4 ms·

Still, I don't want to gate people based on age. Parents should at least be able to overwrite the age of their child, maybe selectively allow bypasses. My expe

by dadoum 3mo ago

Still, I don't want to gate people based on age. Parents should at least be able to overwrite the age of their child, maybe selectively allow bypasses. My experience with a computer would have been completely different if I was blocked from half of the internet. Especially when I see which kind of content gets blocked.

doginasuit 3mo ago
As a millennial-aged person I saw a fair amount of content I would not want the young people in my life to see, but it's probably not nearly as harmful as the non-age gated content that they will still have access to. There is a lot creepy youtube and tiktok content that isn't off limits but still unhealthy and my younger relatives are fascinated by it.
- kentm 3mo ago
  Not that I want my kids looking at porn or violent content, but I’m far more concerned about man-o-sphere influencers than that other stuff.
  - pphysch 3mo ago
    Manosphere content is toxic and harmful but the hyperviolence and desensitisation of the former should not be downplayed. That's where the mass shooters evidently come from.
    - nearlyepic 3mo ago
      > That's where the mass shooters evidently come from. I mean, quite a few have come from proto-manosphere circles, too. Elliot Rodger comes to mind.
      - scotty79 3mo ago
        Given how large it is, I don't think it's a high stat. Especially compared with other subcultures. And we don't blame feminism for every instance where a man is killed by a man hating woman.
        tsimionescu 3mo ago
        > And we don't blame feminism for every instance where a man is killed by a man hating woman. The fact that this is basically unheard of, while incels shooting up schools is somewhat common, may explain why blame is often thrown at one movement and not the other.
        scotty79 3mo ago
        [flagged]
        tsimionescu 3mo ago
        So can you give an example of a crazed man-hating feminist woman engaging in a mass shooting? Or just of a woman engaging in a mass shooting (alone, not with a man) in the last, say, 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? Because I can definitely give you examples of incels doing this. Not a huge amount, mind you, but at least some.
        acdha 3mo ago
        The asymmetry is striking: when feminists talk about incels, it’s about how to improve their lives and help them out of the cognitive trap they’ve fallen or been lured into. I’ve never seen the equivalent of the pervasive casual, often gleeful, calls for violence and degradation which characterize the “manosphere”.
        scotty79 3mo ago
        I think men hating women don't usually do mass killings. They mostly kill specific men they hate the most.
      - pphysch 3mo ago
        I wouldn't equate incel with manosphere. Manosphere is often hypersexual and about greed/consumption and being insecure and getting scammed, whereas inceldom is more hate-based.
    - Balinares 3mo ago
      A hundred thousand furries consuming unfathomable amounts of porn without shooting up anyone kind of cast doubt about that point.
      - sciencejerk 3mo ago
        Who is talking about furries? But Tyler James Robinson and Benjamin Jeffrey Smith. I guess that's only 2/100k to your point?
      - vharish 3mo ago
        And 99 out of hundred get tired of porn at some point. We all have watched it and moved on. If only one can shoot and move on.
    - Zababa 3mo ago
      >That's where the mass shooters evidently come from. Citation needed?
    - mschuster91 3mo ago
      > That's where the mass shooters evidently come from. Bollocks. European teenagers watch just as much porn and play GTA at age 10 and yet we don't end up having 12 children a day die from gun violence [1]. Note, I'm not an anti-gun nut, I think German and British anti-gun laws are ridiculously strict. But the American way of dealing with guns is equally bad. [1] https://www.sandyhookpromise.org/resources/gun-violence-facts/ https://www.sandyhookpromise.org/resources/gun-violence-fact...
      - technothrasher 3mo ago
        > we don't end up having 12 children a day die from gun violence Note that this definition of "children" includes ages up 24 years old. Not that the US doesn't have a gun violence problem, but pretending 24 year olds are "children" in order to gain a better sound bite doesn't help anybody.
        imtringued 3mo ago
        If you look at the actual statistics there are 1300 annual homicides killing children which amounts to 3.5 children + teenagers a day. Then there are gun suicides which I would not count as gun violence, amounting to another 3.5 children + teenagers a day.
