8 ms·

Think of the children: How to force real ID for all internet traffic (2023)

262 points by Bender 4mo ago

orbital-decay 4mo ago
To add to the list: KYC/AML-like regulations and practices (not necessarily financial) that shift the responsibility down the chain, outside the accountability zone, and result in preventive overly broad risk avoidance, self-censorship, and manipulation of your Overton window. See for example DMCA vs YouTube practices vs what actual channels choose to do to dodge both. Or algospeak. Or the PayPal situation which is mentioned in the article. But it's all talk. Political pressure is like gas pressure. Gas expands to fill the available volume. What do you actually do to push back, besides talking about it on the web? This defines the available volume, if you don't do anything it's infinite.
- econ 4mo ago
  Create a government from scratch. Version control the laws. Compare the laws with all other countries. Hoard data. Write code to replace government employees and to make laws easy to implement. (If done well consider selling a product or service) Make everything modular so that the establishment can steal it. Get people involved. Doesn't matter if you need to write a sim and convince them it is a game. Pretend the whole exercise is writing code so that you can imagine you are perfect for the job. I learn that people from all political angles like the idea of voluntary taxes (but no one believes it can work) If the whole thing can run on donations and volunteers with a few "state" owned companies a hot swap becomes inevitable.
  - post-it 4mo ago
    I'm not sure you can code your way into having a monopoly on violence.
    - Gigachad 4mo ago
      That was the obvious issue with all the blockchain smart contract stuff that was getting pushed previously. Any time it interacts with the physical world the blockchain goes out the window the moment on someone on the ground decides they don’t agree with it. Your cryptographically signed deed means nothing and can’t evict someone off the land.
      - jeremyjh 4mo ago
        There is little room for a property or money transfer system that leaves no avenue for legal recourse. And the DAO fork made it crystal clear why it was always just window dressing on the same social consensus game.
        pocksuppet 4mo ago
        Sure there is, it's the one for people who are trying to avoid unjust legal recourse.
        jeremyjh 4mo ago
        I said little room, not no room. For most entities using crypto where legal recourse is a more realistic threat model than scammers/hackers it isn't the unjust kind they are so worried about.
        pocksuppet 4mo ago
        If you're selling shoes you have little legal threat. If you're doing anything unusual, you need protection from the government because the government hates anything out of the norm unless you bribe it.
      - inigyou 4mo ago
        The "violence" in that case is taking someone's money away so they might lose their home or starve.
      - cucumber3732842 4mo ago
    - dredmorbius 4mo ago
      NB: Weber's definition of government (which your quote misstates, so to speak, as is often the case), is that the state is that entity which has the monopoly on the legitimate claim to violence. It's legitimacy, not violence, which is key. For the longer explanation, see: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37366751 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37366751>. That said, legitimacy is a political property, and one which cannot be attained through purely technical means. To that extent I agree with your critique.
      - cucumber3732842 4mo ago
        Which itself is kind of a BS indoctrinated definition. Wind the clock back a few hundred years and there was plenty of legitimate non-government violence. The government didn't care if the well to do dueled, the townsfolk brawled in the bar, a serial fraudster got what was coming to them, etc, etc. Sure the government could choose to care and construe it's written rules to that effect if it chose but other than exceptional situations it largely didn't and everyone alive then considered this fine. Wind the clock back further to medieval times and it gets even messier.
        dredmorbius 4mo ago
        My argument isn't that Weber's definition is correct or accurate; that's a whole 'nother discussion. It's that, to the level of a thought-stopping cliche, the definition is misstated with the emphasis on violence rather than legitimacy, which misses the whole point. But Weber's claim is also nuanced: - Non-government violence, if tolerated by the government, is then sanctioned by the government, and hence, government retains its monopoly on legitimacy. Again, the relevant monopoly is legitimacy. Not on who is acting with violence, but who finds that violence legitimate or illegitimate. - Governmental violence, if deemed illegitimate by the population, means that the government no longer has legitimacy itself, and hence by Weber's definition is no longer a government (at least by his terms). - If some other entity holds legitimacy over violence within a given area (say, a neighboring state, a local warlord, Great Power, partisan or resistance movement, corporate or commercial entity such as, say, the British East India Company), then that entity is effectively the government, again, by Weber's definition. As an example, Mohandas Gandhi's ahimsa movement successfully challenged British imperial rule not by claiming violence for itself, but by successfully claiming the principle of nonviolence. The Empire was delegitimated in the process. - And finally, if no one institution can successfully claim legitimacy of violence within a region, then there is no government. The region is effectively stateless. There may well be other constructs, situations may be fluid (changing with time or over space), effective control units may be small (city-states, tribes), etc.., but you can generally find a Weberian projection in such cases. Again, I've raised this point numerous times on HN, largely due to the widespread misrepresentation of Weber. Often, I suspect, by people who have no idea that they're employing a corrupted version of his definition in the first place. I encourage you to look through my earlier discussions to see if your further objections aren't already addressed there: <https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adredmorbius%20weber%20violence&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...>. Prior discussion points to where the misleading restatement seems to have originated, more on the elements of Weber's definition as applied to various situations, Weber's original work, and translation into English which didn't occur until the 1950s, followed shortly by the bastardised variant taking hold. I also strongly recommend British political historian David Runciman's own views on this definition, which I'd first encountered well after forming my own. They're expressed in this episode of his podcast Talking Politics: <https://play.acast.com/s/history-of-ideas/weberonleadership https://play.acast.com/s/history-of-ideas/weberonleadership> (at about 15 minutes).
    - econ 4mo ago
      To state the obvious: If anyone can code his way out of something it is someone who codes. If enough people want something badly enough, when existing governing structures will bow is a question of how many people. You should pretend your code isn't good enough. That way you can own the problem. You will get plenty of help from those making things worse. Empires crumble eventually.
      - dredmorbius 4mo ago
