6 ms·

Age gate means identification of the individual. Of course big tech loves that. You can have age gating or you can have privacy. Same as you can have porn fi

Age gate means identification of the individual. Of course big tech loves that. You can have age gating or you can have privacy. Same as you can have porn filtering or you can have privacy.

zelse 1y ago
In practice, 100%. In theory we could likely design "good enough" anonymous systems that work like buying alcohol or tobacco in most countries (buy a scratch token in cash at a corner store after showing ID, picked at random from a box of them - contains a number, possession of which is theoretical proof that you had your ID verified at purchase)...but of course, the real purpose of age-gating is exerting a chilling effect, so we'll never hear about privacy-preserving methods. (NB: I am firmly opposed to any of this. The solution for parents concerned about their kids is parenting and parental controls, not giving authoritarians of all stripes the means to snoop and ban whatever they decide is obscene or troubling.)
- dh2022 1y ago
  This approach could create a black market where,say, high school seniors would buy these tokens and resell to high school sophomores/juniors.
readams 1y ago
Big tech has generally not loved this because they know that adding friction like id checks massively reduces attach rates. This is watered down enough that it's likely seen as a lesser evil.
- BoredPositron 1y ago
  A new account on Facebook, Instagram or Google/YouTube will usually instantly get restricted and triggers either ID or Phone verification anyways.
nicce 1y ago
Porn sites have been there almost 20 years. Why it is problem right now? Is there extensive recent research about it? Or now we just have the capability?
- nick__m 1y ago
  I remember pop-up porn adds started to appears around 1995 or so and 1995 is 30 years away...
  - privatelypublic 1y ago
    I ember them showing up and then being limited to super shady sites PDQ. Which makes sense- since exposing minors to pornography was a crime, and got even more illegal somewhere in that time frame, along with the web becoming "professional" (whitehouse top level domain mixup stories anyone?), the honest pornography sites all started self-regulating and asking if somebody is an adult before anything naughty gets shown.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- betaby 1y ago
  > Why it is problem right now? Push from the different generation? Late boomers got very puritan with age, also see themselves as more moral, again with age.
- burnt-resistor 1y ago
  Nope, not here. Perhaps you live in some totalitarian shithole where you lack privacy or haven't figured out how VPNs work.
- LorenPechtel 1y ago
  It's a "problem" because we are becoming a theocracy. There's no reasonable demonstration of harm and a very strong correlation between availability of pornography and a big reduction in sex crimes. The purported harms are due to blocking reasonable sex education, leaving teens with the equivalent of Hollywood being the only model of sex they see. The original study that was created to show the harms concluded they couldn't find any to anyone, even minors.
jart 1y ago
No one ever explains why it's so important that everyone always conceal their identity on the web, as though it were some global red light district. The most successful tech platforms all succeeded by getting people to be trusting enough to say who they are, like Twitter, Facebook, etc. It's worth billions of dollars to create any online space that isn't anonymous.
- no_wizard 1y ago
  Reddit stands out against this wave. I reckon that Reddit is worth at least a billion
- serf 1y ago
  OK. Here's an easy explanation. Someone you don't like somehow gets voted into power and begins trying to enact changes towards a social group you belong to. Building anonymous systems is one way to avoid Bad Actor X from having Big List Y, leading to Atrocity Z. Having a really successful social network isn't a goal post, it's just a result. Great -- it made a zillion dollars, meanwhile we've built the biggest leakiest information trove on individuals, for individuals to be exploited, ever imagined.
  - jart 1y ago
    Already happened with USG. You know who doesn't discriminate against my group? Big tech companies. If they can step up and take on more responsibility for identity verification in our society, then my social group will be less oppressed. The California Republic must lead the way.
    - 16bitvoid 1y ago
      They may not themselves, but they'll happily sell your info or give it up to avoid losing money to someone who would.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
ranger_danger 1y ago
The text of this bill would be satisfied by a website simply having a "Yes, I'm over 18" button on the front.
kristopolous 1y ago
My favorite is Montana where you have to provide more identification to view a naughty jpeg then buy a firearm.
doctorpangloss 1y ago
Google doesn’t need to identify you… you use Gmail. And anyway, they created a library (https://blog.google/technology/safety-security/opening-up-zero-knowledge-proof-technology-to-promote-privacy-in-age-assurance/ https://blog.google/technology/safety-security/opening-up-ze...) to make age verification not useful for identification but still real. So… I’m sure you meant fingerprinting but presumably porn sites already do that?
fortran77 1y ago
I think they love it to because it will be another barrier for a little small start up from entering the market. You'll need to spend so much on regulatory issues and compliance that only the biggest, established companies can have a business.
tzs 1y ago
The privacy implications for this bill for adults seem to be about the same as the privacy implications for the "Click if you are 18+" button on many websites. If you are under 18 there is no checking to stop you from saying you are are 18+ The only people it seems might have their privacy slightly reduced are people under 18 who are using a computer or smartphone/tablet that had parental controls set up by presumably a parent or guardian before giving the minor access. The bill requires that the parent be able to enter the minor's birthday or age in one place, and then provide a way that the age range (under 5, 5-10, 10-13, 13-16, 16-18, 18+) can be given to apps/sites if they ask for it. Thus, if you are a minor using a device that was set up with parental controls and you try to use an app or site that is restricted, that app or site will find out your age range.
- recursivegirth 1y ago
  This is actually a level headed way to deal with it. Provide a way for the device to inform the website / app of their age status (it can be bucketed for increased privacy/compatibility with existing rating systems). Then legislate that it is on the website to inform the device of the type of content being served. Then the device/browser can be responsible for implementing the privacy controls (page blocking, notifications, overrides, etc.), and the parents are responsible for ensuring their children's devices are configured with their ages.
Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
Is there irony in the fact that Americans will pass privacy invading laws to protect kids from porn, but not gun laws to protect them from being shot at in school? How many kids die from porn exposure every year?
- stogot 1y ago
  Gun laws stop school shootings? Where in the US does that work?
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
    The US has never tried this. For an example of efficacy we have to look at other wealthy western nations that have strict gun laws and see how many school shootings they have. The data overwhelmingly indicates this works. As a counter-point, where in the US has any law stopped teenagers looking at naughty things on the internet?
    - pixxel 1y ago
      [dead]
    - stogot 1y ago
      What kind of state or federal law do you propose, with the unlikelihood that the 2A won’t be repealed?
      - Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
        Easy, just do the same thing as other western countries. If the 2A is an obstacle, then change it. The unlikelihood of and changing the 2A is the heart of the problem, not an constraint to be worked around. The question is why are gun rights sacrosanct, but other rights can taken away just by saying 'think of the children'.
        heavyset_go 1y ago
tmaly 1y ago
This is just going to create a regulatory moat where only the incumbents can survive.

