3 ms·

Here's my solution: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46447282 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46447282 The problem is privacy activists and free speec

Here's my solution: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46447282 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46447282 The problem is privacy activists and free speech activists (though there's some overlap between the two they aren't the same) oppose age verification by any means since it has the potential to infringe on both ever so slightly. Meanwhile age verification gates are being demanded and thrown up all over the Internet at a frightening pace. So we get only the maximal data collection solutions implemented by people who don't give a shit about privacy or free speech. And the mass surveillance cheerleaders egg them on. If privacy and free speech activists understood that a proactive, privacy-preserving approach to age verification is the best outcome we'd be better off.

frumplestlatz 9mo ago
> ever so slightly It’s not “slightly”. They’ll start with claiming to protect people under 18 from obviously problematic content — porn, grooming, etc. It won’t stop there. The scope creep will extend to expressing or reading “incorrect” or “dangerous” views. They’ll probably call some of it “hate speech”, but hate speech is whatever the people in power say it is; on X, “cisgender” is designated as a slur and gets your post censored. The slippery slope fallacy is only a fallacy if the slope isn’t slippery — “think of the children” is a wedge bad actors are once again trying to use to open the floodgates of censorship. They don’t even need to target adults; if you control what children can see and express, you have enormous control over all future generations of voters.
- tavavex 9mo ago
  I agree, but the powers that be loathe the phrase "hate speech". I'm betting the next encroachment will be on "violence", "terrorism" or even Russian-style "promotion of nontraditional values".
- triceratops 9mo ago
  It's already happening. What's your alternative? Not VPNs because every jurisdiction and website will eventually have equivalent laws or terms of service.
  - tavavex 9mo ago
    Nearly all big websites, probably, but there are enough tiny countries that I think at least one will opt to act as a safe haven for VPN servers and website hosting services, acting as the only remaining window to the free internet. It could be a lucrative practice, similar to how Panama and some other countries position themselves as places to register ships to avoid regulation.
    - triceratops 9mo ago
      So VPN in from Panama to access shady sites no one else frequents? That's your solution?
      - deleted 9mo ago
        [deleted]
      - tavavex 9mo ago
        Who said anything about a solution? I'm not saying this is good, I just brought it up as a potential end point of what's currently happening to the internet. I don't think there is anything that people like us can do, we can only watch.
JoshTriplett 9mo ago
You need to process that other people disagree with that claim, and do not believe we'd be better off. We should not accept the Overton window shifting here, and say "well, if we do it to ourselves, in a privacy-preserving way, that's less bad".
- triceratops 9mo ago
  > You need to process that other people disagree with that claim I think I already said that in my original post. > We should not accept the Overton window shifting here Great! Let's say you and I refuse to accept it. How do we keep Discord from demanding passports or selfies? How can we get France[1] or Finland[2] to roll back age restrictions on social media? You'll never convince a majority of voters in democracies that nothing online should be age-restricted. These are the people that the enemies of anonymity and free speech are counting on to advance their agenda. At the same time a majority of voters is currently quite content with the state of age verification for access to tobacco and alcohol. Both its strictness (or lack thereof) and privacy preservation (almost perfect). I'm not saying my proposal is the one that should be adopted. I honestly don't care which idea gets picked and I don't want anything from it. But it's a virtual guarantee that in the absence of a competing good-enough, privacy-preserving implementation, only the most privacy-invasive idea will be implemented. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46776272 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46776272 2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46838417 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46838417
  - JoshTriplett 9mo ago
    > How do we keep Discord from demanding passports or selfies? Build and promote alternatives that don't. Fight the political efforts trying to require it, and identify them as the attempts at control they are. > How can we get France[1] or Finland[2] to roll back age restrictions on social media? Host services elsewhere, and ignore claims that a country's laws extend beyond its borders. Support folks trying to fight such efforts politically, where possible.
    - triceratops 9mo ago
johnnyanmac 9mo ago
The issue with your solution still comes down to yet another centralizing middleman with no real incentive to be efficient. And all the incentive to lobby governments and extract more wealth from the people. This can of course be done government by government, but that isn't scalable for a global company.
- triceratops 9mo ago
  It doesn't have to be 1 middleman. Multiple companies can issue the cards, just like there are multiple beer and cigarette and lottery companies. I wish I could edit my post because a lot of people had the same misconception when I first wrote it.
  - fruitworks 9mo ago
    the middlemen aren't intercompatible. it's like saying anyone can make paypal. If you try to start your own paypal, no vendors will sign up because you have no clients. No clients will sign up because you have no vendors. My university forced everyone to use duo mobile for years, with no other option for OTP. That's what this reminds me of. Sure, there is a sense in which the university can choose to use a different 2fa service, but there is nothing forcing them and the consequences are on the user side.
    - triceratops 9mo ago
      There are multiple credit card companies. They try to attract customers and merchants with promotions and lower fees. Even Paypal has competition. Companies have cracked the problem of signing up clients and vendors simultaneously in other sectors of the internet economy. This is an annually recurring revenue stream that virtually every adult will spend money on. I'm not super concerned about competition, as long as anti-trust enforcement remains strong.
      - fruitworks 9mo ago
        there are multiple credit card companies, but only 3 big payment systems: Europay, Mastercard, Visa. that is the protocol: a triopoly that controls everything and then a handful of companies that wrap the same product and can't fundamentally change it. Not unlike generic laptops that are made by OEMs in taiwan and resold by dell, and whatever small company. "Solving" the problem of signing up clients and vendors at the same time is a different problem for the companies. They benefit from the vendor lock-in. The "solution" is to establish a monopoly
pluralmonad 9mo ago
Much like DRM, there is no good option. Its a fundamentally bad thing. If parents want to abdicate their parental responsibilities, their children should bare the cost of that, not millions of strangers.
- triceratops 9mo ago
  > If parents want to abdicate their parental responsibilities, their children should bare the cost of that, not millions of strangers. Oh but we all will. One way or another. There is a least bad option.
  - pluralmonad 9mo ago
    I guess my point would be that it is impossible to simulate raising a child. Sometimes least worst == worst. Huge wide spread cost with vanishing little practical benefit.
Nasrudith 9mo ago
There is no 'half-pregnant' option. Compromise is synonymous with 'bring into danger' for a reason. They are right to be dogmatic about rights - believing that is like believing it will really be 'just the tip'.

