18 ms·

I stand by my repeated statements of how this could have been solved simply using an RTA header [1] on the server side and require the most common user agents t

by Bender 11mo ago

I stand by my repeated statements of how this could have been solved simply using an RTA header [1] on the server side and require the most common user agents to look for that header putting the onus on parents where it currently legally resides. It's not perfect, nothing is nor ever will be but using the header solution is entirely private, does not store or leak data and puts the decision into the device owners rather than creating perverse incentives to track everyone. It may actually protect most small children whereas today teens quickly find a work-around and then teach smaller children how to work around these centralized gate-keepers. The current solutions are just about tracking people by real identity and incentivizing teens to commit identity crimes. [1] - https://www.rtalabel.org/page.php https://www.rtalabel.org/page.php

thewebguyd 11mo ago
Correct. None of these laws are actually about protecting children. That's not the real goal. The real goal is the complete elimination of anonymity on the web, where both private companies and the state can keep tabs on everything you do. Not being able to be at least pseudo-anonymous has a real chilling effect on speech and expression. Even if there are laws in place protecting such rights, people will self-censor when knowing they are being watched. It's how freedom of speech and expression dies without actually scratching that part off of the bill of rights.
- amanaplanacanal 11mo ago
  It's a mix. I'm sure there are some people really trying to protect kids. There are other people that just want all porn off the Internet. And there are bad actors that want total surveillance. And they are all on the same side of this issue.
  - cultofmetatron 11mo ago
    > I'm sure there are some people really trying to protect kids. yes, I believe the term for them is "useful idiots"
    - robot-wrangler 11mo ago
      Not idiots necessarily, sometimes just long-time observers who have finally become cynical. People that were pro-guns for decades may watch several years of failure to adopt basic and uncontroversial gun-control regulation, then eventually become anti-gun. People that were in favor of regulating it once may suddenly become fearful for their safety, and want no regulations at all in case that regulation puts them out in the cold. Since both PR campaigns and any action on policy tends to cater to extremes, there's always pressure that is shrinking the middle
      - shevy-java 11mo ago
        The comment "useful idiots" is more a play on the russian KGB strategy. They use assets to influence people and achieve certain goals. In this case here, terrorism or child pornography is used as cop-out rationale for censorship, surveillance and so forth. It's never about those topics really, perhaps 5% at best, the rest is just sugar-coated decoy to restrict people and keep them as slaves and pets. > Since both PR campaigns and any action on policy tends to cater to extremes, there's always pressure that is shrinking the middle This only works on people who are susceptible to this. I understand how propaganda works so I am never fooled by "this is because of terrorists". This is also why I am for 100% transparency at all times.
        sroerick 11mo ago
        Can you explain to me what loopholes that opponents believe this law will exploit? Is it just "more ID is bad"? Or is there a specific concern that this bill is a targeted overreach to increase censorship and surveillance. It genuinely doesn't seem like any more of a threat than age-gating Playboy at the bookstore. What have I missed?
        Ajakks 11mo ago
        I went to check my Social Security administration account like 4 years ago - I forget why. To access it, I have to have an actual video face to face conversation with people from some Real ID company. I'll never look at that account again in my ficking life.
  - tehjoker 11mo ago
    [flagged]
    - arcbyte 11mo ago
      [flagged]
      - tehjoker 11mo ago
        I'm not a libertarian thanks though.
      - amanaplanacanal 11mo ago
        Claiming support from "the vast majority" is clearly nonsense. There is little support for getting rid of social security, Medicare or Medicaid, or several other current wealth transfrr programs.
      - hellojesus 11mo ago
        Given the negative responses, I'd like to strengthen the position against positive rights by stating that positive rights require slavery the extreme whereas negative rights do not. If the government guarantees food for children (or anyone), the government must provide it. If nobody is willing to be a farmer at any rate the private or public sector affords, the government must force someone to be a farmer to produce food to fulfill their positive right grant.
        tehjoker 11mo ago
        You induce people to do things with payments, not slavery. Or you ask for a volunteer corps. Or you have the army do it if all else fails. I presume you are opposed to the existence of standing armies if you are opposed to slavery in all forms as well as wage slavery.
        hellojesus 11mo ago
        I'm less opposed to standing armies because a voluntary contract is entered by both parties. I am not a fan of the draft or compulsory service. My example was an edge case. I expect the government could find a price that someone would take long before they required slavery. But it still stands that it is a potential. I prefer all transactions are voluntary, even if that means you lose your country because nobody is willing to sign up for it's defense.
  - hsuduebc2 11mo ago
