5 ms·

I can't fathom all the rage and confusion here about these laws. It's been a well-known effect since forever that when a government deems that something needs t

I can't fathom all the rage and confusion here about these laws. It's been a well-known effect since forever that when a government deems that something needs to be done, they'll go for the first "something-shaped" solution. This all could've been avoided. Governments all over the world have been ringing the alarm bells about lack of self-regulation in tech and social media. And instead of doing even a minimum of regulation, anything to calm or assuage the governments, the entire industry went balls-to-the-wall "line go up" mode. We, collectively, only have ourselves to blame, and now it's too late. If you look back, it didn't have to be this way: - Governments told game publishers to find a system to handle age rating or else. The industry developed the ESRB (and other local systems), and no "or else" happened. - Governments told phone and smart device manufacturers to collectively standardize on a charging standard, almost everyone agreed on USB-C and only many years later did the government step in and force the lone outlier to play ball. If that one hadn't been stubborn, there wouldn't have been a law. The industry had a chance to do something practical, the industry chose not to, and now something impractical (but you better find a way anyway, or else) will be forced upon them. And I won't shed a tear for the poor companies finally having to do something.

shevy-java 7mo ago
> We, collectively, only have ourselves to blame, and now it's too late. Why would we have to be blamed for a law written by some lobbyists? That makes no sense at all. There are of course some folks that are in favour of this because "of the children" but their rationale does not apply to me nor to many other people. Why should they be able to force people to surrender their data, with the operating system becoming a sniffer giving out private data to everyone else? That makes no sense.
- pear01 7mo ago
  The invocation of "lobbyists" in this context is meaningless. People lobby for all kinds of things. Doesn't really matter once it becomes a law anyway. If people could just say I don't agree with this law, it "makes no sense" and it's written by "lobbyists" and the government should not "be able to force" me to comply then we don't have a society anymore. You had better come up with some better arguments otherwise it just seems like the typical sad case of the losing side suddenly griping about the referee's monopoly of force when it's no longer going their way... The comment you replied to rightly pointed out one way of getting ahead of said monopoly of force is addressing problems with the status quo before the state takes an interest. It didn't happen, and now you will probably get some heavy handed intervention. But ignoring this basic point to ask why oh why suggests an ignorance of the very nature of the society that is and has been constantly regulating you. If you only happened to notice now you should consider yourself a rather lucky specimen in the long line of human history, full of those remarking "this makes no sense" as they are nonetheless compelled to comply.
  - rudhdb773b 7mo ago
    The fact that lobbyists push the law is in fact very meaningful. It means that a minority with power is trying to tip the scales in their favor against the otherwised unbiased will of the majority. To extend your analogy, it's not one side complaining after a fair match, it's them complaining that refs have been paid off.
    - mlrtime 7mo ago
      Lobbyists do not always mean minority. I'm sure it looks like that from the outside. There are all kinds of laws that people don't like, me included. With every law there will be some winner/loser trade-off (for lack of better word). As OP said, that is society. If the people here were so passionate about it, they would help come up with a better solution, not a "f* off" comment.
    - pear01 7mo ago
      There is no such thing as an "unbiased will of the majority". That sort of terminology might have flown back in the 18th century with Rousseau and the like speaking of a "general will" but in today's era of social science, it has about as much force as invoking divinity. Everyone has bias. The idea of a general will is largely fiction and was discredited at the time. Our system is based on coercion, costs and trade-offs and nothing more. That is human history. You may have some rights (perhaps a right to privacy, it is debatable) but this is really just the three core components dressed up in reverse. The freedom of speech for instance is simply to codify the idea that the state silencing you is intolerable. Intolerable is eventually meaningless unless it is backed up by costs and coercion against the state which they will seek to avoid. When the state violates such "rights" flagrantly sometimes the people are called to manifest this aspect of "intolerable". That's what a revolution is. Failing that you need to convince people. And in so doing if you aim to find some "unbiased will of the majority" you are wasting your time. You would be better off with a lobbyist. Surely such a person would not so readily engage in such fiction regarding how democracy actually works, and would thus be more effective in achieving your goals.
- hananova 7mo ago
  Because the government has a monopoly on violence and enforcement of the law. That’s why they can force you. If you don’t like it, move somewhere else. Also, the uproar here is hilarious, because many people here literally get paid to work on privacy-destruction-machines. But now that the government is the one doing it, it’s suddenly bad. Give me a break. And yes, I can say that my conscience is clear. I may not be rich, I may have had to quit two jobs and spend two years homeless because I did not want to implement immoral or unethical code. But my conscience is clear.