        This and your earlier comment presume that code is a way out. Much of the push-back here is that evidence is strongly suggesting that 1) it is not and 2) code tends in general to be a power-amplifier for those already in power. Put another way: your reform-minded hacker is not the only coder, and the opposition (or more accurately, the establishment) likely has far vaster resources. The problem in your initial proposal comes in the first step: "Create a government from scratch". That is a political process at best; at worst, one predicated on violence (rebellion, insurrection, coercion). Again, the solution is inherently political, not technical. There might be technical elements to such a political process, but those follow from rather than lead to. This represents a significant shift in my own views over the past 20 years or so. In the 1990s I would have tended to agree with you. I no longer do.
        econ 4mo ago
        > This and your earlier comment presume that code is a way out. For you yes. If you were a song writer I would suggest you write something like El Pueblo Unido Jamás Será Vencido in stead of a new shaking my ass song. You do what you know. It's much less of a waste of time if it progresses your skills. A baker in 1683 created the croissant to symbolize eating the ottoman empire. Did he make a relevant contribution? I honestly don't know.
        dredmorbius 4mo ago
        Just to be clear, I agree in part: people should assist as they can. The examples you cite (protest songs, protest food) work as part of the battle for hearts and minds, and can be quite effective. They're working at the political level, within epistemic space, itself a significant element of political dynamics. When epistemic systems change, so do political ones, and we've seen this repeatedly through history. I do have a technical background, I write code. I've also been spending much of the past decade or two coming up to speed on things I'd paid less attention to in my near six decades on this rock: political theory, philosophy, and history. David Runciman, mentioned elsewhere in this thread, has been a significant part of that. There is a code associated with governance, and that is law, along with regulation, constitution, and court practice (which may or may not include case law / common law, depending on the political tradition). Coming up with ways of making law itself clearer and in particular changes to it more apparent (as with revision control) could help in some regards, though my experience from the world of software is that complexity-management constrains complexity, and that the inevitable consequence of more capable complexity management is greater levels of complexity. Beware what you (or others) ask for. I suspect that there are changes necessary at a more fundamental level, though even deciding on what the aims of that change should be is an open question: is liberal democracy a proper goal, or should we be looking at effective governance based on a changing set of conditions, constraints, and capabilities? There are numerous suggestions for electoral reforms (reduced voting age, increased voter restrictions, ranked-choice, and a whole host of others, see: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_reform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_reform>). I'm particularly taken by the notion of sortition and how it might be applied. "If you can't choose wisely, choose randomly" has topped my list of most interesting reads for nearly two decades now: <https://aeon.co/essays/if-you-can-t-choose-wisely-choose-randomly https://aeon.co/essays/if-you-can-t-choose-wisely-choose-ran...>. Other reforms would include finance (personal, business, government, political); economics; technology; social welfare; education; property rights and restrictions; informational autonomy (combining speech, privacy, and choice in numerous manners), etc., etc., etc. I fear you're prematurely optimising based on misconceptions and ignorance. I'm not claiming total knowledge, by a long shot. But I do believe my scope of consideration exceeds yours.
  - incompatible 4mo ago
    There are already N governments, why would making government N+1 improve anything.
    - econ 4mo ago
      Imagine we had a versioned database with all the laws from all countries where one could compare them side by side. We could begin to understand the mood or spirit of each effort. Law makers wouldn't need to pretend they are doing something unique. You might do the same with all infrastructure projects. They can't all be cheap. Half should more expensive than average. It should be fascinating to see where the extra money is going. Some goes towards corruption, some into incompetence but there should also be plenty of praise worthy efforts. It seems we have the tools to do such things now without breaking the bank. Think of the law as a truly outdated code base. Why would you do a rewrite you ask? Because we've learned a thing or two along the way?
      - lambertsimnel 4mo ago
        > Imagine we had a versioned database with all the laws from all countries where one could compare them side by side. We could begin to understand the mood or spirit of each effort. It would be good. There have been some attempts at source code style revision management for statutes (such as https://www.lafabriquedelaloi.fr/ https://www.lafabriquedelaloi.fr/ ). Are they a useful start? What should be the next step?
        az09mugen 4mo ago
        I like the idea, especially the amendments you can visualize almost like a commit tree. They should add something to search like the oldest laws which often are deprecated and useless, in order to help get rid of them. Last but not least, it is to maintain this website, last updates seem to be from 2022. But I can't manage to imagine if it's a lot of work or not.
        econ 4mo ago
        Get more people involved to lower the bus factor and get people to pay for it. Coordinate with different countries? Do what you enjoy or think meaningful.
mentalgear 4mo ago
> Pass laws requiring companies that use third party age or ID verification to take full legal culpability for that data. If any of the data is leaked they must pay each party $1 million dollars regardless of how or why the data was leaked. 300 identities leaked or sold? That will be 300 million dollars not counting criminal penalties. Should this lead to bankruptcy then it is working as intended as they are clearly not qualified to be guardians of this data much less the guardians of your children.
- Bender 4mo ago
  Too much? I suppose the solution would be to not collect the data in the first place and instead use RTA headers and client checks for said header assuming legislators come to their senses and start caring about kids.
  - lmz 4mo ago
    Of course for this to work the client has to check it and know the device's user is underage. Any devices or software that either do not check or lie about the user's age will be illegal. Since you can write software that does so too, unsigned software that does network access will be made impossible.
    - Bender 4mo ago
      That responsibility must move to the parent to ensure young children are using locked down devices that have parental controls and that detect the RTA/adult headers. At that point no third parties are involved and all web platforms must do is add a header to any URL that has the potential for either adult or user contributed content that could become adult and require moderation.
  - sieabahlpark 4mo ago
    [dead]
- bethekidyouwant 4mo ago
  Oh no not my LLC that keeps zero dollars on the books.
big85 4mo ago
<meta name="RATING" content="RTA-5042-1996-1400-1577-RTA" /> I wonder why the rating code is so complex. Pornhub.com has this code enabled, but it also uses a simpler <meta name="rating" content="adult">. 4chan also uses the latter.
- Bender 4mo ago
  I think it should be fairly simple client code to look for either of them.