    Yea. People which cured their children with lobotomy also thought that they we're doing something good. These usefull idiots are in some sense worse than the perpetuators it self because they are primarly the enablers of such behaviot simply because of their naivety or worse, ignorance.
- reactordev 11mo ago
  The goal was to put Company A in between you and the web. Collecting data and selling it for profit. It’s never about what they say it’s about. Lobbyists have bought every aspect.
  - Schiendelman 11mo ago
    I think you're right. Surveillance power is nearly a side effect of the personal enrichment.
- TZubiri 11mo ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46154208 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46154208
- stuffn 11mo ago
  Technical people have been gleefully eliminating anonymity on the web for the last 20 years. Progressives should be the party on the side of maximal freedom but really in the US we have one neo-liberal party wearing two different disguises. The problem is normies don't operate under assumed anonymity. So when the hordes of unwashed regular people joined the internet they wanted their face everywhere. People were shamed out of their handles. Some people gave up their anonymity to make yet another faceless bullshit blog-as-a-resume. Look at most of the top karma farmers on HN. Most of them post their personal information in the their bio. Pathetic. > people will self-censor when knowing they are being watched. This has been happening both in public and on the internet for over a decade now. > Not being able to be at least pseudo-anonymous has a real chilling effect on speech and expression. The normies would argue you have nothing to hide if you aren't doing anything wrong. The average voter, regardless of party, will happily surrender every ounce of freedom for the thought of security. Hell, I remember sometime around 2007 DEFCON became a first-name-basis conference! > bill of rights It's more of a bill of privileges given NGOs and PACs are regularly paying to erode the core rights granted to citizens. Either through lawfare by circumventing the courts and suing companies into bankruptcy, or by directly purchasing congressmen via donation. What I have found in general is people who cry and complain about this kind of thing were, at one point, happy to have it happen to their political enemies. The laws that are paving the way for age-gated deanonymized internet were at one point used as a cudgel to beat their political enemies down. When the tables finally turn after the Nth "protect the children" bill, it's the other people left crying and now suddenly its a "problem".
  - Earw0rm 11mo ago
    This was inevitable on the day the Web ceased to be a third space and became an integral part of day-to-day life. Some time between Facebook opening to the general public (mid 2006) and the launch of the iPhone (early 2007). "Online" was no longer a meaningful distinction from there on out.
- travisgriggs 11mo ago
  > The real goal is the complete elimination of anonymity on the web... I'm ok with running this experiment (not sure how it really turns out) BUT only if everyone participates. Governments and businesses get to watch me... I get to watch them. If the death if anonymity is inevitable, as unpleasant as that sounds, the goal to shoot for then is universal application
- stocksinsmocks 11mo ago
  You may not be old enough to remember Edward Snowden or Mark Klein (who went unnoticed), but there never was anonymity. My pet theory is that this requirement is part of a mob war and porn and whatever else the MindGeek people are involved with is being attacked for the much of the same reasons Ukraine attacks Russian oil refineries.
- miki123211 11mo ago
  How do you know this?
- planb 11mo ago
  > None of these laws are actually about protecting children. That's not the real goal. I fear that for 90% of the supporters of such laws (just like with chat control) this statement is wrong, and they truly do want to protect minors from harm. But that only makes it worse, because this type of argument completely misses the mark while the other 10% get to laugh up their sleeves while continuing to manipulate public opinion.
  - phrotoma 11mo ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
- SPICLK2 11mo ago
  >Not being able to be at least pseudo-anonymous has a real chilling effect on speech and expression. Even if there are laws in place protecting such rights, people will self-censor when knowing they are being watched. This supposed golden era of communication lasted for a very short period. Why is is so important that freedom of speech also be anonymous? What you're asking for is the right to talk to anyone with all societal, cultural, and interpersonal contexts removed.
  - torben-friis 11mo ago
    >Why is is so important that freedom of speech also be anonymous? Because it is a shortcut for an otherwise extremely hard to enforce freedom. Can you afford to defend your speech in court? Can you prove that an action taken against you by someone in power is retaliation against your speech? Can you handle social ostracism by a majority that disagrees? If the answer to some is no, your freedom of speech has practical limits. This is not to say that a world with anonymous speech is necessarily better, I’m just saying that in terms of guarantees it has a clear advantage. Case in point: will you answer a workplace questionnaire the same way whether or not it is anonymous?
    - chii 11mo ago
      It is not only freedom of speech, but freedom of association that would also be jeopardized. People long ago used to have to hide that they're gay, not only because they could be ostracized, but that people they associate with could also be under scrutiny. Being able to track one's movements, or who they associate with, could reveal information that said person would want kept secret.
