3 ms·

So don’t allow accounts with ages set below the limit like they already do for under 13s. Why does this translate to every other site wanting my government ID o

So don’t allow accounts with ages set below the limit like they already do for under 13s. Why does this translate to every other site wanting my government ID or a scan of my face? Just this past 12 months both my drivers license and passport have been involved in data breaches and there are no penalties or recompense for the companies at fault, so my patience for providing ID is near zero.

StopDisinfo910 8mo ago
> So don’t allow accounts with ages set below the limit like they already do for under 13s. Why does this translate to every other site wanting my government ID or a scan of my face? Because self inputed age fields don't work. People just lie to access what they want. You have to understand that the goal here is not token compliance but actually limiting teenagers exposure to something we now know to be highly addictive and damaging to mental health. Clearly, the market is not able to self restrict and will exploit every opportunities given to it. It's only logical to take stronger restriction. That's basically bringing regulations on social media on the same track as tobacco and alcohol. Personally, I think it makes a lot of sense.
- Kim_Bruning 8mo ago
  Ok, let's assume for today that age gating is the thing to to. Requiring ID is not entirely the right approach here I think. You're forcing people to reveal PII for limited gain, and building systems you can't knock down later. The EU is working on a zero knowledge proof system for exactly this purpose, but it doesn't quite seem to be ready for prime time yet. https://ageverification.dev/Technical%20Specification/annexes/annex-B/annex-B-zkp/ https://ageverification.dev/Technical%20Specification/annexe...
  - aaplok 8mo ago
    > Requiring ID is not entirely the right approach here I think It is in the sense that it entices the industry to come up with a better approach. Otherwise they'll just sit on their piles of gold saying that it can't be done, as they have been doing for far too long.
    - pjc50 8mo ago
      This approach is just fine for the industry: delegate the problem to the lowest, shadiest bidder. After all, privacy breaches aren't their problem. If governments want an ID system they should provide one.
      - aaplok 7mo ago
        And maybe they will. We have gone from the industry clamouring that what's being done now is not possible and spending millions of lobbying money against it, to such laws spreading like wildfire. The next step is the (inevitable) mess up because implementations won't be foolproof, followed by yet more millions of lobbying money being spent to amplify the effect of these mess ups. Eventually we will come to a new normal. It will take time. But the hope is that the cat is out of the bag and we don't come back to a model that we know hurts children and pretend it's just how it is.
  - StopDisinfo910 8mo ago
    The restricting law is mostly concerned with the age gating, not the how. You can expect another law or directive to explain how it has to be done. In the EU, GDPR does apply so you can be sure that poorly storing ID copies for this purpose will not fly. But, I think it's clearly what ID is for and a legitimate use case for electronic ID. ID is the tool the state uses to give you a way to prove you are who you pretend to be. I think there's something a bit funny in worrying about giving a copy of your IDs to companies who already know everything about you from your full social graph to your political leanings and interests.
    - lbeltrame 8mo ago
      > I think there's something a bit funny in worrying about giving a copy of your IDs to companies who already know everything about you from your full social graph to your political leanings and interests. I believe it's because the governments (which are far more powerful than any "corporation", because they have the de facto monopoly of violence: Microsoft can sue you, but the government can just jail you) can then pressure said companies if there's something that is not liked, with all consequences that come from there. There's no need to bring conspiracy theories in, FTR. The power of the government must be always limited and bound by strong chains, and this goes in the opposite direction.
      - StopDisinfo910 8mo ago
        > I believe it's because the governments (which are far more powerful than any "corporation", because they have the de facto monopoly of violence: Microsoft can sue you, but the government can just jail you) can then pressure said companies if there's something that is not liked, with all consequences that come from there. But the idea that giving your ID changes anything is a fiction. These platforms already require you to provide your phone numbers or an email. They have your location. They already know who you are and they can already be pressured by the government for all that. They don't even need to be pressured actually. They willfully share a ton of information as has been shown time and time again. The ID that you can somehow get plausible deniability regarding the association between your social media profile and identity is a complete myth. > There's no need to bring conspiracy theories in, FTR. The power of the government must be always limited and bound by strong chains, and this goes in the opposite direction. I don't think a theorical, overblown and mostly fictitious increase in risks trumps the very real need to limit the armful impact of these actors. It makes for ok-ish lobbying but that's pretty much it.
- squeefers 8mo ago
  dont parents control what their kids do? if its that hysterically dangerous, take the phone off your kid.
  - hulitu 8mo ago
    Good luck with that. On Android or Windows Google or Microsoft has control on what you can run with parental controls. (I don't know if on Apples iOS parental controls work as expected). On Android you cannot limit app installation
    - hellojesus 8mo ago
      You absolutely can enroll devices in device management systems. Parents need to treat their children the same way corporations do with employees.
      - tstrimple 8mo ago
        Sounds like a recipe for becoming an estranged parent and wondering where your child went so wrong.
        deleted 7mo ago
        [deleted]
        squeefers 7mo ago
        well its either that or let your child watch short-form videos in quick succession.... i think its blindingly obvious which one is the true evil
  - StopDisinfo910 8mo ago
    Applies equaly to land mines and crack cocaine. The tension between freedom and public health is obviously very real. That's why liberal democracies generally rely on public debate and expert opinions to decide what should be controlled and what should be widely available. Turns out, the expert opinions on social media is not very good and very much in favour of a ban for minors. Also turns out that the public is apparently in support of the ban.
- hulitu 8mo ago
  > You have to understand that the goal here is not token compliance but actually limiting teenagers exposure to something we now know to be highly addictive and damaging to mental health. If this would have been the case, proper parental controls would have been in place everywhere. Instead, parental controls are only used to maximize profits.

