4 ms·
I’m more curious in the genesis of these laws, whether their sponsors received written suggestions or ghostwritten bills, etc. as a form of parallel constructio
by 9x39 8mo ago
I’m more curious in the genesis of these laws, whether their sponsors received written suggestions or ghostwritten bills, etc. as a form of parallel construction.
It seems all at once, everywhere that many groups that have a vested interest in forcing precedent and compliance of non-anonymous access across the computer world. It smacks of something less-than-organic.
- almosthere 8mo agoDeath threats mainly. Personally I think it would be easier if they just made it so that platforms ran a tiny LLM against the content that will be posted - determined if it is a death threat, then require them to be identified before it's posted, then it would solve a lot of these problems. TLDR: Evil people be doxxed internally not everyone.
- bigfishrunning 8mo agoa "tiny large language model"? lol
- almosthere 8mo agoYeah, a small one that is cheaper because they'll be processing billions of messages per year.
- lazide 8mo agoGood thing all the kind people doing death threats won’t just bypass it?
- almosthere 8mo agoI'm totally lost here. If you don't identify, you don't post.
- lazide 8mo agoGood thing no one ever breaks any rules!
- BenjiWiebe 8mo agoIf a platform decides to require an account to post, or requires your message to pass an LLM sniff test before publishing it, you can break all the rules you want but your message won't be visible to others on said platform.
- lazide 8mo agoThe example given was a ‘lightweight LLM’ by the poster, which sounded an awful lot like client side? If server side, you already have the heavyweight stuff going on, and yes there is no need to do all the bypassable shenanigans.
- almosthere 8mo agoSince that client side llm would be processing billions of messages each year on each person's laptop, lol
- reverius42 8mo agoSee https://tinyllm.org https://tinyllm.org These days the name "LLM" refers more to the architecture & usage patterns than it does to the size of model (though to be fair, even the "tiny" LLMs are huge compared to any models from 10+ years ago, so it's all relative).
- numpad0 8mo agoThat turns jokes into contracts that nobody wants. Bad idea.
- tzs 8mo agoThis law doesn't do anything that prevents non-anonymous access. Here's how you would access things anonymously if you bought a new computer that implemented this. 1. When you set up your account and it asks for your birthdate, make up any date you want that is at least far enough in the past to indicate an age older that what any site you might use that checks age requires. 2. Access things the way you've always done. All that has changed is that things that care about age checks find out you claim to be old enough. The only people it actually materially affects on your new computer are people who cannot set up their own accounts, such as children if you have set up permissions so they have to get you to make their accounts. Then if you want you can enter a birthdate that gives an age that says non-adult, so sites that check age will block them. From a privacy and anonymity perspective this is essentially equivalent to sites that ask "Are you 18+?" and let you in if you click "yes" and block you if you click "no". It is just doing the asking locally and caching the result.
- ohhnoodont 8mo agoI agree. I feel the flow of having browsers send some flag to sites is the most privacy-preserving approach to this whole topic. The system owner creates a “child” account that has the flag set by the OS and prevents the execution of unsanctioned software. This puts the responsibility back on parents to do the bare minimum required in moderating their child’s activities.
- fc417fc802 8mo agoWhat would be even more privacy preserving would be to mandate sites to send age appropriateness headers (mainstream porn sites already do this voluntarily). Possibly it could be further mandated that the OS collect relevant rating information for each account and provide APIs with which browsers and other software could implement filtering. And possibly it could be further mandated that web browsers adopt support for this filtering standard. And if you want a really crazy idea you could pass a law mandating that parents configure parental controls on devices of children under (say) 12 and attach civil penalties for repeated failure to do so. There's never any need for information about the user to be sent off to third parties, nor should we adopt schemes that will inevitably provide ammo for those advocating attested digital platforms.
- carefulfungi 8mo agoI was curious about your question and googled. Here's the legislative history of the law: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1043 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm.... Reading the first analysis PDF: > This bill, sponsored by the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children and Children Now, seeks to require device and operating systems manufacturers to develop an age assurance signal that will be sent to application developers informing them of the age-bracket of the user who is downloading their application or entering their website. Depending on the age range of the user, a parent or guardian will have to consent prior to the user being allowed access to the platform. The bill presents a potentially elegant solution to a vexing problem underpinning many efforts to protect children online. However, there are several details to be worked out on the bill to ensure technical feasibility and that it strikes the appropriate balance between parental control and the autonomy of children, particularly older teens. The bill is supported by several parents’ organizations, including Parents for School Options, Protect our Kids, and Parents Support for Online Learning. In addition, the TransLatin Coalition and The Source LGBT+ Center are in support. The bill is opposed by Oakland Privacy, TechNet, and Chamber of Progress.
- bikelang 8mo ago> It seems all at once, everywhere that many groups that have a vested interest in forcing precedent and compliance of non-anonymous access across the computer world. It smacks of something less-than-organic. I think you’ve nailed it here. How many of these people campaigned on this issue? Where were the grassroots to push this? Where did this even come from? Somebody, somewhere - with a heck of a lot of money - wants to see this happen. And I don’t think they have good intentions with it.
- elfly 8mo agoConservatives discovered a cheat code to get: (a) people to have to identify on the computer everywhere and (b) control what they can do with and without this identification. Of course they are copying the play everywhere.