      - torben-friis 11mo ago
        Yes, and even though not a normally named right, the possibility of someone’s ideas being detached from their identity is a godsend for some people. They won’t be dismissed (consciously or not) due to gender, background, look, or anything else if no one knows anything beyond their words.
- 8bitsrule 11mo ago
  Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway. — Andrew Tanenbaum, 1981
alex1138 11mo ago
Youtube has been repeatedly told about videos that are abusive towards children and they do nothing about it. They're not interested in effective solutions
- Bender 11mo ago
  Youtube has been repeatedly told about videos that are abusive towards children and they do nothing about it. They're not interested in effective solutions Youtube is user-generated content which is precisely why I would prefer they add an RTA header. Random people uploading videos can claim to be kid friendly when they are not. Take that responsibility away from the uploaders and away from Youtube and hand it to the parents. Less work, liability and cost for Youtube should be a nifty incentive at the risk of blocking some advertising to children which is another loaded topic all together.
  - zahlman 11mo ago
    > Take that responsibility away from the uploaders and away from Youtube and hand it to the parents. The system described still requires action by the webmaster. Their options are: deny the entire site to those sending an RTA header; evaluate the content themselves; or trust the uploader. (Or a combination: have uploaders opt-in to evaluation for a fee, with the content denied to kids by default.)
    - Bender 11mo ago
      The client does not send an RTA header. The RTA header is only sent by the server or load balancer by design. Absolutely no action required by web site operators and owners assuming they enabled the header on any URL that is either adult or user-generated content. It is up to the client what to do with the header which right now is nothing. A law would be required to get the snippet of code added to user agents. I estimate it would take an intern one afternoon to get it into the clients they support not counting dev/qa, management approval, etc... Challenge to FAANG: Show off your interns! There is no harm in adding the code required to detect this header. Example header to detect sent from NGinx. If you detect this header activate nanny controls. To be safe do a separate parental_build to get manager approval. add_header Rating 'RTA-5042-1996-1400-1577-RTA' always; All one need detect is: RTA-5042-1996-1400-1577-RTA For fun, search for this on Shodan.
dylan604 11mo ago
I can't believe in 2025, nearly 2026, that anyone would seriously suggest a header as a valid way of doing anything like this. Headers can be spoofed, modified along the way, or flat out ignored. DNT header is the obvious go to example here. An aspiring teen could set up an RPi that modifies headers for all traffic on the network that the parental units never even know about. I'd venture there would be plenty of YT, TikTok, Discord threads, etc that would provide a step-by-step set of instructions to do it. Probably just point to an image to download to copy to your SD and voila.
- iamnothere 11mo ago
  This would require SSL interception, which requires a custom certificate on the end device. If your kid can figure out how to install a custom certificate on their device and MITM SSL to evade filters, (a) you never secured the device (b) you already lost long ago and (c) let’s get that kid a job or a scholarship.
  - dylan604 11mo ago
    how many of those of us reading this right now would have been able to do this? how many of us reading this right now had parents that would had a clue about any of this to question it?
    - iamnothere 11mo ago
      True hacker kids will figure it out no matter what. If the phone is restricted they will jailbreak it or beg an old one from a friend. If the network is locked down they will crack the password for the neighbor’s wifi. If the clearnet is locked down due to authoritarian laws, they will end up on incredibly sketchy sites on the dark web. If you block all escape outlets they will do really stupid things in nihilistic protest like huff cans of whipped cream or scam money from crypto. The power of bored youth springs eternal. What I’m saying is you can set rules, you can try your best, but under no circumstances can you build an impenetrable wall for determined kids. Things like this header solution or better controls on the end device would make things safe for the vast majority of kids. So don’t ruin the internet for adults because of a handful of unruly kids who are going to get in trouble no matter what.
tzs 11mo ago
> The current solutions are just about tracking people by real identity and incentivizing teens to commit identity crimes Not all of them. The solution currently undergoing large scale field testing in the EU uses cryptography (specifically zero-knowledge proofs) to allow you to anonymously prove to a site that your government issued ID shows you are above the site's minimum age, without the site getting any information about your real identity.
- Bender 11mo ago
  I've seen articles on that. What I do not like about that is one has to trust that is really the way the system works and that special people do not have a special API key to get their own hash from the adult site related to a user ID and then submit that has to a special API end-point to reverse or undo the anonymization. Having been a liaison to law enforcement I just assume that is a thing but I am also fine with people saying I am paranoid. A header does not require this level of trust nor a dependency on a third party see recent Cloudflare outage.
Terr_ 11mo ago