- omoikane 4mo ago
  I can't find any information on https://rtalabel.org/ https://rtalabel.org/ to explain why that specific string, but I appreciate that the string being unique made it easy to find the official website, compared to something generic like "adult".
- numpad0 4mo ago
  Maybe because it leads people to cease providing non-rated contents, contrary to the intent of regulations. This btw actually happen: "Sesame Scheme: Unintended Consequences of Allergen Food Labeling"( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44074487 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44074487 )
- inigyou 4mo ago
  probably for uniqueness. This code is set by a very specific standard while adult could mean almost anything.
nonethewiser 4mo ago
Porn companies should be held liable for distributing porn to minors. Its already illegal. Denial about requiring basic KYC is causing all sorts of perverse solutions. Accept the requirement so we can have a sensible technical solution.
- zapataband1 4mo ago
  and parents should actually parent their kids. Their kids do not need phones at such a young age and their parents should be in control of their own kid's phone.
- ikrenji 4mo ago
  don't be so naive. if the billionaires want this, it can't be good for you. it really is that simple
  - Vates 4mo ago
    The billionaires don't want it though, that's why most of the big tech CEOs are against it. Perhaps we should listen to Elon Musk though, after all, he "brought free speech back to Twitter." That is, as long as we ignore the adjustments to the algorithm that boost his personal flavour of politics. At least he isn't banning anyone, bots included.
  - crummy 4mo ago
    Billionaires also want vaccines, sometimes do they have our best interests in mind. They can’t extract wealth from the poor masses if we’re sick!
  - Gigachad 4mo ago
    Tech billionaires want you and your kids on their social media platforms so they can manipulate you and serve ads.
  - inigyou 4mo ago
    Sometimes they want to take on a liability because it shields an even bigger liability
zapataband1 4mo ago
Taylor Lorenz has been sounding the alarm. Peter Thiel and all his pets have been pushing the same narrative https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0RRxR4LvK4&t=661s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0RRxR4LvK4&t=661s
- miiiiiike 4mo ago
  I've never really liked Taylor Lorenz's writing, but after following her work in 2025/2026, I have to admit that she is our girl on this one.
keernan 4mo ago
There is no need for id. IMO granting children access to the internet is no different than handing a child a loaded gun with no safety. Both should be treated the same way. Make it illegal for parents or any adult to: - purchase an internet capable device for anyone under the age of 18 (or whatever age is deemed appropriate to allow unfettered access without any ID) - allow anyone under the age of 18 (or ##) to operate a device connected to the internet That removes the government's attempted false flag operations to use "children's access to the internet" as the excuse to obtain the right to monitor every second of your online activity for the rest of your life. And simultaneously likely saves our children's brains. Edit: Hyperbole is an easy accusation. But the concept is straight forward: If the internet is so dangerous as to require everyone to have government issued ID to get online, then change the law preventing smartphones and other internet mobile devices to be possessed by children. That's easy to do. Put the burden on parents where it belongs to monitor their children in their own homes just as they do as gun owners (required to use gun lockers etc). If you are ok with your 10 year old being in his/her room online without you monitoring, then imo that's probably child abuser, but hey, go for it.
- Aurornis 4mo ago
  > IMO granting children access to the internet is no different than handing a child a loaded gun with no safety. The hyperbole is getting a little out of control. > - allow anyone under the age of 18 (or ##) to operate a device connected to the internet I don't understand how anyone can think that keeping kids entirely away from internet-connected devices through age 17 is possible or a good idea. These aren't serious comments or suggestions.
  - lobf 4mo ago
    Not only that but like, if your child touches the screen in your car have you committed a crime? Using a smart fridge is verboten- speaking to the house's Alexa? Straight to jail.
    - Bender 4mo ago
      If a web client (fridge, infotainment system, alexa, etc...) can access the internet then it must be updated to look for RTA/adult headers and prompt for an admin password for parental controls to approve access to the site.
teddyh 4mo ago
20 years before that, there was “The Digital Imprimatur”: <https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/ https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/>
- nezuzen 4mo ago
  ahhh fourmilab. I still run John's earth screensaver.
edoceo 4mo ago
There has got to be a way to assert that a user is human, and over some age, without having to identify which specific human that is.
- Bender 4mo ago
  Confirmation someone is human is harder. Over some age could be accomplished with time should most of the devices and browsers children have access to were to check for RTA/adult headers and activate parental controls. It would not be solved over night thus not perfect but perfect is the enemy of good. At the moment what we have is no good in my opinion. What we have at the moment will put the identification information of both children and adults at risk. Children can not even consent to sharing this data thus the only people that could protect them are their parents.
- vegetablepotpie 4mo ago
  There were proposals to do this, using encrypted containers of data that would let users authorize apps to use just the data they needed, but the idea got tied to Web3, which got some intense public blowback between the Crypto and NFT hype cycles. https://www.w3.org/2023/Talks/0727-wearedevelopers-tbl/solid-for-devs.html#(11) https://www.w3.org/2023/Talks/0727-wearedevelopers-tbl/solid... Now we’re onto AI, so we have suboptimal age verification, with implementations in law written by politicians
- nodrog3000 4mo ago
  This is an impossible task. If a certain business wants to make human id required, let them. It should not be enforced by government. You have full control over your router and kid's devices so start there. Not anyone else's responsibility.
  - Gigachad 4mo ago
    Parents are the main ones begging for this change. They are losing the war against Zuckerberg
    - 4mo ago
nodrog3000 4mo ago
Simple solution, Use your router to block whatever you need to, control your kids devices, the internet stays free and open. What are we talking about? There are no laws that will turn out well.
- petermcneeley 4mo ago
  You know what we are talking about. It was written in the book.
- singingtoday 4mo ago
  The entire point is to gain control over internet traffic. Your suggestion doesn't work because it requires people to implement it themselves and since you can't control all people, you can't control how they're going to implement it. The title "for the children" is tongue-in-cheek. It's not serious.
  - firecall 4mo ago
    > The entire point is to gain control over internet traffic. I see many arguments claiming it's about mass surveillance and an invasion of privacy and so on. We already have mass surveillance, so I don't really buy into those arguments. I think it's worth considering that it is actually about control. Or more precisely, that it's about dissuading citizens from using social media in the first place. The damage done to our western democracies from misinformation spread via social media has not gone unnoticed...
