5 ms·

I find it hard to believe that so many politicians have just completely lost their minds in the last few years. This is just so wrong on so many levels. Could

I find it hard to believe that so many politicians have just completely lost their minds in the last few years. This is just so wrong on so many levels. Could be a ploy to give the big commercial players more power while making life shit for FOSS and smaller players. I doubt so many grassroots movements gained traction around the same time globally.

5o1ecist 7mo ago
[dead]
metalcrow 7mo ago
Honestly the reason seems quite obvious to me. Most people are getting seriously concerned about how the internet affects children. It's as simple as that. Children are getting cyberbullied and predated on while on platforms like Roblox. They're committing suicide after talking to ChatGPT. They're getting all sorts of mental disorders from tiktok and twitter. When you hear day after day the sorts of traumas that kids are going through (ones that are quite real!), it's hard to just say "well, the cure it worse then the disease, suck it up". A lot of people assume politicians are just greedy for power and are conspiring to give the government more surveillance power, but the simplest explanation here is that politicians are being screamed at to do something, and this is something.
- RiOuseR 7mo ago
  [dead]
- stormbeard 7mo ago
  This reasoning never made sense to me. What the hell are these kids' parents doing and why is this something that needs to inconvenience everyone else? If lazy parents don't want to monitor their children while they spend all day on their ipads, that's their problem--it shouldn't be made mine.
  - bitwize 7mo ago
    Kids will find a way to sneak around their parents every time, esp. if their friends (or a groomer) introduce them to something "cool". Active parental monitoring alone isn't really a solution.
    - goku12 7mo ago
      Automated access control is even worse. Kids explore technology a lot more than their parents do. They will find a work around and share it among their peers. The only real solution is to make them aware of the dangers and hope that it works when combined with parental attention.
  - ytoawwhra92 7mo ago
    Liquor stores shouldn't have to check ID. Parents should be aware of where their kids are at all times and physically prevent them from entering liquor stores.
    - goku12 7mo ago
      That's a disingenuous false equivalence comparison. Checking ID at a store comes with no extra burden. Not so for computing devices. You're talking about everything from fully locking down the boot loader to adding age verification interface on most of the applications. Why do you think people are so worried only about the latter? Another difference is that internet access has potential advantages for children. There are ways in which they can derive immense value from it. On the contrary, there is no justifiable reason why a child should be allowed to drink. Please don't rationalize such draconian measures and help them claim legitimacy.
      - ytoawwhra92 7mo ago
        The comment I replied to said: > If lazy parents don't want to monitor their children while they spend all day on their ipads, that's their problem--it shouldn't be made mine. This comes up all the time when age verification laws (of any kind) are discussed. Notice that this comment is not concerned with the implementation details of age verification laws, it simply rejects them in principle because the poster believes it is solely the parent's responsibility to monitor their children's Internet usage. Offline age/ID verification is not a false equivalence comparison. Parents have a responsibility to supervise and protect their children from harm, it's true. But as children get older (esp. in their teens) it's critical for their development to have unsupervised time to interact with the world on their own terms. And for this reason most countries have some form of codified social responsibility to supervise and protect children from harm when they are in public spaces. Liquor stores checking ID is one example of that, but there are many others. Every thread on HN about this topic has people saying it's solely the parents' responsibility to control their children's access to harmful media. I replied to one with what I believe is a good counter-example of this. As of writing this, 3 of the 5 replies to my comment are shifting the goal posts (criticising implementation details, rather than the concept of age verification). 1 is saying ban all kids from the Internet (requires age verification) and 1 is saying allow kids to buy liquor. Online public spaces are still public spaces, so they share the social responsibility that offline public spaces have to refuse children access and/or protect them from harm.
- alexk1309 7mo ago
