4 ms·

Your argument has two main flaws. First, it relies on an inherent connection between age verification and authoritarianism that is just taken for granted as tr

by slg 6mo ago

Your argument has two main flaws. First, it relies on an inherent connection between age verification and authoritarianism that is just taken for granted as true. Meta could easily be in favor of age verification because it reduces their liability and raises the barriers to entry for potential competitors. It doesn't inherently have to be authoritarianism. But more importantly even if that connection is true, your argument relies on the current proposals of age verification being the only way to satisfy the organic desire for protecting kids from the unfettered internet. OP gave an example that could be a compromise position that addresses the need and isn't authoritarian. Why can't you support that effort?

trinsic2 6mo ago
I can support any effort that puts the responsibility into the hands of the parent without a mechanism that advances identity verification to protect their children. The way it stands now. this issue is being used by people in power to advanced an authoritarian agenda. Its really clear to see, if you only have the will to look.
- slg 6mo ago
  >I can support any effort that puts the responsibility into the hands of the parent without a mechanism that advances identity verification to protect their children. Which brings us right back to what I said here[1]. We don't have to agree on the motivations behind this push. Even if you believe this is all an authoritarian conspiracy, that conspiracy could be undermined by proposals like OP's, but instead people make enemies out of these potential allies which just further empowers the people who you consider to be authoritarians. It's a failure of basic political coalition building. [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47957480 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47957480
  - trinsic2 6mo ago
    Im happy to have dialog with anyone that wants to protect children under the circumstances I already described. But if these initiatives push forward IDing people to have protection, then Im sorry you are on the wrong side of life and are involved in making the future of our society worse. I don't see you as an enemy, more misguided then anything. Im sure people are going to turn this into friends and enemies, but I don't look at it that way. I have to defend freedom under all circumstances. In most cases I support deontology over utilitarianism because I have seen how far we have slid in terms of being free as a people because we want to make everyone safe.. Taking away freedoms, for any reason, is not the answer. They make us less secure [0] and promote bad actors to make things worse. [0]: https://news.clemson.edu/the-safer-you-feel-the-less-safely-you-might-behave/ https://news.clemson.edu/the-safer-you-feel-the-less-safely-...
    - slg 6mo ago
      >Im happy to have dialog with anyone that wants to protect children under the circumstances I already described. But you're ignoring my point that your dialog is actively counterproductive when you don't engage with the root of the problem. Nowhere in here did I advocate for "taking away freedoms" or for the age verification policies as discussed in this article. The only aspect of this issue that I have argued is that there is a real organic demand from people who want help in preventing children from having unfettered access to the internet. The reason you see me as "misguided" is because you are refusing to actually listen to what I'm saying. And then you magnify the divide with your rhetoric implying I'm out to take away your freedom. Maybe you don't look at me as an enemy, but your rhetoric and behavior is actively repellent when it could instead be welcoming as you claim to sympathetic to the only issue I have actually advocated for here.
      - trinsic2 6mo ago
        How am I not engaging with the root of the problem? I just see it differently than you. And thats ok. I dont think the problem is solved by id verification. This is the position I have been arguing all along and Im not seeing how my position is getting in the way of what you are talking about.
        slg 6mo ago
        >How am I not engaging with the root of the problem? The root of the problem is child safety on the internet. >I dont think the problem is solved by id verification. This is the position I have been arguing all along I have advocated for child safety, but nowhere in any of these comments have I advocated for id verification. If you have been "arguing all along" against id verification, then you must be equating all childhood internet safety advocates with those advocating for id verification. >Im not seeing how my position is getting in the way of what you are talking about. The equating of childhood safety on the internet with id verification is getting in the way. There exists compromises like the one OP suggested in the top comment in this thread that satisfy both my desire for childhood safety and your desire to prevent id verification. But instead of seeking that path of coalition building and compromise, you're actively repelling childhood safety advocates by misrepresenting their opinions and then calling them "misguided". You're making it clear that you won't be my ally when it comes to protecting kids on the internet because you're so worried about a policy for which I'm not advocating.

by slg 6mo ago

trinsic2 6mo ago

I can support any effort that puts the responsibility into the hands of the parent without a mechanism that advances identity verification to protect their children. The way it stands now. this issue is being used by people in power to advanced an authoritarian agenda. Its really clear to see, if you only have the will to look.

slg 6mo ago
>I can support any effort that puts the responsibility into the hands of the parent without a mechanism that advances identity verification to protect their children. Which brings us right back to what I said here[1]. We don't have to agree on the motivations behind this push. Even if you believe this is all an authoritarian conspiracy, that conspiracy could be undermined by proposals like OP's, but instead people make enemies out of these potential allies which just further empowers the people who you consider to be authoritarians. It's a failure of basic political coalition building. [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47957480 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47957480
- trinsic2 6mo ago
  Im happy to have dialog with anyone that wants to protect children under the circumstances I already described. But if these initiatives push forward IDing people to have protection, then Im sorry you are on the wrong side of life and are involved in making the future of our society worse. I don't see you as an enemy, more misguided then anything. Im sure people are going to turn this into friends and enemies, but I don't look at it that way. I have to defend freedom under all circumstances. In most cases I support deontology over utilitarianism because I have seen how far we have slid in terms of being free as a people because we want to make everyone safe.. Taking away freedoms, for any reason, is not the answer. They make us less secure [0] and promote bad actors to make things worse. [0]: https://news.clemson.edu/the-safer-you-feel-the-less-safely-you-might-behave/ https://news.clemson.edu/the-safer-you-feel-the-less-safely-...
  - slg 6mo ago
    >Im happy to have dialog with anyone that wants to protect children under the circumstances I already described. But you're ignoring my point that your dialog is actively counterproductive when you don't engage with the root of the problem. Nowhere in here did I advocate for "taking away freedoms" or for the age verification policies as discussed in this article. The only aspect of this issue that I have argued is that there is a real organic demand from people who want help in preventing children from having unfettered access to the internet. The reason you see me as "misguided" is because you are refusing to actually listen to what I'm saying. And then you magnify the divide with your rhetoric implying I'm out to take away your freedom. Maybe you don't look at me as an enemy, but your rhetoric and behavior is actively repellent when it could instead be welcoming as you claim to sympathetic to the only issue I have actually advocated for here.
    - trinsic2 6mo ago
      How am I not engaging with the root of the problem? I just see it differently than you. And thats ok. I dont think the problem is solved by id verification. This is the position I have been arguing all along and Im not seeing how my position is getting in the way of what you are talking about.
      - slg 6mo ago
        >How am I not engaging with the root of the problem? The root of the problem is child safety on the internet. >I dont think the problem is solved by id verification. This is the position I have been arguing all along I have advocated for child safety, but nowhere in any of these comments have I advocated for id verification. If you have been "arguing all along" against id verification, then you must be equating all childhood internet safety advocates with those advocating for id verification. >Im not seeing how my position is getting in the way of what you are talking about. The equating of childhood safety on the internet with id verification is getting in the way. There exists compromises like the one OP suggested in the top comment in this thread that satisfy both my desire for childhood safety and your desire to prevent id verification. But instead of seeking that path of coalition building and compromise, you're actively repelling childhood safety advocates by misrepresenting their opinions and then calling them "misguided". You're making it clear that you won't be my ally when it comes to protecting kids on the internet because you're so worried about a policy for which I'm not advocating.