    - ETH_start 4mo ago
      Censoring the internet is about as anti-democratic a policy that can be implemented. I remember reading someone argue that anytime you see a claim that we need to do something to protect democracy just replace the word democracy with bureaucracy and then the statement makes sense.
  - weddpros 4mo ago
    It amazes me how compartmented the mind of the West is: the "protector of Democracy" is barely conscient of its own lies... There is no democracy, barely an illusion of one.
m12k 4mo ago
I feel genuinely conflicted: On the one hand I get the "authoritarian overreach heebie-jeebies", that I think a lot of people on HN probably share. On the other hand I'd also really like the West to harden its election processes from election interference by its adversaries (e.g. Russia) - and shoring up dysinfo on e.g. Facebook by requiring users to prove their identity with a government ID is one of the only ways to truly effectively combat this at its source (fact-checking just can't keep up with a firehose of dysinformation). Ideally I'd want "real id requirements" to be limited " partake in public discourse" (mainly Facebook and Twitter). But the slippery slop argument just feels pretty strong here too - once a mechanism like this is in place, its use will only ever expand, and it's much easier for a new government to commit overreach if it's already there and just needs expanding. And of course all this "think of the children" nonsense needs to stop.
- Bender 4mo ago
  Elections are easier to solve technically. No mail in ballots. Require state ID in person at the voting center. But that's a different topic that can get divisive, long and derailed very quickly.
  - post-it 4mo ago
    Only if you're fine with disenfranchising voters. In which case, securing elections is the easiest thing in the world: I vote and nobody else does. It's securing elections while not disenfranchising voters that's the hard part.
    - Bender 4mo ago
      We should make a new thread for voting challenges.
    - bluefirebrand 4mo ago
      > Only if you're fine with disenfranchising voters I don't love disenfranchising voters but I think it's probably better than allowing elections to be vulnerable to foreign tampering, don't you think?
asdff 4mo ago
What is the final defense? I suppose we create underground relay networks of radio networks within cities that allow for computers to connect directly to eachother, and from there we seed all our pirated content and discuss whatever the hell we'd like. Maybe we'd have to contend with low bandwidth when we connect outside our own city network, using larger wavelength radio to bounce off the ionosphere across the planet. As for the FCC, I don't really care. I will set up nodes on top of abandoned buildings. I will set up nodes in front of the local FCC field office. I will set up nodes in the middle of the forest. I will set up nodes on buoys out at sea. They may capture me or worse, so be it. I will not be around forever anyhow. I pray there are still actual hackers out there on hacker news who might consider this idea and help further the technical side. This is a little out of my wheelhouse. I just can't accept this inevitable incoming future where all our communications will be IDed and censored. That is the end game for them. We can't allow for that to happen. This might be the biggest battle yet, bigger than all the other wars where power used us like pawns against the pawns of some other power, because for once in the history of civilization, we'd be fighting for our own right and not some elite group's right. I hope I am not alone in this line of thinking.
- raincole 4mo ago
  The final defense is always to change the government (one way or another). When we need to resort to technical mean we have lost.
  - smalltorch 4mo ago
    True, I always wonder how that would actually play out. The geeks would likely be the elite class force to tumble it if it ever became necassary I reckon. >That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
  - andunie 4mo ago
    The opposite is true.
Svoka 4mo ago
In the world where people with authority lie casually and bots are cheaper and smarter than people, anonymity does not grant freedom or empower democracy anymore. West is hopelessly outgunned to modern polit&propaganda technologies of russia and China, still citing 1984 like this is 20th century.
hakfoo 4mo ago
We lost this war when we got bamboozled into putting the V-Chip into televisions. The obvious tradeoff was that we should have been able to have all forms of offensive and pornographic choices on the public airwaves, because we've given those who are concerned the tools to explicitly block it. (not that "unplugging the set when the parents weren't around" wasn't a viable tool already). We never got that. I do wonder how much of it is directly that the "won't someone think of the children" demographic is politically loud and courtable in and of itself, and how much of it has been fostered by firms that see it as a conduit for more nefarious aims (i. e. commercial social providers who want desperately for a legal CYA so they don't have to do the dance of COPPA compliance and have an incentive in the verified demographic details age attestation provides)
Buttons840 4mo ago
I fully expect anonymity to disappear, but also certain causes will still be supported by massive amounts of bot accounts.
ian_holt 4mo ago
we are having similar issues here in Australia with the government very quickly trying to become the overall "Lord of our Lives". Digital Id, banning kids from whatever/whenever the government dreams up another idea "to keep them (and us) safe". Nope, that is the job of the parents. Digital currency is another "awesome" idea, as far as they are concerned. Because, you see, we should not travel too far or eat too much meat, etc. And the "good old" Agenda 2030, where it sounds so wonderful, where "you will own nothing and be happy". Of course that won't include the elites - they will be very happy and own everything
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
lacoolj 4mo ago
Think of the children. Cuz its been 30 years and we finally think its time ... and this is what fixes it! Cool. Thanks for the memories, internet.
winrid 4mo ago
Friendly reminder this is lobbied into existence by advertising companies since the advent of AI they aren't sure what is real traffic anymore, tying all traffic to a government ID solves that.
ralferoo 4mo ago
Looking at that page, it cites the rating string "RTA-5042-1996-1400-1577-RTA" with no indication what those numbers mean or why the RTA is repeated. Googling that string, it just seems to be some random fixed token. Why have we got this nonsense? Also, why is this restricted to only marking up adult sites? There should be an equivalent for marking sites that are specifically designed for children (e.g. educational material) and specifically tested as designed for adults but safe for children (e.g. news). Without the safe opt-in, this scheme can never work, as the majority of the sites will be considered safe for children when they are not, and nobody will be able to trust it. Better to have an opt-in safe marker, and some enforcement against websites that mark their content as child-safe when it's not. An example of why you need to force people to opt-in is e.g. HTTPS, which was available for years but only really taken up by banking websites etc. It was only adopted by everybody when it was enforced by the browser. Until website owners are forced to take an action to explicitly mark their content as safe or adult, it simply won't happen at scale.
Trialog 4mo ago
[dead]

