6 ms·

This might be off-topic but on-topic about child safety... but I'm surprised people are being myopic about age verification. Age verification should be banned,

by ranyume 8mo ago

This might be off-topic but on-topic about child safety... but I'm surprised people are being myopic about age verification. Age verification should be banned, but people ignore that nowadays most widely used online services already ask for your age and act accordingly: twitter, youtube, google in general, any online marketplace. They already got so much data on their users and optimize their algorithms for those groups in an opaque way. So yeah, age verification should be taken down, as well as the datamining these companies do and the opaque tunning of their algorithms. It baffles me: people are concerned about their children's DMs but are not concerned about what companies serves them and what they do with their data.

LoganDark 8mo ago
Monitoring children's DMs is the responsibility of the parents, not megacorps. If a parent wants to install a keylogger or screen recorder on their child's PC, that's their decision. But Google should not be able to. Neither should... literally anyone else except maybe an employer on a work-provided device.
- duped 8mo ago
  Parents shouldn't give their child access to a device that allows DMs. That said, these platforms are making it impossible for parents to monitor anything. They're literally designed to profit off addiction in children.
  - greygoo222 8mo ago
    Why? Plenty of children benefit from talking to other people. Some children need careful monitoring, and some children shouldn't be allowed to use DMs, but it's not universal and should be up to the parents.
    - iso1631 8mo ago
      Control over who they can talk to (if needed), certainly monitoring of both who they talk to and in many situations what the contents are At some point between the age of 0 and 18 the child has to be fully ready for an independent world. A cliff edge is a terrible idea, allowing 3 year olds unmonitored uncontrolled conversations with strangers is a terrible idea, but not allowing 15 year olds to talk to their friends is a terrible idea.
- ranyume 8mo ago
  > Monitoring children's DMs is the responsibility of the parents, not megacorps Absolutely. But what responsibilities do megacorps have? Right now, everyone seems to avoid this question, and make do with megacorps not being responsible. This means: "we'll allow megacorps to be as they are and not take any responsibilities for the effects they cause to society". Instead of them taking responsibilities, we're collecting everyone's data and calling it a day by banning children from social networks... and this is because there are many interests involved (not related to child development and safety).
  - acuozzo 8mo ago
    > But what responsibilities do megacorps have? Right now, everyone seems to avoid this question Clear, simple, direct: Whatever was required of The Bell Telephone Company and nothing more.
    - ranyume 8mo ago
      I'd say that at minimum social networks need to be required to show how their algorithm works and allow users control over their data. They must be able to know why a content was served to them. Nowadays social networks are so pervasive in society, affecting it and molding it to unknown interests, that this is the bare minimum for a free society. Ideally, users should be able to modify the algorithm, so they can get just what they want, while simultaneously maximizing free speech. If something isn't illegal, it shouldn't be hidden or removed.
      - acuozzo 8mo ago
        > social networks need to be required to show how their algorithm works Hypothetically speaking: What if it's a neural network in which each user has his/her own unique weights which are undergoing frequent retraining? Would it not be an undue burden to necessitate the release of the weights every time they change? Also, what value would the weights have? We haven't yet hit the point of having neural networks with interpretability. Wouldn't enforcing algorithmic interpretability additionally be an undue burden? > They must be able to know why a content was served to them. What if the authors of the code are unable to tell you why?
- baq 8mo ago
  Mega corps should be compelled to and rewarded for allowing parents to monitor their children’s dms.
- DANmode 8mo ago
  > maybe an employer on a work-provided device. The children yearn for the mines(?).
- KaiserPro 8mo ago
