5 ms·
I don't think the "use technology to detect underage users" approach has ever worked well for its stated intent (it works okay for being able to say you're "doi
by gs17 1y ago
I don't think the "use technology to detect underage users" approach has ever worked well for its stated intent (it works okay for being able to say you're "doing something" about the problem while not losing as many users), but it's slightly better than mandatory ID for everyone.
- mothballed 1y agoIt's just a way to mitigate being sued when inevitably the lawsuits pour in that the AI-assisted harmful decisions that were made totally weren't shared fault of the parents, other external environment, and/or unlucky genetics.
- wat10000 1y agoRight, the stated intent may be to block underage users, but the actual intent is to Do Something so that you can't be accused of Not Doing Something.
- SoftTalker 1y agoAnd certainly not the fault of the always conscientious tech companies who are actually the ones running the services.
- moi2388 1y agoMandatory ID wouldn’t be that bad if implemented claims-based, from within the browser. So that the browser could ask: Hey government, is this user above 18? And the government just responds with yes or no. Sites would then only need to whitelist browsers with this check an merely see an “allowed” claim for whatever type of site they have. Parents or users could use parental controls to “allow” or “block” certain categories, meaning website creators wouldn’t even get any info on the user.