kortilla 7mo ago
Speak for yourself. This is impacting open source and is fundamentally against the open source ethos. Governments demanding computers enforce age is as dumb as governments demanding books, pen, and paper enforce age. This is unrelated to industry. This is idiots running the government.
- dpe82 7mo ago
  I'm probably missing something, but when I read the California statute I didn't understand it to be anything like "computers enforcing age" - more like, when you create an account it needs to ask your age, and then provide a system API by which apps can ask what bracket the account holder is in. This seems better than the current solution of every app asking independently? Again, I'm probably missing something but it strikes me as pretty trivial to comply with?
  - ball_of_lint 7mo ago
    The government really shouldn't be telling us how/what we can compute at all. But on this specific point - It's a bellwether. They're doing this to lay the groundwork and test the waters for compulsory identification and/or age verification. Getting MacOS and Windows and Linux and etc to implement this WILL be used as evidence that compulsory identity verification for computer use is legally workable.
    - ball_of_lint 7mo ago
      And if the implications of that aren't clear - that would either be unenforceable or be in effect a government rootkit+DRM on every device.
    - charcircuit 7mo ago
      >The government really shouldn't be telling us how/what we can compute at all. You could say the same thing about restaurants. "The government really shouldn't be telling us how/what we can cook at all." When you are selling a product to the public, that is something that people have decided the government can regulate to reduce the harms of such products.
panny 7mo ago
>We, collectively, only have ourselves to blame, and now it's too late. No, "we" really don't. I wrote software. It's free. You're welcome to use it, or not. Nobody is forcing my software on you. You are not allowed to tell me that the software I wrote, for free, and gave to you, for free, needs to have features that I don't care about. You have an LLM now. I'm obsolete now, right? Do it. Build your nerfed distro, and make it popular. Oh, yeah... there isn't a single solitary disto built by an LLM, is there? Not even one. Wow. I wonder why...
- hananova 7mo ago
  I’m not sure why you’re bringing up LLMs at all. I’m very anti-AI, so you’re barking up the wrong tree. Either way, your first paragraph is irrelevant. If your local law says that your software needs to obey some law, then it has to, and that’s that. You can whine all you want about privacy and freedom, but the law is the law.
  - panny 7mo ago
    >I’m not sure why you’re bringing up LLMs at all. Because lawyer types don't seem to understand they need us to write this for them and we can just say no. >If your local law says that your software needs to obey some law, then it has to, and that’s that. No, how it works is I continue writing free software and you're welcome to continue not using it. Take me to court with your law, and then be ready to pay legal fees and damages when I win because the law isn't constitutional on multiple grounds.
vaylian 7mo ago
> The industry had a chance to do something practical, the industry chose not to Wrong. There was no choice. Any type of identification technology causes more problems than it solves. The right choice is to look for different approaches than identification technology for solving the problems. And as the article points out, the problems are best tackled with education and not with tech.
Jean-Papoulos 7mo ago
> We, collectively, only have ourselves to blame, and now it's too late. Can't believe I'm reading this. I don't want age verification at all, whether it's self-imposed or not. I should be free to use whatever tools I want however I want.
- ray_v 7mo ago
  Someone else posted this in the thread, by it pretty much sums it up - Vae victis. We somehow lost the war of freedom of privacy ... or, maybe the battle still rages
- charcircuit 7mo ago
  Democracy is not about what you want. If the majority want something you don't, the best you can do is find a compromise. There is no option of doing nothing and keep computers the same as they have been if the majority want change.
  - wao0uuno 7mo ago
    But does the majority want that change? If they want it, are they entirely aware of its potential impact on their freedom of speech and access to information? Or were they conditioned to think it's good for them because well funded corporate entities and governments spend money on promoting that image? Democracy does not work when majority is stupid and uneducated because people like that are easily controlled. I wish we were putting as much resources into education as we're putting into cheap entertainment and ads/marketing.
    - mlrtime 7mo ago
      >But does the majority want that change This really depends on 1) How you frame the problem/solution and 2) what subset of people you ask. But to answer your question, I could easily see that yes, people want a "change" based on how you frame the problem.
    - gzread 7mo ago
      The vast majority wants a parental control setting on the kid's device, and that's what is being imposed in California and Colorado right now. The vast majority don't want to upload their passports. That's what we should be opposing. Standardized parental controls set by the device owner are a great alternative and not invasive at all.
marssaxman 7mo ago
"because we didn't do a stupid and pointless thing, now we are being forced to do a stupid and pointless thing, therefore we are to blame" Uh, no.