frumplestlatz 9mo ago

> ever so slightly It’s not “slightly”. They’ll start with claiming to protect people under 18 from obviously problematic content — porn, grooming, etc. It won’t stop there. The scope creep will extend to expressing or reading “incorrect” or “dangerous” views. They’ll probably call some of it “hate speech”, but hate speech is whatever the people in power say it is; on X, “cisgender” is designated as a slur and gets your post censored. The slippery slope fallacy is only a fallacy if the slope isn’t slippery — “think of the children” is a wedge bad actors are once again trying to use to open the floodgates of censorship. They don’t even need to target adults; if you control what children can see and express, you have enormous control over all future generations of voters.

tavavex 9mo ago
I agree, but the powers that be loathe the phrase "hate speech". I'm betting the next encroachment will be on "violence", "terrorism" or even Russian-style "promotion of nontraditional values".
triceratops 9mo ago
It's already happening. What's your alternative? Not VPNs because every jurisdiction and website will eventually have equivalent laws or terms of service.
- tavavex 9mo ago
  Nearly all big websites, probably, but there are enough tiny countries that I think at least one will opt to act as a safe haven for VPN servers and website hosting services, acting as the only remaining window to the free internet. It could be a lucrative practice, similar to how Panama and some other countries position themselves as places to register ships to avoid regulation.
  - triceratops 9mo ago
    So VPN in from Panama to access shady sites no one else frequents? That's your solution?
    - deleted 9mo ago
      [deleted]
    - tavavex 9mo ago
      Who said anything about a solution? I'm not saying this is good, I just brought it up as a potential end point of what's currently happening to the internet. I don't think there is anything that people like us can do, we can only watch.

