear mongering about grooming. Teenagers should have the right to access information without their parents knowing, as their parents can be just as, if not more dangerous to their health and well being as a hypothetical groomer. Many teens face real abuse from their parents over their sexuality. They should not be forced to live in the shadows or face abuse due to a "protect the kids" narrative.
  - account42 1y ago
    Minors can have unfettered access to the web once grown up and yes the parents should be able to decide when that is to some point (that point being the 18th birthday). There is really no reason kids need to be able to "explore their sexuality" any earlier than that.
    - MSFT_Edging 1y ago
      Okay Pastor touchems. Sexuality is part of the human condition that doesn't start on one's 18th birthday just because over-protective parents want complete control of their child. It's weird that parents believe they need to control every facet of their child's life, down to being able to learn about why they feel the way they do. It's a form of abuse and coercion.

by matt-p 1y ago

School bullys, parents, friends, community members, church leaders and many others I imagine. The idea was that it would have your real name and it was verified by your ID.

yupyupyups 1y ago

>parents You do understand that there are creeps out there grooming children, right? Parents definitely do need to have oversight over their own kids. Children should absolutely not have privacy on the internet. The ID requirement is terrible, but saying that children need privacy to explore their sexuality on the internet is very problematic. If this is the position the UK government holds then that brings into question their desire to protect children online in the first place.

matt-p 1y ago
I do, of course. It's just worth considering that not every parent is how you or I might like or imagine them to be. For some children their parents finding out they're gay would cause a great deal of real world physical or phycological harm. It's a really tricky thing to navigate, but aside from saying 'no children should be allowed access to the internet unsupervised' it gets really difficult.
kelipso 1y ago
Yep, I feel like there is a cognitive dissonance somewhere in there. On one thread about social media and internet affecting young people negatively, you have people saying parents should control their kids' exposure to the internet. And in another thread about ID laws, you have people saying kids should have privacy to roam the internet.
- watwut 1y ago
  To be fair, those are not actually in opposition. Because they dont believe parents can actually do it. They just want to throw responsibility and blame on parents, so that government dont restrict porn access. Parents are just a tool and scapegoats.
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago
  Parents have plenty of capacity to exercise control over their children. For example, how about a law that says websites have to restrict access to pornographic content if the client's user agent sets an HTTP header indicating they don't want to see it? Now you don't have any privacy problems because the header contains no personally identifying information -- you don't even have to be under 18 to opt into it. But then parents can configure the kid's devices to send that header, without even impacting the kid's privacy to view content that isn't designated as pornographic, since the header is an opt-in to censorship rather than the removal of anonymity. Also notice that an academic discussion of sexual identity isn't inherently pornographic but is something that can require privacy/anonymity.
  - yupyupyups 1y ago
    Porn peddlers would probably pinky-promise not to disobey the user-agent and expose the kids to the content (and get them while they're young). However, as we have already seen, asking nicely in the HTTP headers doesn't actually work, it may even help porn peddlers better target children. We also know from recorded interviews with these predetors that they don't seem to actually mind exposing kids to porn. https://x.com/arden_young_/status/1732422651950612937 https://x.com/arden_young_/status/1732422651950612937
    - imtringued 1y ago
      Your argument is bullshit. There is no content filter on this planet that will prevent children from seeing blocked content. The children that know how to circumvent the protections will circumvent them. The providers of blocked content will figure out a way around them too. Content filters only affect law abiding users and providers. The hallmark of an effective policy is to make it as easy as possible to comply with it. Setting a header is pretty damn easy to implement and enforce by the government. It also displays trust in law abiding citizen, who will comply with the law, because they know that it serves their best interests, rather than being shoved down their throats against their will. The alternative will have exactly the same or - far more likely - worse results, because the cost of verifying every user's age is far too high to be implemented by the vast majority of sites on the internet. It's more likely that when law abiding citizens are faced with laws that are impossible to implement that they just throw up their hands up and close up shop or move somewhere else. In the second scenario their services might still be accessible in the UK and need to be blocked by the UK government, the online safety act achieves essentially nothing in this scenario.
- JoshTriplett 1y ago
  That's not cognitive dissonance unless it's the same people saying both.
  - account42 1y ago
    Yes and even then only if the opinions stated are not more nuanced than implied here.
- account42 1y ago
  Don't assume that HN is a single person.
- BlueTemplar 1y ago
  I have noticed recently a tendency to refer to teenagers too as 'children', or worse : 'kids'. This is a dangerous semantic drift that ignores how teenagers are in the process of developing into adults, and so need the parent supervision of them to be slowly relaxed. (Especially since, if handled poorly, they tend to rebel, and cause much more damage.) And, as a reminder, not all erotic or erotic-adjacent (or other "adult topics") works are porn, and depending on the jurisdiction the age of consent is often less than 18 (16 in UK, though I am sure there are important details hidden behind this single number), though I do understand that there might be new, unique challenges here in the Internet era, with laws that might not have caught up yet.
Larrikin 1y ago
Shutting down the conversation by saying parents should have the last say is how we got these ridiculous laws in the first place. What happens when someone wants to explore their sexuality by finding someone other than the pre-approved person from the parents? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Shafilea_Ahmed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Shafilea_Ahmed
- autoexec 1y ago
  I'm not sure how online privacy laws (or a lack of them) would spare a child who objected to marrying someone their parents wanted to force her to. Murdering your children is/was already illegal and the parents did that anyway. We can't worry about what the small number of psychopathic parents might do if kids don't have online privacy. We should instead try harder to make sure that kids are protected against their abusive parents regardless of the situation. There should have been places Shafilea could have gone to or reached out to for meaningful help and protection long before it got to the point of a murder. That said, I personally think good parenting means giving children privacy, even online, and doing so increasingly at ages set according to the maturity/capability of the child. That's the sort of thing a parent is in a better position to assess than the government. I also think that this particular law is garbage. I just don't think "We must protect children from their parents by allowing them to access the internet in secret and anonymity" is a very compelling argument.
MSFT_Edging 1y ago
Minors are still humans who deserve rights. They should not be considered property of parents, regardless of fear mongering about grooming. Teenagers should have the right to access information without their parents knowing, as their parents can be just as, if not more dangerous to their health and well being as a hypothetical groomer. Many teens face real abuse from their parents over their sexuality. They should not be forced to live in the shadows or face abuse due to a "protect the kids" narrative.
- account42 1y ago
  Minors can have unfettered access to the web once grown up and yes the parents should be able to decide when that is to some point (that point being the 18th birthday). There is really no reason kids need to be able to "explore their sexuality" any earlier than that.
  - MSFT_Edging 1y ago
    Okay Pastor touchems. Sexuality is part of the human condition that doesn't start on one's 18th birthday just because over-protective parents want complete control of their child. It's weird that parents believe they need to control every facet of their child's life, down to being able to learn about why they feel the way they do. It's a form of abuse and coercion.