  - sciencejerk 3mo ago
    I had to Google "man-o-sphere". Is it particularly more dangerous or toxic than other identity-based activist communities? Genuinely curious to know
    - grey-area 3mo ago
      Yes, a lot of it involves denigrating women and an entitled and very rigid attitude towards the male place in society (alphas etc). This is incredibly toxic for young men growing up and the women they interact with. Some of the more prominent proponents are actual pimps (the Tate brothers).
      - elcritch 3mo ago
        How is that different than pervasive pornography though? Many young boys now think it’s normal to ask girls for sexual acts before having ever kissed a girl.
        khalic 3mo ago
        Seems like they could use some sex ed courses
        squidbeak 3mo ago
        > Many young boys now think it’s normal to ask girls for sexual acts before having ever kissed a girl. This is a common media talking point, but are there any hard figures for this 'many'? The type you're describing existed when I was young, long before the internet. My impression of boys and young men today is that they are generally just as decent, cautious, respectful and idealistic as they ever were - but that a small crude and unpleasant minority taints the reputation of the whole generation.
        elcritch 3mo ago
        I don't think it's a "reputation" issue, more of a what they're being exposed to and what it's normalizing. From studies I've seen it's a significant percentage (from a random Google search [1]): The review talked to young people aged 13 to 19 and surveyed 1,000 young people aged 16 to 21. Over 6 in 10 (64%) said they had seen online pornography. Of these: 1 in 10 (10%) of nine-year-olds had seen pornography 3 in 10 (27%) of children had seen pornography by age 11 Half (50%) of children had seen it by age 13 4 in 5 (79%) had seen violent pornography before the age of 18, with the report stating “young people are frequently exposed to violent pornography, depicting coercive, degrading or pain-inducing sex acts”. 1: https://www.fpa.org.uk/rshe-for-teachers/uk-online-child-sex-abuse-and-sexual-harassment-statistics/ https://www.fpa.org.uk/rshe-for-teachers/uk-online-child-sex...
  - lo_zamoyski 3mo ago
    The "man-o-sphere" is pornographic. Look at the porn-brained Tate brothers for an example. That is their whole ethos and their souls are rotted out by it. Both are based in dehumanization and contempt for women and draws from the well of insecurity, viciousness, and psychological disorder. Both entrench and deepen psychological disorder and immorality. I think the basic error is that we're making a concession to obscene content and the sophists in our midst who have spent decades deploying the garbage of moral relativism and fallacious appeals to "freedom" to defend evil. The argument for age verification here is weakened if, instead, the production and distribution of pornography is outlawed. That you cannot perfectly enforce the law doesn't mean the law has no value or function. The purpose of the law is not undermined by imperfect enforcement, and it isn't exhausted by enforceability. Law is a teacher. Anti-porn laws would still carry psychological and social weight. They are a declaration of what is not tolerated and what is not good and contributes to the stigmatization of bad things. That creates a higher hurdle in people's minds to seek out and engage in such activity and creates shame around such activities that itself dissuades. I would also add that pornography and drugs have a history of being used in psychological warfare. Oligarchs ruining society? Allow pornography and it will absorb people's attention and cripple them emotionally and rationally to neutralize them. Or consider the recent loosening of drug laws or debate about loosing them - which I do not accept is coincidental - to give people another dulling and numbing agent and an escape. It is in the corrupt interests of an oligarchic elite to corral the herd. The police baton is painful and creates a dangerous indignation and resentment, but pornography and drugs do not.
    - nerdsniper 3mo ago
      So, re-instate the Hays Code, essentially? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hays_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hays_Code
- echelon 3mo ago
  We need to stop this helicopter civilization bullshit. We're building 1984 to protect from god knows what imaginary harms. Stop putting plastic wrap around people's freedoms, liberty, and right to privacy.
  - countcol 3mo ago
    [flagged]
    - echelon 3mo ago
      I'd seen all the shock websites by age 12. Kids love to prank each other. None of this is a real harm. The real harms are the government being able to put a muzzle on speech, track who says what, and begin to cordon off areas of thought and expression. You might think it's a win that this is happening, but you won't be the one in charge and you won't have a say how it's used against you.
