4 ms·

> Within the EU, multiple attempts at pushing changes in opposition to this have been proposed, debated, voted on (and rejected), as democracies do. If 51% of

> Within the EU, multiple attempts at pushing changes in opposition to this have been proposed, debated, voted on (and rejected), as democracies do. If 51% of people want to do something wrong, they should do it to themselves and leave the other 49% alone. Democracy is not an excuse for doing the wrong thing and going "oh well, guess people want it".

Jtarii 6mo ago
70% is a more likely figure https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/britons-back-online-safety-acts-age-checks-are-sceptical-effectiveness-and-unwilling-share-id https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/britons-back-online-safety-acts-... >Almost seven in ten (69%) support age verification checks on platforms that may host content related to suicide, self-harm, eating disorders, and pornography. Sometimes the majority is going to make a decision that you do not like, oh well, that is the cost of living in a democracy. People in "terminally online" spaces like HN vastly underestimate the popularity of these laws.
- dryarzeg 6mo ago
  >>Almost seven in ten (69%) support age verification checks on platforms that may host content related to suicide, self-harm, eating disorders, and pornography. >>eating disorders I'm genuinely sorry, but... wait, what? Okay, suicide, somewhat understandable (although some forums where people just share their feelings are endangered by this). Same applies to self-harm. Pornography - well, at least I can understand the motive/justification, although I don't welcome such intrusions in personal privacy. But eating disorders? What? I'm sorry, WHAT? Where's the reasons behind this? Any adequate justification? I apologize, again, maybe I don't understand the thing, but how eating disorders ended up in the same line as suicide, self-harm, pornography and similar?
  - Dylan16807 6mo ago
    Eating disorders are self-harm.
    - dryarzeg 5mo ago
      They are not. Eating disorders are, in fact, mental disorders. If you're defining eating disorders as self-harm, then depression and other similar issues are self-harm as well. To clarify my point: I'm not saying that eating disorders don't harm one's body, but that's a mental health condition.
      - Dylan16807 5mo ago
        Well what are we talking about with "content related to"? If it's informational then that doesn't sound like something that needs an age check. If it's encouragement then the encouragement related to an eating disorder is generally encouraging the self-harm behaviors, not (just) encouraging the mental aspect. And a site encouraging depression, if that actually exists and works?, sounds like it goes with the rest of the list too.
        dryarzeg 5mo ago
        > Well what are we talking about with "content related to"? > If it's informational then that doesn't sound like something that needs an age check. That is actually the main problem with all that. Because, as far as I know, some informational websites and forums were legally challenged (sorry if I'm expressing this in a wrong way) because they were hosting content "related to self-harm". Does informational content encourage self-harm behaviours, is it dangerous and should it be brought down? Well, I'm not a doctor and I can't really say, but... I hope you get my point. --- > And a site encouraging depression, if that actually exists and works? There's a lot of such websites. They're called "news websites" (joke intended)
        Dylan16807 5mo ago
        I know the whole concept is deeply flawed, I'm just saying that it makes sense to put eating disorders right next to some of the other ones.
izacus 6mo ago
You need to learn what democracy is then.
rufasterisco 6mo ago
Thank you for clearly stating that democracy is not a value for you, instead of dancing around the concept with semantics. I completely disagree with you, but at least we clearly know why.
- JoshTriplett 6mo ago
  Democracy is a useful tool for giving people a voice in their government; there are certainly much worse alternatives. But it can't be the only tool, or you end up with two wolves and a lamb voting about what's for dinner. Some things are too important to violate just because 60% of people are afraid.
  - rufasterisco 6mo ago
    > Some things are too important to violate just because 60% of people are afraid. We need to avoid this becoming "60% of people should be stopped because 40% disagrees with them". Alas, constitutions have the purpose of defending core values. Separation of powers lets judges strike down gov bills and laws. We have check and balances. Diverging from them as an emergency measure for the "right" reason only makes it exploitable after the next election, if parties swap.

Jtarii 6mo ago

70% is a more likely figure https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/britons-back-online-safety-acts-age-checks-are-sceptical-effectiveness-and-unwilling-share-id https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/britons-back-online-safety-acts-... >Almost seven in ten (69%) support age verification checks on platforms that may host content related to suicide, self-harm, eating disorders, and pornography. Sometimes the majority is going to make a decision that you do not like, oh well, that is the cost of living in a democracy. People in "terminally online" spaces like HN vastly underestimate the popularity of these laws.

dryarzeg 6mo ago
>>Almost seven in ten (69%) support age verification checks on platforms that may host content related to suicide, self-harm, eating disorders, and pornography. >>eating disorders I'm genuinely sorry, but... wait, what? Okay, suicide, somewhat understandable (although some forums where people just share their feelings are endangered by this). Same applies to self-harm. Pornography - well, at least I can understand the motive/justification, although I don't welcome such intrusions in personal privacy. But eating disorders? What? I'm sorry, WHAT? Where's the reasons behind this? Any adequate justification? I apologize, again, maybe I don't understand the thing, but how eating disorders ended up in the same line as suicide, self-harm, pornography and similar?
- Dylan16807 6mo ago
  Eating disorders are self-harm.
  - dryarzeg 5mo ago
    They are not. Eating disorders are, in fact, mental disorders. If you're defining eating disorders as self-harm, then depression and other similar issues are self-harm as well. To clarify my point: I'm not saying that eating disorders don't harm one's body, but that's a mental health condition.
    - Dylan16807 5mo ago
      Well what are we talking about with "content related to"? If it's informational then that doesn't sound like something that needs an age check. If it's encouragement then the encouragement related to an eating disorder is generally encouraging the self-harm behaviors, not (just) encouraging the mental aspect. And a site encouraging depression, if that actually exists and works?, sounds like it goes with the rest of the list too.
      - dryarzeg 5mo ago
        > Well what are we talking about with "content related to"? > If it's informational then that doesn't sound like something that needs an age check. That is actually the main problem with all that. Because, as far as I know, some informational websites and forums were legally challenged (sorry if I'm expressing this in a wrong way) because they were hosting content "related to self-harm". Does informational content encourage self-harm behaviours, is it dangerous and should it be brought down? Well, I'm not a doctor and I can't really say, but... I hope you get my point. --- > And a site encouraging depression, if that actually exists and works? There's a lot of such websites. They're called "news websites" (joke intended)
        Dylan16807 5mo ago
        I know the whole concept is deeply flawed, I'm just saying that it makes sense to put eating disorders right next to some of the other ones.

izacus 6mo ago

You need to learn what democracy is then.

rufasterisco 6mo ago

Thank you for clearly stating that democracy is not a value for you, instead of dancing around the concept with semantics. I completely disagree with you, but at least we clearly know why.

JoshTriplett 6mo ago
Democracy is a useful tool for giving people a voice in their government; there are certainly much worse alternatives. But it can't be the only tool, or you end up with two wolves and a lamb voting about what's for dinner. Some things are too important to violate just because 60% of people are afraid.
- rufasterisco 6mo ago
  > Some things are too important to violate just because 60% of people are afraid. We need to avoid this becoming "60% of people should be stopped because 40% disagrees with them". Alas, constitutions have the purpose of defending core values. Separation of powers lets judges strike down gov bills and laws. We have check and balances. Diverging from them as an emergency measure for the "right" reason only makes it exploitable after the next election, if parties swap.