  That is not something that should be controlled by an IT company, ISP, or an OS. I think parents have a responsibility to control (or at least influence) their childeren's content consumption. Companies like Google and Apple provide built-in parental controls and digital wellbeing apps, you can also use something like OpenDNS or control it via some other means. If a kid has unrestricted internet access and screen time, the parents are being neglectful. Obviously there should be some regulatory action to force companies to not make their apps addictive or harmful in some ways (including to minors), but not through age checks in an OS... The bill is kind of confusing, but from what I understand, it doesn't require ID checks, so as a convenience to not have to worry about kids having access to things they shouldn't it is not that awful (just put any age number you want when configuring OS). But implementing this is impossible (how do you force all programs to not show things that are not for "a user is in any of several age brackets"). It shouldn't be an OS requirement, maybe an optional feature that the state advises major OSs to have. Also some OSs are not for personal use, and nowadays a toaster may have an OS...
- goku12 7mo ago
  > Most people are getting seriously concerned about how the internet affects children. It's as simple as that. I'm also extremely concerned about what social media is doing to children's brains and how that manifests in their adulthood. I'm also concerned about how they affect adult brains, because I see it negatively affecting the decisions of even seniors. But it's not "as simple as that". These sorts of solutions have serious consequences on civil liberty, privacy, security, affordability of general purpose computing, fair-use access to uaeful information, restrictions on state-sponsored information control, etc. This isn't a black-and-white problem. > it's hard to just say "well, the cure it worse then the disease, suck it up". Just as the problem is not black-and-white, the solution isn't either. There are a lot of steps to try before that. One is to try an awareness campaign among kids about the dangers of social media. It's a bit arrogant to believe that kids don't care about their own safety. Another is to assist parents with supervision and parental controls. Instead, they just jumped directly to the nuclear option. This kind of rhetorical framing of the opposition hides the likely nefarious intent behind such despotic measures. > A lot of people assume politicians are just greedy for power and are conspiring to give the government more surveillance power, but the simplest explanation here is that politicians are being screamed at to do something, and this is something. You paint both parents and politicians as naïve individuals. There are plenty of parents who can see the problem, since they're Gen X and millenials who grew up observing the change. Meanwhile, assumption of incompetence among politicians is defeated by the fact that much public debate about it is missing here. And the fact that multiple states are coming up with similar bills, indicates the influence of lobbyists. Besides, the US politicians are not exactly known for defending the citizen's rights against corporate interests. They deserve a heavy dose of skepticism and criticism, not the benefit of doubt.
  - Klonoar 7mo ago
    *> …awareness campaign… Do you think this has not been attempted already…?
    - goku12 7mo ago
      A token attempt is not enough.
bitwize 7mo ago
Turns out there are a number of profoundly negative social consequences to giving everyone a general purpose computing device with always-on internet connectivity. Malware, piracy, CSAM, revenge porn, people goaded into self-destruction by social media or AI, etc. Doing nothing is no longer an option, and nobody cares what a handful of nerds think. Those nerds must be held accountable to the greater society of which they are a part. Using a computer will become a much more regulated activity, one way or another, as the pressure has been building for decades. General purpose computing is dead; its time has passed. The next step of course, will be laws requiring verification of OS and application binaries on all computing devices including PCs. Official developer accounts will be excepted for purposes of building software to run on one (1) device for testing. This is necessary in order for computing devices to comply with the age attestation/verification laws.
- ronsor 7mo ago
  Man, I hope some of the "negative social consequences" more directly affect some of the politicians involved before they can implement this :)
- d0gebro 7mo ago
  [dead]
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
LoganDark 7mo ago
> I find it hard to believe that so many politicians have just completely lost their minds in the last few years. I think there are a large number of them that have been waiting a long time to get away with something like this.
- bluefirebrand 7mo ago
  There also seem to be a great deal of politicians who basically just do whatever their donors and lobbyists tell them without any critical thought Basically just puppets for wealthy financial interests, which are harder and harder to organize and combat
d0gebro 7mo ago
[dead]
extortionist 7mo ago
These kind of coordinated efforts come from think tanks, lobbyist groups, etc. If you look around you'll see a lot of nearly-identical bills introduced in several states more or less simultaneously, not just about this topic but about all sorts of things. I don't think there's any requirement anywhere that legislators write their own bills. But they do have a lot of incentive to introduce bills on behalf of their larger campaign donors.