262 points by Bender 4mo ago

To add to the list: KYC/AML-like regulations and practices (not necessarily financial) that shift the responsibility down the chain, outside the accountability zone, and result in preventive overly broad risk avoidance, self-censorship, and manipulation of your Overton window. See for example DMCA vs YouTube practices vs what actual channels choose to do to dodge both. Or algospeak. Or the PayPal situation which is mentioned in the article. But it's all talk. Political pressure is like gas pressure. Gas expands to fill the available volume. What do you actually do to push back, besides talking about it on the web? This defines the available volume, if you don't do anything it's infinite.

econ 4mo ago
Create a government from scratch. Version control the laws. Compare the laws with all other countries. Hoard data. Write code to replace government employees and to make laws easy to implement. (If done well consider selling a product or service) Make everything modular so that the establishment can steal it. Get people involved. Doesn't matter if you need to write a sim and convince them it is a game. Pretend the whole exercise is writing code so that you can imagine you are perfect for the job. I learn that people from all political angles like the idea of voluntary taxes (but no one believes it can work) If the whole thing can run on donations and volunteers with a few "state" owned companies a hot swap becomes inevitable.
- post-it 4mo ago
  I'm not sure you can code your way into having a monopoly on violence.
  - Gigachad 4mo ago
    That was the obvious issue with all the blockchain smart contract stuff that was getting pushed previously. Any time it interacts with the physical world the blockchain goes out the window the moment on someone on the ground decides they don’t agree with it. Your cryptographically signed deed means nothing and can’t evict someone off the land.
    - jeremyjh 4mo ago
      There is little room for a property or money transfer system that leaves no avenue for legal recourse. And the DAO fork made it crystal clear why it was always just window dressing on the same social consensus game.
      - pocksuppet 4mo ago
        Sure there is, it's the one for people who are trying to avoid unjust legal recourse.
        jeremyjh 4mo ago
        I said little room, not no room. For most entities using crypto where legal recourse is a more realistic threat model than scammers/hackers it isn't the unjust kind they are so worried about.
        pocksuppet 4mo ago
        If you're selling shoes you have little legal threat. If you're doing anything unusual, you need protection from the government because the government hates anything out of the norm unless you bribe it.
    - inigyou 4mo ago
      The "violence" in that case is taking someone's money away so they might lose their home or starve.
    - cucumber3732842 4mo ago
  - dredmorbius 4mo ago
    NB: Weber's definition of government (which your quote misstates, so to speak, as is often the case), is that the state is that entity which has the monopoly on the legitimate claim to violence. It's legitimacy, not violence, which is key. For the longer explanation, see: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37366751 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37366751>. That said, legitimacy is a political property, and one which cannot be attained through purely technical means. To that extent I agree with your critique.
    - cucumber3732842 4mo ago
      Which itself is kind of a BS indoctrinated definition. Wind the clock back a few hundred years and there was plenty of legitimate non-government violence. The government didn't care if the well to do dueled, the townsfolk brawled in the bar, a serial fraudster got what was coming to them, etc, etc. Sure the government could choose to care and construe it's written rules to that effect if it chose but other than exceptional situations it largely didn't and everyone alive then considered this fine. Wind the clock back further to medieval times and it gets even messier.
      - dredmorbius 4mo ago
        My argument isn't that Weber's definition is correct or accurate; that's a whole 'nother discussion. It's that, to the level of a thought-stopping cliche, the definition is misstated with the emphasis on violence rather than legitimacy, which misses the whole point. But Weber's claim is also nuanced: - Non-government violence, if tolerated by the government, is then sanctioned by the government, and hence, government retains its monopoly on legitimacy. Again, the relevant monopoly is legitimacy. Not on who is acting with violence, but who finds that violence legitimate or illegitimate. - Governmental violence, if deemed illegitimate by the population, means that the government no longer has legitimacy itself, and hence by Weber's definition is no longer a government (at least by his terms). - If some other entity holds legitimacy over violence within a given area (say, a neighboring state, a local warlord, Great Power, partisan or resistance movement, corporate or commercial entity such as, say, the British East India Company), then that entity is effectively the government, again, by Weber's definition. As an example, Mohandas Gandhi's ahimsa movement successfully challenged British imperial rule not by claiming violence for itself, but by successfully claiming the principle of nonviolence. The Empire was delegitimated in the process. - And finally, if no one institution can successfully claim legitimacy of violence within a region, then there is no government. The region is effectively stateless. There may well be other constructs, situations may be fluid (changing with time or over space), effective control units may be small (city-states, tribes), etc.., but you can generally find a Weberian projection in such cases. Again, I've raised this point numerous times on HN, largely due to the widespread misrepresentation of Weber. Often, I suspect, by people who have no idea that they're employing a corrupted version of his definition in the first place. I encourage you to look through my earlier discussions to see if your further objections aren't already addressed there: <https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adredmorbius%20weber%20violence&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...>. Prior discussion points to where the misleading restatement seems to have originated, more on the elements of Weber's definition as applied to various situations, Weber's original work, and translation into English which didn't occur until the 1950s, followed shortly by the bastardised variant taking hold. I also strongly recommend British political historian David Runciman's own views on this definition, which I'd first encountered well after forming my own. They're expressed in this episode of his podcast Talking Politics: <https://play.acast.com/s/history-of-ideas/weberonleadership https://play.acast.com/s/history-of-ideas/weberonleadership> (at about 15 minutes).
  - econ 4mo ago
    To state the obvious: If anyone can code his way out of something it is someone who codes. If enough people want something badly enough, when existing governing structures will bow is a question of how many people. You should pretend your code isn't good enough. That way you can own the problem. You will get plenty of help from those making things worse. Empires crumble eventually.
    - dredmorbius 4mo ago
      This and your earlier comment presume that code is a way out. Much of the push-back here is that evidence is strongly suggesting that 1) it is not and 2) code tends in general to be a power-amplifier for those already in power. Put another way: your reform-minded hacker is not the only coder, and the opposition (or more accurately, the establishment) likely has far vaster resources. The problem in your initial proposal comes in the first step: "Create a government from scratch". That is a political process at best; at worst, one predicated on violence (rebellion, insurrection, coercion). Again, the solution is inherently political, not technical. There might be technical elements to such a political process, but those follow from rather than lead to. This represents a significant shift in my own views over the past 20 years or so. In the 1990s I would have tended to agree with you. I no longer do.
      - econ 4mo ago
        > This and your earlier comment presume that code is a way out. For you yes. If you were a song writer I would suggest you write something like El Pueblo Unido Jamás Será Vencido in stead of a new shaking my ass song. You do what you know. It's much less of a waste of time if it progresses your skills. A baker in 1683 created the croissant to symbolize eating the ottoman empire. Did he make a relevant contribution? I honestly don't know.
        dredmorbius 4mo ago
        Just to be clear, I agree in part: people should assist as they can. The examples you cite (protest songs, protest food) work as part of the battle for hearts and minds, and can be quite effective. They're working at the political level, within epistemic space, itself a significant element of political dynamics. When epistemic systems change, so do political ones, and we've seen this repeatedly through history. I do have a technical background, I write code. I've also been spending much of the past decade or two coming up to speed on things I'd paid less attention to in my near six decades on this rock: political theory, philosophy, and history. David Runciman, mentioned elsewhere in this thread, has been a significant part of that. There is a code associated with governance, and that is law, along with regulation, constitution, and court practice (which may or may not include case law / common law, depending on the political tradition). Coming up with ways of making law itself clearer and in particular changes to it more apparent (as with revision control) could help in some regards, though my experience from the world of software is that complexity-management constrains complexity, and that the inevitable consequence of more capable complexity management is greater levels of complexity. Beware what you (or others) ask for. I suspect that there are changes necessary at a more fundamental level, though even deciding on what the aims of that change should be is an open question: is liberal democracy a proper goal, or should we be looking at effective governance based on a changing set of conditions, constraints, and capabilities? There are numerous suggestions for electoral reforms (reduced voting age, increased voter restrictions, ranked-choice, and a whole host of others, see: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_reform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_reform>). I'm particularly taken by the notion of sortition and how it might be applied. "If you can't choose wisely, choose randomly" has topped my list of most interesting reads for nearly two decades now: <https://aeon.co/essays/if-you-can-t-choose-wisely-choose-randomly https://aeon.co/essays/if-you-can-t-choose-wisely-choose-ran...>. Other reforms would include finance (personal, business, government, political); economics; technology; social welfare; education; property rights and restrictions; informational autonomy (combining speech, privacy, and choice in numerous manners), etc., etc., etc. I fear you're prematurely optimising based on misconceptions and ignorance. I'm not claiming total knowledge, by a long shot. But I do believe my scope of consideration exceeds yours.
- incompatible 4mo ago
  There are already N governments, why would making government N+1 improve anything.
  - econ 4mo ago
    Imagine we had a versioned database with all the laws from all countries where one could compare them side by side. We could begin to understand the mood or spirit of each effort. Law makers wouldn't need to pretend they are doing something unique. You might do the same with all infrastructure projects. They can't all be cheap. Half should more expensive than average. It should be fascinating to see where the extra money is going. Some goes towards corruption, some into incompetence but there should also be plenty of praise worthy efforts. It seems we have the tools to do such things now without breaking the bank. Think of the law as a truly outdated code base. Why would you do a rewrite you ask? Because we've learned a thing or two along the way?
    - lambertsimnel 4mo ago
      > Imagine we had a versioned database with all the laws from all countries where one could compare them side by side. We could begin to understand the mood or spirit of each effort. It would be good. There have been some attempts at source code style revision management for statutes (such as https://www.lafabriquedelaloi.fr/ https://www.lafabriquedelaloi.fr/ ). Are they a useful start? What should be the next step?
      - az09mugen 4mo ago
        I like the idea, especially the amendments you can visualize almost like a commit tree. They should add something to search like the oldest laws which often are deprecated and useless, in order to help get rid of them. Last but not least, it is to maintain this website, last updates seem to be from 2022. But I can't manage to imagine if it's a lot of work or not.
      - econ 4mo ago
        Get more people involved to lower the bus factor and get people to pay for it. Coordinate with different countries? Do what you enjoy or think meaningful.