      - doginasuit 3mo ago
        I don't think it is a win, I'm not sure how you got that from my comment. There should be enough room for nuance to acknowledge that the internet is uniquely unhealthy for young people. I don't find 'I saw all the bad stuff and look how great I turned out' very compelling. If empirical research showed that some kind of intervention would be helpful, I'd be in favor of it even if it comes at a cost. But I don't think age-gating will prove effective as an intervention. If anyone needs to be reined in, it is tech companies that exploit attention and gather data, and the age-gating controversy is a costly distraction.
      - denkmoon 3mo ago
        Shock sites are materially different to the harm kids do to one another on social media.
        echelon 3mo ago
        > Shock sites are materially different to the harm kids do to one another This would be the "fixed" version of your comment. The social media bit is irrelevant. Kids have always been assholes to other kids. I took the school bus a few times, and the older neighborhood kids tried to chase me down, beat me, and piss on me. That was before the internet. You can't make up for other parents' bad parenting by trying to invent a system to bubble wrap all the kids. You teach your own kids to be strong in the face of adversity, to grow a thick skin, and to stand up for themselves.
- vasco 3mo ago
  If you saw a bunch of it and presumably are fine what does it matter then? Sure it might have been uncomfortable for a few days and you may not have understood right away but so what? That's almost every week as a kid. Seeing some titties is probably the least confusing.
  - anonzzzies 3mo ago
    Many uncles of friends (or fathers, who knows) had stacks of porn mags we knew where they were as 70s kids. When very young they were icky and after that we took them home. Who cares.
- giancarlostoro 3mo ago
  I was going to name drop one, but then I realized, I wouldn't want others on HN to wind up looking it up. Let's just say, you eventually see snuff films and the like. Not something any child should be exposed to, heck even as an adult, I want nothing to do with such things, but there it was, a random .mp4 someone shared, what do you do? Curiosity killed the innocence.
skybrian 3mo ago
Websites should have an easy way to check whether the connecting device has a child lock turned on. We don’t need to identify the person using the device at all. It should be up to parents to make sure their kids use device that are locked.
- IshKebab 3mo ago
  This is clearly the right way to do things. Just make devices have a forced choice for their age setting on initial setup, and expose that to apps and websites. Insane that they didn't even try this simple solution first. Yeah people will get around it, but they'll get around any solution.
  - tzs 3mo ago
    That’s what the California law does.
- kevincox 3mo ago
  Or even better, just let the website return a set of flags (like age_rating=18) in a header and let the user agent decide if it wants to show it, block it, ask for approval, ... Then the policy lives on the user agent.
Nevermark 3mo ago
You are imagining that a solution for you will be deemed a solution for the political powers pushing for this. Or that being age-verified is the main danger of having age-verification. That would be nice! But if there isn't a safe market driven solution to age-verification, which provides anonymous, unsurveiled, age-attested site access, with no ability for the government to individual monitor, deny or revoke, then that is exactly what is going to get pushed on all of us. You don't defeat an enemy by not needing the manacles they are very motivated to force on everyone.. Increasingly: We adopt zero knowledge proofs, and other decentralized open-sourced hard-security technologies, and resolve seemingly-small, but not-going-away practical issues like age & porn, or empower and "trust" every weak politician, interest group and stranger on the internet to not use our lack of awareness and defense against us. Add AI to the mix, and the risk/damage of passivity becomes extreme.
nerdsniper 3mo ago
I hesitate to comment on these because hundreds of comments have already said it and I don't have anything new to add. - The age-gate should just be a setting on the device: either over 18 or under 18. Websites/apps should at most only be legally required to respect the device's assertions. - Devices should be controllable by parents: let the parents decide whether the child should be age-restricted or not. - Devices should have profiles so that you can let your kids use your own phone/laptop without messing up your stuff or getting into things they shouldn't. Historically parents have been allowed to rent R-rated movies for their kids with nudity and sex and violence even if the video store isn't supposed to rent it out to the kids directly. That was always considered okay. If I think my 16-year old is mature enough to watch some porn, that should be the parents' decision.