5o1ecist 7mo ago

[dead]

metalcrow 7mo ago

Honestly the reason seems quite obvious to me. Most people are getting seriously concerned about how the internet affects children. It's as simple as that. Children are getting cyberbullied and predated on while on platforms like Roblox. They're committing suicide after talking to ChatGPT. They're getting all sorts of mental disorders from tiktok and twitter. When you hear day after day the sorts of traumas that kids are going through (ones that are quite real!), it's hard to just say "well, the cure it worse then the disease, suck it up". A lot of people assume politicians are just greedy for power and are conspiring to give the government more surveillance power, but the simplest explanation here is that politicians are being screamed at to do something, and this is something.

RiOuseR 7mo ago
[dead]
stormbeard 7mo ago
This reasoning never made sense to me. What the hell are these kids' parents doing and why is this something that needs to inconvenience everyone else? If lazy parents don't want to monitor their children while they spend all day on their ipads, that's their problem--it shouldn't be made mine.
- bitwize 7mo ago
  Kids will find a way to sneak around their parents every time, esp. if their friends (or a groomer) introduce them to something "cool". Active parental monitoring alone isn't really a solution.
  - goku12 7mo ago
    Automated access control is even worse. Kids explore technology a lot more than their parents do. They will find a work around and share it among their peers. The only real solution is to make them aware of the dangers and hope that it works when combined with parental attention.
- ytoawwhra92 7mo ago
  Liquor stores shouldn't have to check ID. Parents should be aware of where their kids are at all times and physically prevent them from entering liquor stores.
  - goku12 7mo ago
    That's a disingenuous false equivalence comparison. Checking ID at a store comes with no extra burden. Not so for computing devices. You're talking about everything from fully locking down the boot loader to adding age verification interface on most of the applications. Why do you think people are so worried only about the latter? Another difference is that internet access has potential advantages for children. There are ways in which they can derive immense value from it. On the contrary, there is no justifiable reason why a child should be allowed to drink. Please don't rationalize such draconian measures and help them claim legitimacy.
    - ytoawwhra92 7mo ago
      The comment I replied to said: > If lazy parents don't want to monitor their children while they spend all day on their ipads, that's their problem--it shouldn't be made mine. This comes up all the time when age verification laws (of any kind) are discussed. Notice that this comment is not concerned with the implementation details of age verification laws, it simply rejects them in principle because the poster believes it is solely the parent's responsibility to monitor their children's Internet usage. Offline age/ID verification is not a false equivalence comparison. Parents have a responsibility to supervise and protect their children from harm, it's true. But as children get older (esp. in their teens) it's critical for their development to have unsupervised time to interact with the world on their own terms. And for this reason most countries have some form of codified social responsibility to supervise and protect children from harm when they are in public spaces. Liquor stores checking ID is one example of that, but there are many others. Every thread on HN about this topic has people saying it's solely the parents' responsibility to control their children's access to harmful media. I replied to one with what I believe is a good counter-example of this. As of writing this, 3 of the 5 replies to my comment are shifting the goal posts (criticising implementation details, rather than the concept of age verification). 1 is saying ban all kids from the Internet (requires age verification) and 1 is saying allow kids to buy liquor. Online public spaces are still public spaces, so they share the social responsibility that offline public spaces have to refuse children access and/or protect them from harm.
alexk1309 7mo ago
That is not something that should be controlled by an IT company, ISP, or an OS. I think parents have a responsibility to control (or at least influence) their childeren's content consumption. Companies like Google and Apple provide built-in parental controls and digital wellbeing apps, you can also use something like OpenDNS or control it via some other means. If a kid has unrestricted internet access and screen time, the parents are being neglectful. Obviously there should be some regulatory action to force companies to not make their apps addictive or harmful in some ways (including to minors), but not through age checks in an OS... The bill is kind of confusing, but from what I understand, it doesn't require ID checks, so as a convenience to not have to worry about kids having access to things they shouldn't it is not that awful (just put any age number you want when configuring OS). But implementing this is impossible (how do you force all programs to not show things that are not for "a user is in any of several age brackets"). It shouldn't be an OS requirement, maybe an optional feature that the state advises major OSs to have. Also some OSs are not for personal use, and nowadays a toaster may have an OS...
goku12 7mo ago
> Most people are getting seriously concerned about how the internet affects children. It's as simple as that. I'm also extremely concerned about what social media is doing to children's brains and how that manifests in their adulthood. I'm also concerned about how they affect adult brains, because I see it negatively affecting the decisions of even seniors. But it's not "as simple as that". These sorts of solutions have serious consequences on civil liberty, privacy, security, affordability of general purpose computing, fair-use access to uaeful information, restrictions on state-sponsored information control, etc. This isn't a black-and-white problem. > it's hard to just say "well, the cure it worse then the disease, suck it up". Just as the problem is not black-and-white, the solution isn't either. There are a lot of steps to try before that. One is to try an awareness campaign among kids about the dangers of social media. It's a bit arrogant to believe that kids don't care about their own safety. Another is to assist parents with supervision and parental controls. Instead, they just jumped directly to the nuclear option. This kind of rhetorical framing of the opposition hides the likely nefarious intent behind such despotic measures. > A lot of people assume politicians are just greedy for power and are conspiring to give the government more surveillance power, but the simplest explanation here is that politicians are being screamed at to do something, and this is something. You paint both parents and politicians as naïve individuals. There are plenty of parents who can see the problem, since they're Gen X and millenials who grew up observing the change. Meanwhile, assumption of incompetence among politicians is defeated by the fact that much public debate about it is missing here. And the fact that multiple states are coming up with similar bills, indicates the influence of lobbyists. Besides, the US politicians are not exactly known for defending the citizen's rights against corporate interests. They deserve a heavy dose of skepticism and criticism, not the benefit of doubt.
- Klonoar 7mo ago
  *> …awareness campaign… Do you think this has not been attempted already…?
  - goku12 7mo ago
    A token attempt is not enough.