mentalgear 4mo ago

> Pass laws requiring companies that use third party age or ID verification to take full legal culpability for that data. If any of the data is leaked they must pay each party $1 million dollars regardless of how or why the data was leaked. 300 identities leaked or sold? That will be 300 million dollars not counting criminal penalties. Should this lead to bankruptcy then it is working as intended as they are clearly not qualified to be guardians of this data much less the guardians of your children.

Bender 4mo ago
Too much? I suppose the solution would be to not collect the data in the first place and instead use RTA headers and client checks for said header assuming legislators come to their senses and start caring about kids.
- lmz 4mo ago
  Of course for this to work the client has to check it and know the device's user is underage. Any devices or software that either do not check or lie about the user's age will be illegal. Since you can write software that does so too, unsigned software that does network access will be made impossible.
  - Bender 4mo ago
    That responsibility must move to the parent to ensure young children are using locked down devices that have parental controls and that detect the RTA/adult headers. At that point no third parties are involved and all web platforms must do is add a header to any URL that has the potential for either adult or user contributed content that could become adult and require moderation.
- sieabahlpark 4mo ago
  [dead]
bethekidyouwant 4mo ago
Oh no not my LLC that keeps zero dollars on the books.

big85 4mo ago

Bender 4mo ago
I think it should be fairly simple client code to look for either of them.
omoikane 4mo ago
I can't find any information on https://rtalabel.org/ https://rtalabel.org/ to explain why that specific string, but I appreciate that the string being unique made it easy to find the official website, compared to something generic like "adult".
numpad0 4mo ago
Maybe because it leads people to cease providing non-rated contents, contrary to the intent of regulations. This btw actually happen: "Sesame Scheme: Unintended Consequences of Allergen Food Labeling"( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44074487 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44074487 )
inigyou 4mo ago
probably for uniqueness. This code is set by a very specific standard while adult could mean almost anything.