  > Monitoring children's DMs is the responsibility of the parents, not megacorps. Yup, but the tools provided make that easy or hard. But putting that emotive bit to one side, Megacorps have a vested interest in not being responsible to children. They need children's eye balls to drive advertising revenue. If that means sending them corrosive shit, then so be it. Its a bigger issue than encryption, its editorial choice.
- iso1631 8mo ago
  I'm all for helping parents to do this. Any site requiring age verification should indicate this as a http header or whatever, and the browser I allow my child to use should respect that and the parental controls should be easy for me to engage with Many parental controls are massive pains to get working. Apple does fairly well (although I don't get a parental pin number to unlock the phone, which is normally fine as my child will tell me, but in some circumstances it wouldn't be), but does require the parent to be on the apple ecosystem too. EA and Microsoft however are terrible, especially as it's likely the child will be playing fortnite/minecraft and the parent won't have ever touched it. I think with minecraft we had to make something like 5 or 6 accounts across three different sites to allow online minecraft play from a nintendo switch.
- gzread 8mo ago
  The simplest way that can work is for the child account to be linked to a parent account, and the parent account can see the child account's DMs.
- prmoustache 8mo ago
  I also think children do/should have a right to privacy and their parents do not have to know everything. Kids should be able to write a journal or talk to friends with total trust that this information will not reach their parents.
Nursie 8mo ago
> Age verification should be banned Why? > They already got so much data on their users There are a variety of ways (see "Verifiable Credentials") that ages can be verified without handing over any data other than "Is old enough" to social media services.
- echelon 8mo ago
  It's a slippery slope. This is the next two steps into 1984. Once you start mandating this, there's no going back. The next generation will start associating wrongthink with government IDs. (Wait, we already do that, right?)
  - sham1 8mo ago
    The Party doesn't care about the Proles, only the members of the Outer Party. I think that it's rather funny that people like to appeal to 1984 as if the only point of Mr. Orwell was that surveillance is bad, missing the entire point about stuff like the control of the language or the idea that the only self-justification of the (Inner) Party is power for the sake of power (see also: The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism). I'd even go as far as to say that if "telescreens are horrible" is the only thing that someone takes away from 1984, they've frankly missed the point.
    - fragmede 8mo ago
      Unfortunately, having totally missed the point, they still get the same number of votes as you do.
  - Nursie 8mo ago
    > It's a slippery slope. Is it? I thought that was a logical fallacy? > This is the next two steps into 1984. How so? > Once you start mandating this, there's no going back. > The next generation will start associating wrongthink with government IDs. Could you provide some more details on why you think this? For a start I talked about a scheme in which you don't hand over ID.
nandomrumber 8mo ago
> people are concerned about their children's DMs but are not concerned about what companies serves them and what they do with their data. Hogwash. Where are these mythical people who aren’t concerned with both?
- jbstack 8mo ago
  > Where are these mythical people who aren’t concerned with both? They're called politicians.
- ranyume 8mo ago
  > Where are these mythical people who aren’t concerned with both? People don't care about "what companies serve them". They only care if the children see sexual content (or things considered deviant). Once sexual and deviant content is filtered, they're happy to give away their children's development to the company's algos. In effect, the people don't want to concern themselves with what their children consume, unless they're outraged by things normally taboo in their age group. Besides, if everyone is in it "it's not that wrong". They seek reactive entertainment rather than proactive engagement in their children's development.
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
Dban1 8mo ago
I thought it was common knowledge to just set your birthdate to 1970 or something
- input_sh 8mo ago
  You can make it a nice round 2000 these days.