- tzs 3mo ago
  That’s pretty close to the California law.
delis-thumbs-7e 3mo ago
I do. I’m going to take a wild guess that you are an old head like me, male, and lived your youth in the wonderful internet free of commercialisation of human interaction, free to roam and find new cool things and people, a wonderful library of Alexandria to learn and spend time in. Discuss what the experience was/is to zoomers and younger, especially girls. Did you try to play a silly online game with your friends while being constantly harassed by 3-4 adult men? How many times someone offered you money (in form of “lootboxes”) to get nude pictures of you when you were severely underage? Or was on every site you visited an algorithm pushing on your face content about how you should embrace anorexia, start gambling on what Trump says on TV, use drugs, or simply do a suicide? Hey fellow unc’s, we really need to stop nostalgising on the computer childhood of our youth and listen to the kids (as well as a bunch of research on the topic) and face the fact that the internet of the friendly geeks and nerds of the yesterday does not exist anymore. Things have to change, if we want to have any kind of working society left whatsoever.
- finghin 3mo ago
  I completely agree with you, but what this shows is a momentous change in the landscape of the internet, facilitated by mass marketing, data collection, commercialisation and even financialisation of digital game assets. This is a huge shift that cannot be rectified by simple age filters. Being realistic about the problem requires being realistic about ill-conceived solutions with conspicuous benefits for commercial actors. Besides an array of largely static, non-interactive websites, there is no hard line between content that is suitable for young eyes and not.
- corroclaro 3mo ago
  A bit further up there's a really nice comment about how those studies are just garbage.
- tancop 3mo ago
  you said listen to the kids, but if you actually ask kids they will tell you they want a way to block predators and bullies. they want to restrict interactions with specific people or groups on their own terms because thats where all the real harm comes from. they do not want whole sites or categories of content to be blocked. and even if you think kids dont understand it enough to make that choice for themselves you should let parents do it. if a family thinks their kids can have unlimited access the government should let them. thats where the california bill comes in as the only reasonable option. it gives families a choice instead of forcing restrictions on everyone and theres no privacy problem because its using self reported age data that stays on device. and i know you might ask what about kids who secretly buy a unrestricted phone with their own money. i think at that point they deserve to have it.
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]

by dadoum 3mo ago

doginasuit 3mo ago

As a millennial-aged person I saw a fair amount of content I would not want the young people in my life to see, but it's probably not nearly as harmful as the non-age gated content that they will still have access to. There is a lot creepy youtube and tiktok content that isn't off limits but still unhealthy and my younger relatives are fascinated by it.

kentm 3mo ago
Not that I want my kids looking at porn or violent content, but I’m far more concerned about man-o-sphere influencers than that other stuff.
- pphysch 3mo ago
  Manosphere content is toxic and harmful but the hyperviolence and desensitisation of the former should not be downplayed. That's where the mass shooters evidently come from.
  - nearlyepic 3mo ago
    > That's where the mass shooters evidently come from. I mean, quite a few have come from proto-manosphere circles, too. Elliot Rodger comes to mind.
    - scotty79 3mo ago
      Given how large it is, I don't think it's a high stat. Especially compared with other subcultures. And we don't blame feminism for every instance where a man is killed by a man hating woman.
      - tsimionescu 3mo ago
        > And we don't blame feminism for every instance where a man is killed by a man hating woman. The fact that this is basically unheard of, while incels shooting up schools is somewhat common, may explain why blame is often thrown at one movement and not the other.
        scotty79 3mo ago
        [flagged]
        tsimionescu 3mo ago
        So can you give an example of a crazed man-hating feminist woman engaging in a mass shooting? Or just of a woman engaging in a mass shooting (alone, not with a man) in the last, say, 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? Because I can definitely give you examples of incels doing this. Not a huge amount, mind you, but at least some.
        acdha 3mo ago
        The asymmetry is striking: when feminists talk about incels, it’s about how to improve their lives and help them out of the cognitive trap they’ve fallen or been lured into. I’ve never seen the equivalent of the pervasive casual, often gleeful, calls for violence and degradation which characterize the “manosphere”.
        scotty79 3mo ago
        I think men hating women don't usually do mass killings. They mostly kill specific men they hate the most.
