6 ms·

On the one hand, I'm absolutely against blanket age verification laws like this one, think there are better ways to solve the stated problem, and believe that t

On the one hand, I'm absolutely against blanket age verification laws like this one, think there are better ways to solve the stated problem, and believe that the current crop of legislation is being pushed by bad actors for nefarious purposes by means of pandering to public mania. On the other hand, I do appreciate that a possible unintended consequence of the out provided by (5)(b)(I) could be that PII (along with user generated content in general) becomes similarly radioactive to if the US had passed a GDPR equivalent. Either that or it's used as a justification for every single online service to require government ID in order to interact with it "because liability". Unfortunately I assume the latter is somewhat more likely at this point. Also is it defined precisely what it means to "process users' personal data"?

JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
> there are better ways to solve the stated problem Call your representatives. There is overwhelming demand for age gating social media (based on, honestly, good evidence). This will be implemented based on who calls in. If the status quo of technical people being hopelessly nihilistic continues, it will be written in the stupidest ways possible.
- MBCook 5mo ago
  Of course we could make predatory algorithms illegal. Or just algorithmic timelines/discovery algorithms. Nah. Can’t stop the money. Let make brain destroying scams and ad spam legal as long as you’re over 18.
  - fc417fc802 5mo ago
    TL;DR We need age verification laws to prevent minors from accessing the addictive stream of toxic sludge rather than outlawing its manufacture and distribution.
    - ethin 5mo ago
      How exactly would you do this without, you know, violating the first amendment? Algorithmic feeds are nothing without the content. People get toxic sludge because they signal to the algorithm that they like that.
      - fc417fc802 5mo ago
        Presumably by outlawing the types of algorithms used with the legislation carefully limited to a particular context rather than anything being authored by an individual. Right to express oneself preserved, government regulates a harmful product, business as usual. As far as this specific Colorado legislation goes (which is concerned with the ability to comply with their previously passed data privacy law) I think it's not entirely bad but I have two issues with it. First, it reverses the problem. Services should be sending an age-appropriateness (or even just general content classification) signal to the device for local processing, not the other way around. If you're going to mandate that OS creators do anything it should be to implement a certain baseline level of (interoperable!) functionality as far as parental controls are concerned. Second, the entire thing should be predicated on some metric such as MAU or revenue or combination thereof not on the exceedingly vague idea of a "free, publicly available code repository".
        ethin 5mo ago
        I definitely agree with those. Age verification laws in general I have lots of beef with because they're so nonsensical.
        tzs 5mo ago
        > First, it reverses the problem. Services should be sending an age-appropriateness (or even just general content classification) signal to the device for local processing, not the other way around. OK, so say the device receives a signal that say that an app is not appropriate for children under 13. How would the device find out if the user trying to run the app is under 13?
        5mo ago
- fc417fc802 5mo ago
  > based on, honestly, good evidence Can't say I agree. Notice that the proposed legislation isn't specific to social media. Rather it's explicitly advanced in support of Colorado's data privacy laws as they apply to minors. There's evidence of lots of different issues, a few age related but most not. Adults certainly aren't immune to adversarial algorithms and dark patterns and the practical need for privacy isn't limited to children. It's more that we only seem to be able to achieve broad consensus to add additional regulations where it concerns children.
  - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
    > we only seem to be able to achieve broad consensus to add additional regulations where it concerns children My personal burden of evidence for prohibition versus age gating is higher. I don’t know if that’s how others think. But the truth is we are getting age gating one way or another, that battle has already been debated and won, and everyone who called in or responded to polls was almost universally in favor of age gates (in Wyoming, New York and Virginia, the states I’m more familiar with).
- Muromec 5mo ago
  It's always written in the most midwit way possible, then, once predicted failure happens it's patched up to be slightly better. That's the default assumption for most of the things.
  - anigbrowl 5mo ago
    What do you expect? American politics selects for mediocrity. Being a world-class expert on something is a career disadvantage. Most of the electorate wants wants bullshit artists and cartoon characters.
- ethin 5mo ago
  No, the mania is based on extremely bad/cherry picked evidence. There are at least 6 studies alone (some including meta-analysis) which has found absolutely no link to prove social media is addictive or harmful to children. If anything, they've found the opposite, and one even suggests that calling it addictive might be causing the very problem we're pretending to solve
rickydroll 5mo ago
Wondering if providing a reference implementation of a safer age verification/gate would be one way to defeat these laws.