Age gate means identification of the individual. Of course big tech loves that. You can have age gating or you can have privacy. Same as you can have porn filtering or you can have privacy.

zelse 1y ago

In practice, 100%. In theory we could likely design "good enough" anonymous systems that work like buying alcohol or tobacco in most countries (buy a scratch token in cash at a corner store after showing ID, picked at random from a box of them - contains a number, possession of which is theoretical proof that you had your ID verified at purchase)...but of course, the real purpose of age-gating is exerting a chilling effect, so we'll never hear about privacy-preserving methods. (NB: I am firmly opposed to any of this. The solution for parents concerned about their kids is parenting and parental controls, not giving authoritarians of all stripes the means to snoop and ban whatever they decide is obscene or troubling.)

dh2022 1y ago
This approach could create a black market where,say, high school seniors would buy these tokens and resell to high school sophomores/juniors.

readams 1y ago

Big tech has generally not loved this because they know that adding friction like id checks massively reduces attach rates. This is watered down enough that it's likely seen as a lesser evil.

BoredPositron 1y ago
A new account on Facebook, Instagram or Google/YouTube will usually instantly get restricted and triggers either ID or Phone verification anyways.

nicce 1y ago

Porn sites have been there almost 20 years. Why it is problem right now? Is there extensive recent research about it? Or now we just have the capability?

nick__m 1y ago
I remember pop-up porn adds started to appears around 1995 or so and 1995 is 30 years away...
- privatelypublic 1y ago
  I ember them showing up and then being limited to super shady sites PDQ. Which makes sense- since exposing minors to pornography was a crime, and got even more illegal somewhere in that time frame, along with the web becoming "professional" (whitehouse top level domain mixup stories anyone?), the honest pornography sites all started self-regulating and asking if somebody is an adult before anything naughty gets shown.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
betaby 1y ago
> Why it is problem right now? Push from the different generation? Late boomers got very puritan with age, also see themselves as more moral, again with age.
burnt-resistor 1y ago
Nope, not here. Perhaps you live in some totalitarian shithole where you lack privacy or haven't figured out how VPNs work.
LorenPechtel 1y ago
It's a "problem" because we are becoming a theocracy. There's no reasonable demonstration of harm and a very strong correlation between availability of pornography and a big reduction in sex crimes. The purported harms are due to blocking reasonable sex education, leaving teens with the equivalent of Hollywood being the only model of sex they see. The original study that was created to show the harms concluded they couldn't find any to anyone, even minors.