StopDisinfo910 8mo ago

> So don’t allow accounts with ages set below the limit like they already do for under 13s. Why does this translate to every other site wanting my government ID or a scan of my face? Because self inputed age fields don't work. People just lie to access what they want. You have to understand that the goal here is not token compliance but actually limiting teenagers exposure to something we now know to be highly addictive and damaging to mental health. Clearly, the market is not able to self restrict and will exploit every opportunities given to it. It's only logical to take stronger restriction. That's basically bringing regulations on social media on the same track as tobacco and alcohol. Personally, I think it makes a lot of sense.

Kim_Bruning 8mo ago
Ok, let's assume for today that age gating is the thing to to. Requiring ID is not entirely the right approach here I think. You're forcing people to reveal PII for limited gain, and building systems you can't knock down later. The EU is working on a zero knowledge proof system for exactly this purpose, but it doesn't quite seem to be ready for prime time yet. https://ageverification.dev/Technical%20Specification/annexes/annex-B/annex-B-zkp/ https://ageverification.dev/Technical%20Specification/annexe...
- aaplok 8mo ago
  > Requiring ID is not entirely the right approach here I think It is in the sense that it entices the industry to come up with a better approach. Otherwise they'll just sit on their piles of gold saying that it can't be done, as they have been doing for far too long.
  - pjc50 8mo ago
    This approach is just fine for the industry: delegate the problem to the lowest, shadiest bidder. After all, privacy breaches aren't their problem. If governments want an ID system they should provide one.
    - aaplok 7mo ago
      And maybe they will. We have gone from the industry clamouring that what's being done now is not possible and spending millions of lobbying money against it, to such laws spreading like wildfire. The next step is the (inevitable) mess up because implementations won't be foolproof, followed by yet more millions of lobbying money being spent to amplify the effect of these mess ups. Eventually we will come to a new normal. It will take time. But the hope is that the cat is out of the bag and we don't come back to a model that we know hurts children and pretend it's just how it is.
- StopDisinfo910 8mo ago
  The restricting law is mostly concerned with the age gating, not the how. You can expect another law or directive to explain how it has to be done. In the EU, GDPR does apply so you can be sure that poorly storing ID copies for this purpose will not fly. But, I think it's clearly what ID is for and a legitimate use case for electronic ID. ID is the tool the state uses to give you a way to prove you are who you pretend to be. I think there's something a bit funny in worrying about giving a copy of your IDs to companies who already know everything about you from your full social graph to your political leanings and interests.
  - lbeltrame 8mo ago
    > I think there's something a bit funny in worrying about giving a copy of your IDs to companies who already know everything about you from your full social graph to your political leanings and interests. I believe it's because the governments (which are far more powerful than any "corporation", because they have the de facto monopoly of violence: Microsoft can sue you, but the government can just jail you) can then pressure said companies if there's something that is not liked, with all consequences that come from there. There's no need to bring conspiracy theories in, FTR. The power of the government must be always limited and bound by strong chains, and this goes in the opposite direction.
    - StopDisinfo910 8mo ago
      > I believe it's because the governments (which are far more powerful than any "corporation", because they have the de facto monopoly of violence: Microsoft can sue you, but the government can just jail you) can then pressure said companies if there's something that is not liked, with all consequences that come from there. But the idea that giving your ID changes anything is a fiction. These platforms already require you to provide your phone numbers or an email. They have your location. They already know who you are and they can already be pressured by the government for all that. They don't even need to be pressured actually. They willfully share a ton of information as has been shown time and time again. The ID that you can somehow get plausible deniability regarding the association between your social media profile and identity is a complete myth. > There's no need to bring conspiracy theories in, FTR. The power of the government must be always limited and bound by strong chains, and this goes in the opposite direction. I don't think a theorical, overblown and mostly fictitious increase in risks trumps the very real need to limit the armful impact of these actors. It makes for ok-ish lobbying but that's pretty much it.
squeefers 8mo ago
dont parents control what their kids do? if its that hysterically dangerous, take the phone off your kid.
- hulitu 8mo ago
  Good luck with that. On Android or Windows Google or Microsoft has control on what you can run with parental controls. (I don't know if on Apples iOS parental controls work as expected). On Android you cannot limit app installation
  - hellojesus 8mo ago
    You absolutely can enroll devices in device management systems. Parents need to treat their children the same way corporations do with employees.
    - tstrimple 8mo ago
      Sounds like a recipe for becoming an estranged parent and wondering where your child went so wrong.
      - deleted 7mo ago
        [deleted]
      - squeefers 7mo ago
        well its either that or let your child watch short-form videos in quick succession.... i think its blindingly obvious which one is the true evil
- StopDisinfo910 8mo ago
  Applies equaly to land mines and crack cocaine. The tension between freedom and public health is obviously very real. That's why liberal democracies generally rely on public debate and expert opinions to decide what should be controlled and what should be widely available. Turns out, the expert opinions on social media is not very good and very much in favour of a ban for minors. Also turns out that the public is apparently in support of the ban.
hulitu 8mo ago
> You have to understand that the goal here is not token compliance but actually limiting teenagers exposure to something we now know to be highly addictive and damaging to mental health. If this would have been the case, proper parental controls would have been in place everywhere. Instead, parental controls are only used to maximize profits.