nonethewiser 4mo ago

Porn companies should be held liable for distributing porn to minors. Its already illegal. Denial about requiring basic KYC is causing all sorts of perverse solutions. Accept the requirement so we can have a sensible technical solution.

zapataband1 4mo ago
and parents should actually parent their kids. Their kids do not need phones at such a young age and their parents should be in control of their own kid's phone.
ikrenji 4mo ago
don't be so naive. if the billionaires want this, it can't be good for you. it really is that simple
- Vates 4mo ago
  The billionaires don't want it though, that's why most of the big tech CEOs are against it. Perhaps we should listen to Elon Musk though, after all, he "brought free speech back to Twitter." That is, as long as we ignore the adjustments to the algorithm that boost his personal flavour of politics. At least he isn't banning anyone, bots included.
- crummy 4mo ago
  Billionaires also want vaccines, sometimes do they have our best interests in mind. They can’t extract wealth from the poor masses if we’re sick!
- Gigachad 4mo ago
  Tech billionaires want you and your kids on their social media platforms so they can manipulate you and serve ads.
- inigyou 4mo ago
  Sometimes they want to take on a liability because it shields an even bigger liability

zapataband1 4mo ago

Taylor Lorenz has been sounding the alarm. Peter Thiel and all his pets have been pushing the same narrative https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0RRxR4LvK4&t=661s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0RRxR4LvK4&t=661s

miiiiiike 4mo ago
I've never really liked Taylor Lorenz's writing, but after following her work in 2025/2026, I have to admit that she is our girl on this one.

keernan 4mo ago

There is no need for id. IMO granting children access to the internet is no different than handing a child a loaded gun with no safety. Both should be treated the same way. Make it illegal for parents or any adult to: - purchase an internet capable device for anyone under the age of 18 (or whatever age is deemed appropriate to allow unfettered access without any ID) - allow anyone under the age of 18 (or ##) to operate a device connected to the internet That removes the government's attempted false flag operations to use "children's access to the internet" as the excuse to obtain the right to monitor every second of your online activity for the rest of your life. And simultaneously likely saves our children's brains. Edit: Hyperbole is an easy accusation. But the concept is straight forward: If the internet is so dangerous as to require everyone to have government issued ID to get online, then change the law preventing smartphones and other internet mobile devices to be possessed by children. That's easy to do. Put the burden on parents where it belongs to monitor their children in their own homes just as they do as gun owners (required to use gun lockers etc). If you are ok with your 10 year old being in his/her room online without you monitoring, then imo that's probably child abuser, but hey, go for it.

Aurornis 4mo ago
> IMO granting children access to the internet is no different than handing a child a loaded gun with no safety. The hyperbole is getting a little out of control. > - allow anyone under the age of 18 (or ##) to operate a device connected to the internet I don't understand how anyone can think that keeping kids entirely away from internet-connected devices through age 17 is possible or a good idea. These aren't serious comments or suggestions.
- lobf 4mo ago
  Not only that but like, if your child touches the screen in your car have you committed a crime? Using a smart fridge is verboten- speaking to the house's Alexa? Straight to jail.
  - Bender 4mo ago
    If a web client (fridge, infotainment system, alexa, etc...) can access the internet then it must be updated to look for RTA/adult headers and prompt for an admin password for parental controls to approve access to the site.

teddyh 4mo ago

20 years before that, there was “The Digital Imprimatur”: <https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/ https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/>

nezuzen 4mo ago
ahhh fourmilab. I still run John's earth screensaver.

edoceo 4mo ago

There has got to be a way to assert that a user is human, and over some age, without having to identify which specific human that is.

Bender 4mo ago
Confirmation someone is human is harder. Over some age could be accomplished with time should most of the devices and browsers children have access to were to check for RTA/adult headers and activate parental controls. It would not be solved over night thus not perfect but perfect is the enemy of good. At the moment what we have is no good in my opinion. What we have at the moment will put the identification information of both children and adults at risk. Children can not even consent to sharing this data thus the only people that could protect them are their parents.
vegetablepotpie 4mo ago
There were proposals to do this, using encrypted containers of data that would let users authorize apps to use just the data they needed, but the idea got tied to Web3, which got some intense public blowback between the Crypto and NFT hype cycles. https://www.w3.org/2023/Talks/0727-wearedevelopers-tbl/solid-for-devs.html#(11) https://www.w3.org/2023/Talks/0727-wearedevelopers-tbl/solid... Now we’re onto AI, so we have suboptimal age verification, with implementations in law written by politicians
nodrog3000 4mo ago
This is an impossible task. If a certain business wants to make human id required, let them. It should not be enforced by government. You have full control over your router and kid's devices so start there. Not anyone else's responsibility.
- Gigachad 4mo ago
  Parents are the main ones begging for this change. They are losing the war against Zuckerberg
  - 4mo ago

nodrog3000 4mo ago

Simple solution, Use your router to block whatever you need to, control your kids devices, the internet stays free and open. What are we talking about? There are no laws that will turn out well.

petermcneeley 4mo ago
You know what we are talking about. It was written in the book.
singingtoday 4mo ago
The entire point is to gain control over internet traffic. Your suggestion doesn't work because it requires people to implement it themselves and since you can't control all people, you can't control how they're going to implement it. The title "for the children" is tongue-in-cheek. It's not serious.
- firecall 4mo ago
  > The entire point is to gain control over internet traffic. I see many arguments claiming it's about mass surveillance and an invasion of privacy and so on. We already have mass surveillance, so I don't really buy into those arguments. I think it's worth considering that it is actually about control. Or more precisely, that it's about dissuading citizens from using social media in the first place. The damage done to our western democracies from misinformation spread via social media has not gone unnoticed...
  - ETH_start 4mo ago
    Censoring the internet is about as anti-democratic a policy that can be implemented. I remember reading someone argue that anytime you see a claim that we need to do something to protect democracy just replace the word democracy with bureaucracy and then the statement makes sense.
- weddpros 4mo ago
  It amazes me how compartmented the mind of the West is: the "protector of Democracy" is barely conscient of its own lies... There is no democracy, barely an illusion of one.