JoshTriplett 9mo ago

You need to process that other people disagree with that claim, and do not believe we'd be better off. We should not accept the Overton window shifting here, and say "well, if we do it to ourselves, in a privacy-preserving way, that's less bad".

triceratops 9mo ago
> You need to process that other people disagree with that claim I think I already said that in my original post. > We should not accept the Overton window shifting here Great! Let's say you and I refuse to accept it. How do we keep Discord from demanding passports or selfies? How can we get France[1] or Finland[2] to roll back age restrictions on social media? You'll never convince a majority of voters in democracies that nothing online should be age-restricted. These are the people that the enemies of anonymity and free speech are counting on to advance their agenda. At the same time a majority of voters is currently quite content with the state of age verification for access to tobacco and alcohol. Both its strictness (or lack thereof) and privacy preservation (almost perfect). I'm not saying my proposal is the one that should be adopted. I honestly don't care which idea gets picked and I don't want anything from it. But it's a virtual guarantee that in the absence of a competing good-enough, privacy-preserving implementation, only the most privacy-invasive idea will be implemented. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46776272 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46776272 2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46838417 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46838417
- JoshTriplett 9mo ago
  > How do we keep Discord from demanding passports or selfies? Build and promote alternatives that don't. Fight the political efforts trying to require it, and identify them as the attempts at control they are. > How can we get France[1] or Finland[2] to roll back age restrictions on social media? Host services elsewhere, and ignore claims that a country's laws extend beyond its borders. Support folks trying to fight such efforts politically, where possible.
  - triceratops 9mo ago

johnnyanmac 9mo ago

The issue with your solution still comes down to yet another centralizing middleman with no real incentive to be efficient. And all the incentive to lobby governments and extract more wealth from the people. This can of course be done government by government, but that isn't scalable for a global company.

triceratops 9mo ago
It doesn't have to be 1 middleman. Multiple companies can issue the cards, just like there are multiple beer and cigarette and lottery companies. I wish I could edit my post because a lot of people had the same misconception when I first wrote it.
- fruitworks 9mo ago
  the middlemen aren't intercompatible. it's like saying anyone can make paypal. If you try to start your own paypal, no vendors will sign up because you have no clients. No clients will sign up because you have no vendors. My university forced everyone to use duo mobile for years, with no other option for OTP. That's what this reminds me of. Sure, there is a sense in which the university can choose to use a different 2fa service, but there is nothing forcing them and the consequences are on the user side.
  - triceratops 9mo ago
    There are multiple credit card companies. They try to attract customers and merchants with promotions and lower fees. Even Paypal has competition. Companies have cracked the problem of signing up clients and vendors simultaneously in other sectors of the internet economy. This is an annually recurring revenue stream that virtually every adult will spend money on. I'm not super concerned about competition, as long as anti-trust enforcement remains strong.
    - fruitworks 9mo ago
      there are multiple credit card companies, but only 3 big payment systems: Europay, Mastercard, Visa. that is the protocol: a triopoly that controls everything and then a handful of companies that wrap the same product and can't fundamentally change it. Not unlike generic laptops that are made by OEMs in taiwan and resold by dell, and whatever small company. "Solving" the problem of signing up clients and vendors at the same time is a different problem for the companies. They benefit from the vendor lock-in. The "solution" is to establish a monopoly

pluralmonad 9mo ago

Much like DRM, there is no good option. Its a fundamentally bad thing. If parents want to abdicate their parental responsibilities, their children should bare the cost of that, not millions of strangers.

triceratops 9mo ago
> If parents want to abdicate their parental responsibilities, their children should bare the cost of that, not millions of strangers. Oh but we all will. One way or another. There is a least bad option.
- pluralmonad 9mo ago
  I guess my point would be that it is impossible to simulate raising a child. Sometimes least worst == worst. Huge wide spread cost with vanishing little practical benefit.

Nasrudith 9mo ago

There is no 'half-pregnant' option. Compromise is synonymous with 'bring into danger' for a reason. They are right to be dogmatic about rights - believing that is like believing it will really be 'just the tip'.