3 ms·

Because the tools don't work, and are too fragmentary and burdensome. Would you prefer to inform each movie theater in town which movies your child is permitte

Because the tools don't work, and are too fragmentary and burdensome. Would you prefer to inform each movie theater in town which movies your child is permitted to watch? Or just rely on the rating system that applies to most movies and is honored by most theatres? Parents want one setting that says "this is a child" and then expect online platforms to respond appropriately. As we expect and mostly have in the real world.

pianoben 8mo ago
If parents want that solution, then the proper thing is for someone to build that solution and make a fortune selling it, IMO.
- jacobgkau 8mo ago
  "If parents want drug stores to not sell liquor to their kids, then the proper thing is for someone to build that solution and make a fortune selling it, IMO." See how that makes zero sense in the context of a society? Content providers are not incentivized to care about the problem, and will serve any content with ads next to it that they can unless they are forced not to. Ad-hoc solutions attempting to paper over that behavior on the consumer end are not adequate or effective. That's why they have a rationale at all for the laws here.
  - pianoben 8mo ago
    I don't see the incongruity. It's one thing to mandate that retailers not sell alcohol to children, but it's quite another to require that all computers must report on the identities of their users just so that children don't see porn. The proper analogy would be require verification on the part of the porn sellers.
    - SoftTalker 8mo ago
      This bill doesn't require reporting identities. It requires that computers be able to communicate "this is a child" to websites, social media platforms, and apps.
    - jacobgkau 8mo ago
      > all computers must report on the identities of their users Literally not what's happening with these bills. There is no identity, you would only have to type in a valid date (and nobody's forcing you at gunpoint to make it your actual birth date). > The proper analogy would be require verification on the part of the porn sellers. Red states tried that first, and it was very poorly received by the left and the porn industry, among other parties. Asking anonymously at the device level and leaving it to parents to enforce it is more privacy-respecting and less of a burden to adults. Which is exactly why blue states are now trying to do it this way (and is one of the reasons why Aylo & others have been asking for it to be done this way, with the other reason being it's also easier & cheaper on their end).
autoexec 8mo ago
> Parents want one setting that says "this is a child" and then expect online platforms to respond appropriately. This law does not do that. It breaks the age of children into several buckets so that platforms, websites, and advertisers can target specific demographics. They won't "respond appropriately" they'll just use this data point as another way to improve how they exploit children online. Now every pedo with a website can tell how old the kid is so they can better adjust their grooming for that age bracket.

pianoben 8mo ago

If parents want that solution, then the proper thing is for someone to build that solution and make a fortune selling it, IMO.

jacobgkau 8mo ago
"If parents want drug stores to not sell liquor to their kids, then the proper thing is for someone to build that solution and make a fortune selling it, IMO." See how that makes zero sense in the context of a society? Content providers are not incentivized to care about the problem, and will serve any content with ads next to it that they can unless they are forced not to. Ad-hoc solutions attempting to paper over that behavior on the consumer end are not adequate or effective. That's why they have a rationale at all for the laws here.
- pianoben 8mo ago
  I don't see the incongruity. It's one thing to mandate that retailers not sell alcohol to children, but it's quite another to require that all computers must report on the identities of their users just so that children don't see porn. The proper analogy would be require verification on the part of the porn sellers.
  - SoftTalker 8mo ago
    This bill doesn't require reporting identities. It requires that computers be able to communicate "this is a child" to websites, social media platforms, and apps.
  - jacobgkau 8mo ago
    > all computers must report on the identities of their users Literally not what's happening with these bills. There is no identity, you would only have to type in a valid date (and nobody's forcing you at gunpoint to make it your actual birth date). > The proper analogy would be require verification on the part of the porn sellers. Red states tried that first, and it was very poorly received by the left and the porn industry, among other parties. Asking anonymously at the device level and leaving it to parents to enforce it is more privacy-respecting and less of a burden to adults. Which is exactly why blue states are now trying to do it this way (and is one of the reasons why Aylo & others have been asking for it to be done this way, with the other reason being it's also easier & cheaper on their end).

autoexec 8mo ago

> Parents want one setting that says "this is a child" and then expect online platforms to respond appropriately. This law does not do that. It breaks the age of children into several buckets so that platforms, websites, and advertisers can target specific demographics. They won't "respond appropriately" they'll just use this data point as another way to improve how they exploit children online. Now every pedo with a website can tell how old the kid is so they can better adjust their grooming for that age bracket.