m12k 4mo ago

I feel genuinely conflicted: On the one hand I get the "authoritarian overreach heebie-jeebies", that I think a lot of people on HN probably share. On the other hand I'd also really like the West to harden its election processes from election interference by its adversaries (e.g. Russia) - and shoring up dysinfo on e.g. Facebook by requiring users to prove their identity with a government ID is one of the only ways to truly effectively combat this at its source (fact-checking just can't keep up with a firehose of dysinformation). Ideally I'd want "real id requirements" to be limited " partake in public discourse" (mainly Facebook and Twitter). But the slippery slop argument just feels pretty strong here too - once a mechanism like this is in place, its use will only ever expand, and it's much easier for a new government to commit overreach if it's already there and just needs expanding. And of course all this "think of the children" nonsense needs to stop.

Bender 4mo ago
Elections are easier to solve technically. No mail in ballots. Require state ID in person at the voting center. But that's a different topic that can get divisive, long and derailed very quickly.
- post-it 4mo ago
  Only if you're fine with disenfranchising voters. In which case, securing elections is the easiest thing in the world: I vote and nobody else does. It's securing elections while not disenfranchising voters that's the hard part.
  - Bender 4mo ago
    We should make a new thread for voting challenges.
  - bluefirebrand 4mo ago
    > Only if you're fine with disenfranchising voters I don't love disenfranchising voters but I think it's probably better than allowing elections to be vulnerable to foreign tampering, don't you think?

asdff 4mo ago

What is the final defense? I suppose we create underground relay networks of radio networks within cities that allow for computers to connect directly to eachother, and from there we seed all our pirated content and discuss whatever the hell we'd like. Maybe we'd have to contend with low bandwidth when we connect outside our own city network, using larger wavelength radio to bounce off the ionosphere across the planet. As for the FCC, I don't really care. I will set up nodes on top of abandoned buildings. I will set up nodes in front of the local FCC field office. I will set up nodes in the middle of the forest. I will set up nodes on buoys out at sea. They may capture me or worse, so be it. I will not be around forever anyhow. I pray there are still actual hackers out there on hacker news who might consider this idea and help further the technical side. This is a little out of my wheelhouse. I just can't accept this inevitable incoming future where all our communications will be IDed and censored. That is the end game for them. We can't allow for that to happen. This might be the biggest battle yet, bigger than all the other wars where power used us like pawns against the pawns of some other power, because for once in the history of civilization, we'd be fighting for our own right and not some elite group's right. I hope I am not alone in this line of thinking.

raincole 4mo ago
The final defense is always to change the government (one way or another). When we need to resort to technical mean we have lost.
- smalltorch 4mo ago
  True, I always wonder how that would actually play out. The geeks would likely be the elite class force to tumble it if it ever became necassary I reckon. >That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
- andunie 4mo ago
  The opposite is true.

Svoka 4mo ago

In the world where people with authority lie casually and bots are cheaper and smarter than people, anonymity does not grant freedom or empower democracy anymore. West is hopelessly outgunned to modern polit&propaganda technologies of russia and China, still citing 1984 like this is 20th century.

hakfoo 4mo ago

We lost this war when we got bamboozled into putting the V-Chip into televisions. The obvious tradeoff was that we should have been able to have all forms of offensive and pornographic choices on the public airwaves, because we've given those who are concerned the tools to explicitly block it. (not that "unplugging the set when the parents weren't around" wasn't a viable tool already). We never got that. I do wonder how much of it is directly that the "won't someone think of the children" demographic is politically loud and courtable in and of itself, and how much of it has been fostered by firms that see it as a conduit for more nefarious aims (i. e. commercial social providers who want desperately for a legal CYA so they don't have to do the dance of COPPA compliance and have an incentive in the verified demographic details age attestation provides)

Buttons840 4mo ago

I fully expect anonymity to disappear, but also certain causes will still be supported by massive amounts of bot accounts.

ian_holt 4mo ago

we are having similar issues here in Australia with the government very quickly trying to become the overall "Lord of our Lives". Digital Id, banning kids from whatever/whenever the government dreams up another idea "to keep them (and us) safe". Nope, that is the job of the parents. Digital currency is another "awesome" idea, as far as they are concerned. Because, you see, we should not travel too far or eat too much meat, etc. And the "good old" Agenda 2030, where it sounds so wonderful, where "you will own nothing and be happy". Of course that won't include the elites - they will be very happy and own everything

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

lacoolj 4mo ago

Think of the children. Cuz its been 30 years and we finally think its time ... and this is what fixes it! Cool. Thanks for the memories, internet.

winrid 4mo ago

Friendly reminder this is lobbied into existence by advertising companies since the advent of AI they aren't sure what is real traffic anymore, tying all traffic to a government ID solves that.

ralferoo 4mo ago

Looking at that page, it cites the rating string "RTA-5042-1996-1400-1577-RTA" with no indication what those numbers mean or why the RTA is repeated. Googling that string, it just seems to be some random fixed token. Why have we got this nonsense? Also, why is this restricted to only marking up adult sites? There should be an equivalent for marking sites that are specifically designed for children (e.g. educational material) and specifically tested as designed for adults but safe for children (e.g. news). Without the safe opt-in, this scheme can never work, as the majority of the sites will be considered safe for children when they are not, and nobody will be able to trust it. Better to have an opt-in safe marker, and some enforcement against websites that mark their content as child-safe when it's not. An example of why you need to force people to opt-in is e.g. HTTPS, which was available for years but only really taken up by banking websites etc. It was only adopted by everybody when it was enforced by the browser. Until website owners are forced to take an action to explicitly mark their content as safe or adult, it simply won't happen at scale.

Trialog 4mo ago

[dead]