Agreed, to recycle a past comment on the benefits: ____________ We never needed everyone to filter, just parents busy lobbying the government to impose crap onto every possible service and website across the entire world. Instead, they should purchase devices for their kids that have a child-lock and client-side filters. All sites have to do is add an HTTP header loosely characterizing it's content. 1. Most of the dollar costs of making it all happen will be paid by the people who actually need/use the feature. 2. No toxic Orwellian panopticon. 3. Key enforcement falls into a realm non-technical parents can actually observe and act upon: What device is little Timmy holding? 4. Every site in the world will not need a monthly update to handle Elbonia's rite of manhood on the 17th lunar year to make it permitted to see bare ankles. Instead, parents of that region/religion can download their own damn plugin.
- _carbyau_ 11mo ago
  I agree with your approach. This is society though, hence it is an issue of law and people trying to tell other people what to do. The Elbonia rite crowd don't just want this for themselves. They want to ensure that their vision of "what is right" is put onto everybody. And the AnkleShowers want their vision of "what is right" put onto everybody. And everyone else has their opinion too. And the shit-shouting continues until finally someone says "But we can ALLLLLL agree that we want to protect our children yes?" The issue has never been technical. It is how society has it's debates. Things like each issue becoming a two party extreme. Things like media rules that "both sides get equal airtime" even if one is a tinfoil hat wearing idiot. As a society, we won't get properly better until we debate better and can accept middle grounds.
shevy-java 11mo ago
I understand the rationale - I am still against that. To me it is censorship. Making it more sophisticated does not change this problem. The problem is that some want to control other people. I am against this. For similar reasons I stopped using reddit - I finally had enough of random moderators censoring me and others.
- Bender 11mo ago
  To me it is censorship. If you are a small child it is indeed up to your parents to censor adult content and I am all for that. Kids will be upset but that is part of growing up. When the parents believe the kids are emotionally ready for adult content then I am sure they will get parental controls disabled. Even if that should not come to pass the kids once they are teens will bypass it anyway. If you are an adult and your followers are adults then this does not really apply to you or your device. This would only hurt groomers, most of whom use video games for that purpose.
  - MetaWhirledPeas 11mo ago
    I don't think we're talking about whether it's appropriate for kids to see the stuff. I think we're talking about who gets to decide to *mandate* an RTA header on a website. (They can already add it voluntarily so we are talking about a hypothetical mandate.) Let's say your website mentions the MLK assassination. Or maybe the 9/11 attacks. Just a mention; no disturbing details. Is some government entity now going to force the RTA label? Who gets to decide? An RTA label would be a death sentence to educational sites.
    - Bender 11mo ago
      who gets to decide Each site operator would have to decide what level of legal risk is appropriate based on content rating and that would likely come from their legal team. An RTA label would be a death sentence to educational sites. Maybe but not likely. Adult content for the purposes of education used to be protected but that was a grey area and was abused heavily by some art sites such as Deviant art and then social media. CIPA was passed in 2000/2001 and updated in 2011 to provide guidance on content viewed by children. [1] This is of course up to the parents to decide as has been the case for sex education throughout the history of the USA. If a school was going to view content that would be in conflict with CIPA then I would expect they could get parents to sign a permission slip meaning they have adult consent from the parent of each child. Either way I would expect a school to curate content that is appropriate for children and cache/print it locally. If RTA is not an option then the alternative will likely be to have parents log into a 3rd party site to prove their identiy for each student via some proxy auth site to give the child permission while also sharing personal details of the parent and child to said third party. More laws get involved when logging the child's personal details with a 3rd party but I am thankfully not a lawyer. Here [2] are some more laws specific to states. Laws will vary wildly by country and province or state. [1] - https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/childrens-internet-protection-act https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/childrens-internet-prot... [2] - https://www.ncsl.org/technology-and-communication/social-media-and-children-2023-legislation https://www.ncsl.org/technology-and-communication/social-med...
sam-cop-vimes 11mo ago
How would this work where children are hell bent on bypassing this control? Won't they be able to install browser plugins which will remove this header similar to how they are using free VPNs to bypass age checks?
- voidUpdate 11mo ago
  Children who are hell bent on bypassing controls will always find a way. It helps them not just stumble on it though when they're not ready. If they really want to access it, they already know about it and what it is
trashb 11mo ago
Bold of you to assume that legislators know how any kind of implementation works. They just propose general rules like "kids underage can not access this content" and the technical implementation doesn't matter to them. I think this is the reasons we should vote more technical competent people into politics.