JumpCrisscross 5mo ago

> there are better ways to solve the stated problem Call your representatives. There is overwhelming demand for age gating social media (based on, honestly, good evidence). This will be implemented based on who calls in. If the status quo of technical people being hopelessly nihilistic continues, it will be written in the stupidest ways possible.

MBCook 5mo ago
Of course we could make predatory algorithms illegal. Or just algorithmic timelines/discovery algorithms. Nah. Can’t stop the money. Let make brain destroying scams and ad spam legal as long as you’re over 18.
- fc417fc802 5mo ago
  TL;DR We need age verification laws to prevent minors from accessing the addictive stream of toxic sludge rather than outlawing its manufacture and distribution.
  - ethin 5mo ago
    How exactly would you do this without, you know, violating the first amendment? Algorithmic feeds are nothing without the content. People get toxic sludge because they signal to the algorithm that they like that.
    - fc417fc802 5mo ago
      Presumably by outlawing the types of algorithms used with the legislation carefully limited to a particular context rather than anything being authored by an individual. Right to express oneself preserved, government regulates a harmful product, business as usual. As far as this specific Colorado legislation goes (which is concerned with the ability to comply with their previously passed data privacy law) I think it's not entirely bad but I have two issues with it. First, it reverses the problem. Services should be sending an age-appropriateness (or even just general content classification) signal to the device for local processing, not the other way around. If you're going to mandate that OS creators do anything it should be to implement a certain baseline level of (interoperable!) functionality as far as parental controls are concerned. Second, the entire thing should be predicated on some metric such as MAU or revenue or combination thereof not on the exceedingly vague idea of a "free, publicly available code repository".
      - ethin 5mo ago
        I definitely agree with those. Age verification laws in general I have lots of beef with because they're so nonsensical.
      - tzs 5mo ago
        > First, it reverses the problem. Services should be sending an age-appropriateness (or even just general content classification) signal to the device for local processing, not the other way around. OK, so say the device receives a signal that say that an app is not appropriate for children under 13. How would the device find out if the user trying to run the app is under 13?
        5mo ago
fc417fc802 5mo ago
> based on, honestly, good evidence Can't say I agree. Notice that the proposed legislation isn't specific to social media. Rather it's explicitly advanced in support of Colorado's data privacy laws as they apply to minors. There's evidence of lots of different issues, a few age related but most not. Adults certainly aren't immune to adversarial algorithms and dark patterns and the practical need for privacy isn't limited to children. It's more that we only seem to be able to achieve broad consensus to add additional regulations where it concerns children.
- JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
  > we only seem to be able to achieve broad consensus to add additional regulations where it concerns children My personal burden of evidence for prohibition versus age gating is higher. I don’t know if that’s how others think. But the truth is we are getting age gating one way or another, that battle has already been debated and won, and everyone who called in or responded to polls was almost universally in favor of age gates (in Wyoming, New York and Virginia, the states I’m more familiar with).
Muromec 5mo ago
It's always written in the most midwit way possible, then, once predicted failure happens it's patched up to be slightly better. That's the default assumption for most of the things.
- anigbrowl 5mo ago
  What do you expect? American politics selects for mediocrity. Being a world-class expert on something is a career disadvantage. Most of the electorate wants wants bullshit artists and cartoon characters.
ethin 5mo ago
No, the mania is based on extremely bad/cherry picked evidence. There are at least 6 studies alone (some including meta-analysis) which has found absolutely no link to prove social media is addictive or harmful to children. If anything, they've found the opposite, and one even suggests that calling it addictive might be causing the very problem we're pretending to solve

rickydroll 5mo ago

Wondering if providing a reference implementation of a safer age verification/gate would be one way to defeat these laws.