bitwize 7mo ago

Turns out there are a number of profoundly negative social consequences to giving everyone a general purpose computing device with always-on internet connectivity. Malware, piracy, CSAM, revenge porn, people goaded into self-destruction by social media or AI, etc. Doing nothing is no longer an option, and nobody cares what a handful of nerds think. Those nerds must be held accountable to the greater society of which they are a part. Using a computer will become a much more regulated activity, one way or another, as the pressure has been building for decades. General purpose computing is dead; its time has passed. The next step of course, will be laws requiring verification of OS and application binaries on all computing devices including PCs. Official developer accounts will be excepted for purposes of building software to run on one (1) device for testing. This is necessary in order for computing devices to comply with the age attestation/verification laws.

ronsor 7mo ago
Man, I hope some of the "negative social consequences" more directly affect some of the politicians involved before they can implement this :)
d0gebro 7mo ago
[dead]
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]

LoganDark 7mo ago

> I find it hard to believe that so many politicians have just completely lost their minds in the last few years. I think there are a large number of them that have been waiting a long time to get away with something like this.

bluefirebrand 7mo ago
There also seem to be a great deal of politicians who basically just do whatever their donors and lobbyists tell them without any critical thought Basically just puppets for wealthy financial interests, which are harder and harder to organize and combat

d0gebro 7mo ago

[dead]

extortionist 7mo ago

These kind of coordinated efforts come from think tanks, lobbyist groups, etc. If you look around you'll see a lot of nearly-identical bills introduced in several states more or less simultaneously, not just about this topic but about all sorts of things. I don't think there's any requirement anywhere that legislators write their own bills. But they do have a lot of incentive to introduce bills on behalf of their larger campaign donors.