jart 1y ago

No one ever explains why it's so important that everyone always conceal their identity on the web, as though it were some global red light district. The most successful tech platforms all succeeded by getting people to be trusting enough to say who they are, like Twitter, Facebook, etc. It's worth billions of dollars to create any online space that isn't anonymous.

no_wizard 1y ago
Reddit stands out against this wave. I reckon that Reddit is worth at least a billion
serf 1y ago
OK. Here's an easy explanation. Someone you don't like somehow gets voted into power and begins trying to enact changes towards a social group you belong to. Building anonymous systems is one way to avoid Bad Actor X from having Big List Y, leading to Atrocity Z. Having a really successful social network isn't a goal post, it's just a result. Great -- it made a zillion dollars, meanwhile we've built the biggest leakiest information trove on individuals, for individuals to be exploited, ever imagined.
- jart 1y ago
  Already happened with USG. You know who doesn't discriminate against my group? Big tech companies. If they can step up and take on more responsibility for identity verification in our society, then my social group will be less oppressed. The California Republic must lead the way.
  - 16bitvoid 1y ago
    They may not themselves, but they'll happily sell your info or give it up to avoid losing money to someone who would.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]

ranger_danger 1y ago

The text of this bill would be satisfied by a website simply having a "Yes, I'm over 18" button on the front.

kristopolous 1y ago

My favorite is Montana where you have to provide more identification to view a naughty jpeg then buy a firearm.

doctorpangloss 1y ago

Google doesn’t need to identify you… you use Gmail. And anyway, they created a library (https://blog.google/technology/safety-security/opening-up-zero-knowledge-proof-technology-to-promote-privacy-in-age-assurance/ https://blog.google/technology/safety-security/opening-up-ze...) to make age verification not useful for identification but still real. So… I’m sure you meant fingerprinting but presumably porn sites already do that?

fortran77 1y ago

I think they love it to because it will be another barrier for a little small start up from entering the market. You'll need to spend so much on regulatory issues and compliance that only the biggest, established companies can have a business.

tzs 1y ago

The privacy implications for this bill for adults seem to be about the same as the privacy implications for the "Click if you are 18+" button on many websites. If you are under 18 there is no checking to stop you from saying you are are 18+ The only people it seems might have their privacy slightly reduced are people under 18 who are using a computer or smartphone/tablet that had parental controls set up by presumably a parent or guardian before giving the minor access. The bill requires that the parent be able to enter the minor's birthday or age in one place, and then provide a way that the age range (under 5, 5-10, 10-13, 13-16, 16-18, 18+) can be given to apps/sites if they ask for it. Thus, if you are a minor using a device that was set up with parental controls and you try to use an app or site that is restricted, that app or site will find out your age range.

recursivegirth 1y ago
This is actually a level headed way to deal with it. Provide a way for the device to inform the website / app of their age status (it can be bucketed for increased privacy/compatibility with existing rating systems). Then legislate that it is on the website to inform the device of the type of content being served. Then the device/browser can be responsible for implementing the privacy controls (page blocking, notifications, overrides, etc.), and the parents are responsible for ensuring their children's devices are configured with their ages.

Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago

Is there irony in the fact that Americans will pass privacy invading laws to protect kids from porn, but not gun laws to protect them from being shot at in school? How many kids die from porn exposure every year?

stogot 1y ago
Gun laws stop school shootings? Where in the US does that work?
- Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
  The US has never tried this. For an example of efficacy we have to look at other wealthy western nations that have strict gun laws and see how many school shootings they have. The data overwhelmingly indicates this works. As a counter-point, where in the US has any law stopped teenagers looking at naughty things on the internet?
  - pixxel 1y ago
    [dead]
  - stogot 1y ago
    What kind of state or federal law do you propose, with the unlikelihood that the 2A won’t be repealed?
    - Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
      Easy, just do the same thing as other western countries. If the 2A is an obstacle, then change it. The unlikelihood of and changing the 2A is the heart of the problem, not an constraint to be worked around. The question is why are gun rights sacrosanct, but other rights can taken away just by saying 'think of the children'.
      - heavyset_go 1y ago

tmaly 1y ago

This is just going to create a regulatory moat where only the incumbents can survive.