shevy-java 7mo ago

> We, collectively, only have ourselves to blame, and now it's too late. Why would we have to be blamed for a law written by some lobbyists? That makes no sense at all. There are of course some folks that are in favour of this because "of the children" but their rationale does not apply to me nor to many other people. Why should they be able to force people to surrender their data, with the operating system becoming a sniffer giving out private data to everyone else? That makes no sense.

pear01 7mo ago
The invocation of "lobbyists" in this context is meaningless. People lobby for all kinds of things. Doesn't really matter once it becomes a law anyway. If people could just say I don't agree with this law, it "makes no sense" and it's written by "lobbyists" and the government should not "be able to force" me to comply then we don't have a society anymore. You had better come up with some better arguments otherwise it just seems like the typical sad case of the losing side suddenly griping about the referee's monopoly of force when it's no longer going their way... The comment you replied to rightly pointed out one way of getting ahead of said monopoly of force is addressing problems with the status quo before the state takes an interest. It didn't happen, and now you will probably get some heavy handed intervention. But ignoring this basic point to ask why oh why suggests an ignorance of the very nature of the society that is and has been constantly regulating you. If you only happened to notice now you should consider yourself a rather lucky specimen in the long line of human history, full of those remarking "this makes no sense" as they are nonetheless compelled to comply.
- rudhdb773b 7mo ago
  The fact that lobbyists push the law is in fact very meaningful. It means that a minority with power is trying to tip the scales in their favor against the otherwised unbiased will of the majority. To extend your analogy, it's not one side complaining after a fair match, it's them complaining that refs have been paid off.
  - mlrtime 7mo ago
    Lobbyists do not always mean minority. I'm sure it looks like that from the outside. There are all kinds of laws that people don't like, me included. With every law there will be some winner/loser trade-off (for lack of better word). As OP said, that is society. If the people here were so passionate about it, they would help come up with a better solution, not a "f* off" comment.
  - pear01 7mo ago
    There is no such thing as an "unbiased will of the majority". That sort of terminology might have flown back in the 18th century with Rousseau and the like speaking of a "general will" but in today's era of social science, it has about as much force as invoking divinity. Everyone has bias. The idea of a general will is largely fiction and was discredited at the time. Our system is based on coercion, costs and trade-offs and nothing more. That is human history. You may have some rights (perhaps a right to privacy, it is debatable) but this is really just the three core components dressed up in reverse. The freedom of speech for instance is simply to codify the idea that the state silencing you is intolerable. Intolerable is eventually meaningless unless it is backed up by costs and coercion against the state which they will seek to avoid. When the state violates such "rights" flagrantly sometimes the people are called to manifest this aspect of "intolerable". That's what a revolution is. Failing that you need to convince people. And in so doing if you aim to find some "unbiased will of the majority" you are wasting your time. You would be better off with a lobbyist. Surely such a person would not so readily engage in such fiction regarding how democracy actually works, and would thus be more effective in achieving your goals.
hananova 7mo ago
Because the government has a monopoly on violence and enforcement of the law. That’s why they can force you. If you don’t like it, move somewhere else. Also, the uproar here is hilarious, because many people here literally get paid to work on privacy-destruction-machines. But now that the government is the one doing it, it’s suddenly bad. Give me a break. And yes, I can say that my conscience is clear. I may not be rich, I may have had to quit two jobs and spend two years homeless because I did not want to implement immoral or unethical code. But my conscience is clear.

kortilla 7mo ago

Speak for yourself. This is impacting open source and is fundamentally against the open source ethos. Governments demanding computers enforce age is as dumb as governments demanding books, pen, and paper enforce age. This is unrelated to industry. This is idiots running the government.