by Bender 11mo ago

thewebguyd 11mo ago

Correct. None of these laws are actually about protecting children. That's not the real goal. The real goal is the complete elimination of anonymity on the web, where both private companies and the state can keep tabs on everything you do. Not being able to be at least pseudo-anonymous has a real chilling effect on speech and expression. Even if there are laws in place protecting such rights, people will self-censor when knowing they are being watched. It's how freedom of speech and expression dies without actually scratching that part off of the bill of rights.

amanaplanacanal 11mo ago
It's a mix. I'm sure there are some people really trying to protect kids. There are other people that just want all porn off the Internet. And there are bad actors that want total surveillance. And they are all on the same side of this issue.
- cultofmetatron 11mo ago
  > I'm sure there are some people really trying to protect kids. yes, I believe the term for them is "useful idiots"
  - robot-wrangler 11mo ago
    Not idiots necessarily, sometimes just long-time observers who have finally become cynical. People that were pro-guns for decades may watch several years of failure to adopt basic and uncontroversial gun-control regulation, then eventually become anti-gun. People that were in favor of regulating it once may suddenly become fearful for their safety, and want no regulations at all in case that regulation puts them out in the cold. Since both PR campaigns and any action on policy tends to cater to extremes, there's always pressure that is shrinking the middle
    - shevy-java 11mo ago
      The comment "useful idiots" is more a play on the russian KGB strategy. They use assets to influence people and achieve certain goals. In this case here, terrorism or child pornography is used as cop-out rationale for censorship, surveillance and so forth. It's never about those topics really, perhaps 5% at best, the rest is just sugar-coated decoy to restrict people and keep them as slaves and pets. > Since both PR campaigns and any action on policy tends to cater to extremes, there's always pressure that is shrinking the middle This only works on people who are susceptible to this. I understand how propaganda works so I am never fooled by "this is because of terrorists". This is also why I am for 100% transparency at all times.
      - sroerick 11mo ago
        Can you explain to me what loopholes that opponents believe this law will exploit? Is it just "more ID is bad"? Or is there a specific concern that this bill is a targeted overreach to increase censorship and surveillance. It genuinely doesn't seem like any more of a threat than age-gating Playboy at the bookstore. What have I missed?
        Ajakks 11mo ago
        I went to check my Social Security administration account like 4 years ago - I forget why. To access it, I have to have an actual video face to face conversation with people from some Real ID company. I'll never look at that account again in my ficking life.
- tehjoker 11mo ago
  [flagged]
  - arcbyte 11mo ago
    [flagged]
    - tehjoker 11mo ago
      I'm not a libertarian thanks though.
    - amanaplanacanal 11mo ago
      Claiming support from "the vast majority" is clearly nonsense. There is little support for getting rid of social security, Medicare or Medicaid, or several other current wealth transfrr programs.
    - hellojesus 11mo ago
      Given the negative responses, I'd like to strengthen the position against positive rights by stating that positive rights require slavery the extreme whereas negative rights do not. If the government guarantees food for children (or anyone), the government must provide it. If nobody is willing to be a farmer at any rate the private or public sector affords, the government must force someone to be a farmer to produce food to fulfill their positive right grant.
      - tehjoker 11mo ago
        You induce people to do things with payments, not slavery. Or you ask for a volunteer corps. Or you have the army do it if all else fails. I presume you are opposed to the existence of standing armies if you are opposed to slavery in all forms as well as wage slavery.
        hellojesus 11mo ago
        I'm less opposed to standing armies because a voluntary contract is entered by both parties. I am not a fan of the draft or compulsory service. My example was an edge case. I expect the government could find a price that someone would take long before they required slavery. But it still stands that it is a potential. I prefer all transactions are voluntary, even if that means you lose your country because nobody is willing to sign up for it's defense.
- hsuduebc2 11mo ago
  Yea. People which cured their children with lobotomy also thought that they we're doing something good. These usefull idiots are in some sense worse than the perpetuators it self because they are primarly the enablers of such behaviot simply because of their naivety or worse, ignorance.
reactordev 11mo ago
The goal was to put Company A in between you and the web. Collecting data and selling it for profit. It’s never about what they say it’s about. Lobbyists have bought every aspect.
- Schiendelman 11mo ago
  I think you're right. Surveillance power is nearly a side effect of the personal enrichment.
TZubiri 11mo ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46154208 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46154208
stuffn 11mo ago