by ranyume 8mo ago

LoganDark 8mo ago

Monitoring children's DMs is the responsibility of the parents, not megacorps. If a parent wants to install a keylogger or screen recorder on their child's PC, that's their decision. But Google should not be able to. Neither should... literally anyone else except maybe an employer on a work-provided device.

duped 8mo ago
Parents shouldn't give their child access to a device that allows DMs. That said, these platforms are making it impossible for parents to monitor anything. They're literally designed to profit off addiction in children.
- greygoo222 8mo ago
  Why? Plenty of children benefit from talking to other people. Some children need careful monitoring, and some children shouldn't be allowed to use DMs, but it's not universal and should be up to the parents.
  - iso1631 8mo ago
    Control over who they can talk to (if needed), certainly monitoring of both who they talk to and in many situations what the contents are At some point between the age of 0 and 18 the child has to be fully ready for an independent world. A cliff edge is a terrible idea, allowing 3 year olds unmonitored uncontrolled conversations with strangers is a terrible idea, but not allowing 15 year olds to talk to their friends is a terrible idea.
ranyume 8mo ago
> Monitoring children's DMs is the responsibility of the parents, not megacorps Absolutely. But what responsibilities do megacorps have? Right now, everyone seems to avoid this question, and make do with megacorps not being responsible. This means: "we'll allow megacorps to be as they are and not take any responsibilities for the effects they cause to society". Instead of them taking responsibilities, we're collecting everyone's data and calling it a day by banning children from social networks... and this is because there are many interests involved (not related to child development and safety).
- acuozzo 8mo ago
  > But what responsibilities do megacorps have? Right now, everyone seems to avoid this question Clear, simple, direct: Whatever was required of The Bell Telephone Company and nothing more.
  - ranyume 8mo ago
    I'd say that at minimum social networks need to be required to show how their algorithm works and allow users control over their data. They must be able to know why a content was served to them. Nowadays social networks are so pervasive in society, affecting it and molding it to unknown interests, that this is the bare minimum for a free society. Ideally, users should be able to modify the algorithm, so they can get just what they want, while simultaneously maximizing free speech. If something isn't illegal, it shouldn't be hidden or removed.
    - acuozzo 8mo ago
      > social networks need to be required to show how their algorithm works Hypothetically speaking: What if it's a neural network in which each user has his/her own unique weights which are undergoing frequent retraining? Would it not be an undue burden to necessitate the release of the weights every time they change? Also, what value would the weights have? We haven't yet hit the point of having neural networks with interpretability. Wouldn't enforcing algorithmic interpretability additionally be an undue burden? > They must be able to know why a content was served to them. What if the authors of the code are unable to tell you why?
baq 8mo ago
Mega corps should be compelled to and rewarded for allowing parents to monitor their children’s dms.
DANmode 8mo ago
> maybe an employer on a work-provided device. The children yearn for the mines(?).
KaiserPro 8mo ago
> Monitoring children's DMs is the responsibility of the parents, not megacorps. Yup, but the tools provided make that easy or hard. But putting that emotive bit to one side, Megacorps have a vested interest in not being responsible to children. They need children's eye balls to drive advertising revenue. If that means sending them corrosive shit, then so be it. Its a bigger issue than encryption, its editorial choice.
iso1631 8mo ago
I'm all for helping parents to do this. Any site requiring age verification should indicate this as a http header or whatever, and the browser I allow my child to use should respect that and the parental controls should be easy for me to engage with Many parental controls are massive pains to get working. Apple does fairly well (although I don't get a parental pin number to unlock the phone, which is normally fine as my child will tell me, but in some circumstances it wouldn't be), but does require the parent to be on the apple ecosystem too. EA and Microsoft however are terrible, especially as it's likely the child will be playing fortnite/minecraft and the parent won't have ever touched it. I think with minecraft we had to make something like 5 or 6 accounts across three different sites to allow online minecraft play from a nintendo switch.
gzread 8mo ago
The simplest way that can work is for the child account to be linked to a parent account, and the parent account can see the child account's DMs.
prmoustache 8mo ago
I also think children do/should have a right to privacy and their parents do not have to know everything. Kids should be able to write a journal or talk to friends with total trust that this information will not reach their parents.

Nursie 8mo ago

> Age verification should be banned Why? > They already got so much data on their users There are a variety of ways (see "Verifiable Credentials") that ages can be verified without handing over any data other than "Is old enough" to social media services.

echelon 8mo ago
It's a slippery slope. This is the next two steps into 1984. Once you start mandating this, there's no going back. The next generation will start associating wrongthink with government IDs. (Wait, we already do that, right?)
- sham1 8mo ago
  The Party doesn't care about the Proles, only the members of the Outer Party. I think that it's rather funny that people like to appeal to 1984 as if the only point of Mr. Orwell was that surveillance is bad, missing the entire point about stuff like the control of the language or the idea that the only self-justification of the (Inner) Party is power for the sake of power (see also: The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism). I'd even go as far as to say that if "telescreens are horrible" is the only thing that someone takes away from 1984, they've frankly missed the point.
  - fragmede 8mo ago
    Unfortunately, having totally missed the point, they still get the same number of votes as you do.
- Nursie 8mo ago
  > It's a slippery slope. Is it? I thought that was a logical fallacy? > This is the next two steps into 1984. How so? > Once you start mandating this, there's no going back. > The next generation will start associating wrongthink with government IDs. Could you provide some more details on why you think this? For a start I talked about a scheme in which you don't hand over ID.

nandomrumber 8mo ago

> people are concerned about their children's DMs but are not concerned about what companies serves them and what they do with their data. Hogwash. Where are these mythical people who aren’t concerned with both?

jbstack 8mo ago
> Where are these mythical people who aren’t concerned with both? They're called politicians.
ranyume 8mo ago
> Where are these mythical people who aren’t concerned with both? People don't care about "what companies serve them". They only care if the children see sexual content (or things considered deviant). Once sexual and deviant content is filtered, they're happy to give away their children's development to the company's algos. In effect, the people don't want to concern themselves with what their children consume, unless they're outraged by things normally taboo in their age group. Besides, if everyone is in it "it's not that wrong". They seek reactive entertainment rather than proactive engagement in their children's development.

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

Dban1 8mo ago

I thought it was common knowledge to just set your birthdate to 1970 or something

input_sh 8mo ago
You can make it a nice round 2000 these days.