dpe82 7mo ago
I'm probably missing something, but when I read the California statute I didn't understand it to be anything like "computers enforcing age" - more like, when you create an account it needs to ask your age, and then provide a system API by which apps can ask what bracket the account holder is in. This seems better than the current solution of every app asking independently? Again, I'm probably missing something but it strikes me as pretty trivial to comply with?
- ball_of_lint 7mo ago
  The government really shouldn't be telling us how/what we can compute at all. But on this specific point - It's a bellwether. They're doing this to lay the groundwork and test the waters for compulsory identification and/or age verification. Getting MacOS and Windows and Linux and etc to implement this WILL be used as evidence that compulsory identity verification for computer use is legally workable.
  - ball_of_lint 7mo ago
    And if the implications of that aren't clear - that would either be unenforceable or be in effect a government rootkit+DRM on every device.
  - charcircuit 7mo ago
    >The government really shouldn't be telling us how/what we can compute at all. You could say the same thing about restaurants. "The government really shouldn't be telling us how/what we can cook at all." When you are selling a product to the public, that is something that people have decided the government can regulate to reduce the harms of such products.

panny 7mo ago

>We, collectively, only have ourselves to blame, and now it's too late. No, "we" really don't. I wrote software. It's free. You're welcome to use it, or not. Nobody is forcing my software on you. You are not allowed to tell me that the software I wrote, for free, and gave to you, for free, needs to have features that I don't care about. You have an LLM now. I'm obsolete now, right? Do it. Build your nerfed distro, and make it popular. Oh, yeah... there isn't a single solitary disto built by an LLM, is there? Not even one. Wow. I wonder why...

hananova 7mo ago
I’m not sure why you’re bringing up LLMs at all. I’m very anti-AI, so you’re barking up the wrong tree. Either way, your first paragraph is irrelevant. If your local law says that your software needs to obey some law, then it has to, and that’s that. You can whine all you want about privacy and freedom, but the law is the law.
- panny 7mo ago
  >I’m not sure why you’re bringing up LLMs at all. Because lawyer types don't seem to understand they need us to write this for them and we can just say no. >If your local law says that your software needs to obey some law, then it has to, and that’s that. No, how it works is I continue writing free software and you're welcome to continue not using it. Take me to court with your law, and then be ready to pay legal fees and damages when I win because the law isn't constitutional on multiple grounds.

vaylian 7mo ago

> The industry had a chance to do something practical, the industry chose not to Wrong. There was no choice. Any type of identification technology causes more problems than it solves. The right choice is to look for different approaches than identification technology for solving the problems. And as the article points out, the problems are best tackled with education and not with tech.

Jean-Papoulos 7mo ago

> We, collectively, only have ourselves to blame, and now it's too late. Can't believe I'm reading this. I don't want age verification at all, whether it's self-imposed or not. I should be free to use whatever tools I want however I want.

ray_v 7mo ago
Someone else posted this in the thread, by it pretty much sums it up - Vae victis. We somehow lost the war of freedom of privacy ... or, maybe the battle still rages
charcircuit 7mo ago
Democracy is not about what you want. If the majority want something you don't, the best you can do is find a compromise. There is no option of doing nothing and keep computers the same as they have been if the majority want change.
- wao0uuno 7mo ago
  But does the majority want that change? If they want it, are they entirely aware of its potential impact on their freedom of speech and access to information? Or were they conditioned to think it's good for them because well funded corporate entities and governments spend money on promoting that image? Democracy does not work when majority is stupid and uneducated because people like that are easily controlled. I wish we were putting as much resources into education as we're putting into cheap entertainment and ads/marketing.
  - mlrtime 7mo ago
    >But does the majority want that change This really depends on 1) How you frame the problem/solution and 2) what subset of people you ask. But to answer your question, I could easily see that yes, people want a "change" based on how you frame the problem.
  - gzread 7mo ago
    The vast majority wants a parental control setting on the kid's device, and that's what is being imposed in California and Colorado right now. The vast majority don't want to upload their passports. That's what we should be opposing. Standardized parental controls set by the device owner are a great alternative and not invasive at all.

marssaxman 7mo ago

"because we didn't do a stupid and pointless thing, now we are being forced to do a stupid and pointless thing, therefore we are to blame" Uh, no.