Technical people have been gleefully eliminating anonymity on the web for the last 20 years. Progressives should be the party on the side of maximal freedom but really in the US we have one neo-liberal party wearing two different disguises. The problem is normies don't operate under assumed anonymity. So when the hordes of unwashed regular people joined the internet they wanted their face everywhere. People were shamed out of their handles. Some people gave up their anonymity to make yet another faceless bullshit blog-as-a-resume. Look at most of the top karma farmers on HN. Most of them post their personal information in the their bio. Pathetic. > people will self-censor when knowing they are being watched. This has been happening both in public and on the internet for over a decade now. > Not being able to be at least pseudo-anonymous has a real chilling effect on speech and expression. The normies would argue you have nothing to hide if you aren't doing anything wrong. The average voter, regardless of party, will happily surrender every ounce of freedom for the thought of security. Hell, I remember sometime around 2007 DEFCON became a first-name-basis conference! > bill of rights It's more of a bill of privileges given NGOs and PACs are regularly paying to erode the core rights granted to citizens. Either through lawfare by circumventing the courts and suing companies into bankruptcy, or by directly purchasing congressmen via donation. What I have found in general is people who cry and complain about this kind of thing were, at one point, happy to have it happen to their political enemies. The laws that are paving the way for age-gated deanonymized internet were at one point used as a cudgel to beat their political enemies down. When the tables finally turn after the Nth "protect the children" bill, it's the other people left crying and now suddenly its a "problem".
- Earw0rm 11mo ago
  This was inevitable on the day the Web ceased to be a third space and became an integral part of day-to-day life. Some time between Facebook opening to the general public (mid 2006) and the launch of the iPhone (early 2007). "Online" was no longer a meaningful distinction from there on out.
travisgriggs 11mo ago
> The real goal is the complete elimination of anonymity on the web... I'm ok with running this experiment (not sure how it really turns out) BUT only if everyone participates. Governments and businesses get to watch me... I get to watch them. If the death if anonymity is inevitable, as unpleasant as that sounds, the goal to shoot for then is universal application
stocksinsmocks 11mo ago
You may not be old enough to remember Edward Snowden or Mark Klein (who went unnoticed), but there never was anonymity. My pet theory is that this requirement is part of a mob war and porn and whatever else the MindGeek people are involved with is being attacked for the much of the same reasons Ukraine attacks Russian oil refineries.
miki123211 11mo ago
How do you know this?
planb 11mo ago
> None of these laws are actually about protecting children. That's not the real goal. I fear that for 90% of the supporters of such laws (just like with chat control) this statement is wrong, and they truly do want to protect minors from harm. But that only makes it worse, because this type of argument completely misses the mark while the other 10% get to laugh up their sleeves while continuing to manipulate public opinion.
- phrotoma 11mo ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
SPICLK2 11mo ago
>Not being able to be at least pseudo-anonymous has a real chilling effect on speech and expression. Even if there are laws in place protecting such rights, people will self-censor when knowing they are being watched. This supposed golden era of communication lasted for a very short period. Why is is so important that freedom of speech also be anonymous? What you're asking for is the right to talk to anyone with all societal, cultural, and interpersonal contexts removed.
- torben-friis 11mo ago
  >Why is is so important that freedom of speech also be anonymous? Because it is a shortcut for an otherwise extremely hard to enforce freedom. Can you afford to defend your speech in court? Can you prove that an action taken against you by someone in power is retaliation against your speech? Can you handle social ostracism by a majority that disagrees? If the answer to some is no, your freedom of speech has practical limits. This is not to say that a world with anonymous speech is necessarily better, I’m just saying that in terms of guarantees it has a clear advantage. Case in point: will you answer a workplace questionnaire the same way whether or not it is anonymous?
  - chii 11mo ago
    It is not only freedom of speech, but freedom of association that would also be jeopardized. People long ago used to have to hide that they're gay, not only because they could be ostracized, but that people they associate with could also be under scrutiny. Being able to track one's movements, or who they associate with, could reveal information that said person would want kept secret.
    - torben-friis 11mo ago
      Yes, and even though not a normally named right, the possibility of someone’s ideas being detached from their identity is a godsend for some people. They won’t be dismissed (consciously or not) due to gender, background, look, or anything else if no one knows anything beyond their words.
8bitsrule 11mo ago
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway. — Andrew Tanenbaum, 1981

alex1138 11mo ago

Youtube has been repeatedly told about videos that are abusive towards children and they do nothing about it. They're not interested in effective solutions

Bender 11mo ago
Youtube has been repeatedly told about videos that are abusive towards children and they do nothing about it. They're not interested in effective solutions Youtube is user-generated content which is precisely why I would prefer they add an RTA header. Random people uploading videos can claim to be kid friendly when they are not. Take that responsibility away from the uploaders and away from Youtube and hand it to the parents. Less work, liability and cost for Youtube should be a nifty incentive at the risk of blocking some advertising to children which is another loaded topic all together.
- zahlman 11mo ago
  > Take that responsibility away from the uploaders and away from Youtube and hand it to the parents. The system described still requires action by the webmaster. Their options are: deny the entire site to those sending an RTA header; evaluate the content themselves; or trust the uploader. (Or a combination: have uploaders opt-in to evaluation for a fee, with the content denied to kids by default.)
  - Bender 11mo ago
    The client does not send an RTA header. The RTA header is only sent by the server or load balancer by design. Absolutely no action required by web site operators and owners assuming they enabled the header on any URL that is either adult or user-generated content. It is up to the client what to do with the header which right now is nothing. A law would be required to get the snippet of code added to user agents. I estimate it would take an intern one afternoon to get it into the clients they support not counting dev/qa, management approval, etc... Challenge to FAANG: Show off your interns! There is no harm in adding the code required to detect this header. Example header to detect sent from NGinx. If you detect this header activate nanny controls. To be safe do a separate parental_build to get manager approval. add_header Rating 'RTA-5042-1996-1400-1577-RTA' always; All one need detect is: RTA-5042-1996-1400-1577-RTA For fun, search for this on Shodan.

dylan604 11mo ago

I can't believe in 2025, nearly 2026, that anyone would seriously suggest a header as a valid way of doing anything like this. Headers can be spoofed, modified along the way, or flat out ignored. DNT header is the obvious go to example here. An aspiring teen could set up an RPi that modifies headers for all traffic on the network that the parental units never even know about. I'd venture there would be plenty of YT, TikTok, Discord threads, etc that would provide a step-by-step set of instructions to do it. Probably just point to an image to download to copy to your SD and voila.

iamnothere 11mo ago
This would require SSL interception, which requires a custom certificate on the end device. If your kid can figure out how to install a custom certificate on their device and MITM SSL to evade filters, (a) you never secured the device (b) you already lost long ago and (c) let’s get that kid a job or a scholarship.
- dylan604 11mo ago
  how many of those of us reading this right now would have been able to do this? how many of us reading this right now had parents that would had a clue about any of this to question it?
  - iamnothere 11mo ago
    True hacker kids will figure it out no matter what. If the phone is restricted they will jailbreak it or beg an old one from a friend. If the network is locked down they will crack the password for the neighbor’s wifi. If the clearnet is locked down due to authoritarian laws, they will end up on incredibly sketchy sites on the dark web. If you block all escape outlets they will do really stupid things in nihilistic protest like huff cans of whipped cream or scam money from crypto. The power of bored youth springs eternal. What I’m saying is you can set rules, you can try your best, but under no circumstances can you build an impenetrable wall for determined kids. Things like this header solution or better controls on the end device would make things safe for the vast majority of kids. So don’t ruin the internet for adults because of a handful of unruly kids who are going to get in trouble no matter what.

tzs 11mo ago

> The current solutions are just about tracking people by real identity and incentivizing teens to commit identity crimes Not all of them. The solution currently undergoing large scale field testing in the EU uses cryptography (specifically zero-knowledge proofs) to allow you to anonymously prove to a site that your government issued ID shows you are above the site's minimum age, without the site getting any information about your real identity.

Bender 11mo ago
I've seen articles on that. What I do not like about that is one has to trust that is really the way the system works and that special people do not have a special API key to get their own hash from the adult site related to a user ID and then submit that has to a special API end-point to reverse or undo the anonymization. Having been a liaison to law enforcement I just assume that is a thing but I am also fine with people saying I am paranoid. A header does not require this level of trust nor a dependency on a third party see recent Cloudflare outage.

Terr_ 11mo ago

Agreed, to recycle a past comment on the benefits: ____________ We never needed everyone to filter, just parents busy lobbying the government to impose crap onto every possible service and website across the entire world. Instead, they should purchase devices for their kids that have a child-lock and client-side filters. All sites have to do is add an HTTP header loosely characterizing it's content. 1. Most of the dollar costs of making it all happen will be paid by the people who actually need/use the feature. 2. No toxic Orwellian panopticon. 3. Key enforcement falls into a realm non-technical parents can actually observe and act upon: What device is little Timmy holding? 4. Every site in the world will not need a monthly update to handle Elbonia's rite of manhood on the 17th lunar year to make it permitted to see bare ankles. Instead, parents of that region/religion can download their own damn plugin.

_carbyau_ 11mo ago
I agree with your approach. This is society though, hence it is an issue of law and people trying to tell other people what to do. The Elbonia rite crowd don't just want this for themselves. They want to ensure that their vision of "what is right" is put onto everybody. And the AnkleShowers want their vision of "what is right" put onto everybody. And everyone else has their opinion too. And the shit-shouting continues until finally someone says "But we can ALLLLLL agree that we want to protect our children yes?" The issue has never been technical. It is how society has it's debates. Things like each issue becoming a two party extreme. Things like media rules that "both sides get equal airtime" even if one is a tinfoil hat wearing idiot. As a society, we won't get properly better until we debate better and can accept middle grounds.

shevy-java 11mo ago

I understand the rationale - I am still against that. To me it is censorship. Making it more sophisticated does not change this problem. The problem is that some want to control other people. I am against this. For similar reasons I stopped using reddit - I finally had enough of random moderators censoring me and others.

Bender 11mo ago
To me it is censorship. If you are a small child it is indeed up to your parents to censor adult content and I am all for that. Kids will be upset but that is part of growing up. When the parents believe the kids are emotionally ready for adult content then I am sure they will get parental controls disabled. Even if that should not come to pass the kids once they are teens will bypass it anyway. If you are an adult and your followers are adults then this does not really apply to you or your device. This would only hurt groomers, most of whom use video games for that purpose.
- MetaWhirledPeas 11mo ago
  I don't think we're talking about whether it's appropriate for kids to see the stuff. I think we're talking about who gets to decide to *mandate* an RTA header on a website. (They can already add it voluntarily so we are talking about a hypothetical mandate.) Let's say your website mentions the MLK assassination. Or maybe the 9/11 attacks. Just a mention; no disturbing details. Is some government entity now going to force the RTA label? Who gets to decide? An RTA label would be a death sentence to educational sites.
  - Bender 11mo ago
    who gets to decide Each site operator would have to decide what level of legal risk is appropriate based on content rating and that would likely come from their legal team. An RTA label would be a death sentence to educational sites. Maybe but not likely. Adult content for the purposes of education used to be protected but that was a grey area and was abused heavily by some art sites such as Deviant art and then social media. CIPA was passed in 2000/2001 and updated in 2011 to provide guidance on content viewed by children. [1] This is of course up to the parents to decide as has been the case for sex education throughout the history of the USA. If a school was going to view content that would be in conflict with CIPA then I would expect they could get parents to sign a permission slip meaning they have adult consent from the parent of each child. Either way I would expect a school to curate content that is appropriate for children and cache/print it locally. If RTA is not an option then the alternative will likely be to have parents log into a 3rd party site to prove their identiy for each student via some proxy auth site to give the child permission while also sharing personal details of the parent and child to said third party. More laws get involved when logging the child's personal details with a 3rd party but I am thankfully not a lawyer. Here [2] are some more laws specific to states. Laws will vary wildly by country and province or state. [1] - https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/childrens-internet-protection-act https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/childrens-internet-prot... [2] - https://www.ncsl.org/technology-and-communication/social-media-and-children-2023-legislation https://www.ncsl.org/technology-and-communication/social-med...

sam-cop-vimes 11mo ago

How would this work where children are hell bent on bypassing this control? Won't they be able to install browser plugins which will remove this header similar to how they are using free VPNs to bypass age checks?

voidUpdate 11mo ago
Children who are hell bent on bypassing controls will always find a way. It helps them not just stumble on it though when they're not ready. If they really want to access it, they already know about it and what it is

trashb 11mo ago

Bold of you to assume that legislators know how any kind of implementation works. They just propose general rules like "kids underage can not access this content" and the technical implementation doesn't matter to them. I think this is the reasons we should vote more technical competent people into politics.