    - pphysch 3mo ago
      I wouldn't equate incel with manosphere. Manosphere is often hypersexual and about greed/consumption and being insecure and getting scammed, whereas inceldom is more hate-based.
  - Balinares 3mo ago
    A hundred thousand furries consuming unfathomable amounts of porn without shooting up anyone kind of cast doubt about that point.
    - sciencejerk 3mo ago
      Who is talking about furries? But Tyler James Robinson and Benjamin Jeffrey Smith. I guess that's only 2/100k to your point?
    - vharish 3mo ago
      And 99 out of hundred get tired of porn at some point. We all have watched it and moved on. If only one can shoot and move on.
  - Zababa 3mo ago
    >That's where the mass shooters evidently come from. Citation needed?
  - mschuster91 3mo ago
    > That's where the mass shooters evidently come from. Bollocks. European teenagers watch just as much porn and play GTA at age 10 and yet we don't end up having 12 children a day die from gun violence [1]. Note, I'm not an anti-gun nut, I think German and British anti-gun laws are ridiculously strict. But the American way of dealing with guns is equally bad. [1] https://www.sandyhookpromise.org/resources/gun-violence-facts/ https://www.sandyhookpromise.org/resources/gun-violence-fact...
    - technothrasher 3mo ago
      > we don't end up having 12 children a day die from gun violence Note that this definition of "children" includes ages up 24 years old. Not that the US doesn't have a gun violence problem, but pretending 24 year olds are "children" in order to gain a better sound bite doesn't help anybody.
      - imtringued 3mo ago
        If you look at the actual statistics there are 1300 annual homicides killing children which amounts to 3.5 children + teenagers a day. Then there are gun suicides which I would not count as gun violence, amounting to another 3.5 children + teenagers a day.
- sciencejerk 3mo ago
  I had to Google "man-o-sphere". Is it particularly more dangerous or toxic than other identity-based activist communities? Genuinely curious to know
  - grey-area 3mo ago
    Yes, a lot of it involves denigrating women and an entitled and very rigid attitude towards the male place in society (alphas etc). This is incredibly toxic for young men growing up and the women they interact with. Some of the more prominent proponents are actual pimps (the Tate brothers).
    - elcritch 3mo ago
      How is that different than pervasive pornography though? Many young boys now think it’s normal to ask girls for sexual acts before having ever kissed a girl.
      - khalic 3mo ago
        Seems like they could use some sex ed courses
      - squidbeak 3mo ago
        > Many young boys now think it’s normal to ask girls for sexual acts before having ever kissed a girl. This is a common media talking point, but are there any hard figures for this 'many'? The type you're describing existed when I was young, long before the internet. My impression of boys and young men today is that they are generally just as decent, cautious, respectful and idealistic as they ever were - but that a small crude and unpleasant minority taints the reputation of the whole generation.
        elcritch 3mo ago
        I don't think it's a "reputation" issue, more of a what they're being exposed to and what it's normalizing. From studies I've seen it's a significant percentage (from a random Google search [1]): The review talked to young people aged 13 to 19 and surveyed 1,000 young people aged 16 to 21. Over 6 in 10 (64%) said they had seen online pornography. Of these: 1 in 10 (10%) of nine-year-olds had seen pornography 3 in 10 (27%) of children had seen pornography by age 11 Half (50%) of children had seen it by age 13 4 in 5 (79%) had seen violent pornography before the age of 18, with the report stating “young people are frequently exposed to violent pornography, depicting coercive, degrading or pain-inducing sex acts”. 1: https://www.fpa.org.uk/rshe-for-teachers/uk-online-child-sex-abuse-and-sexual-harassment-statistics/ https://www.fpa.org.uk/rshe-for-teachers/uk-online-child-sex...
- lo_zamoyski 3mo ago
  The "man-o-sphere" is pornographic. Look at the porn-brained Tate brothers for an example. That is their whole ethos and their souls are rotted out by it. Both are based in dehumanization and contempt for women and draws from the well of insecurity, viciousness, and psychological disorder. Both entrench and deepen psychological disorder and immorality. I think the basic error is that we're making a concession to obscene content and the sophists in our midst who have spent decades deploying the garbage of moral relativism and fallacious appeals to "freedom" to defend evil. The argument for age verification here is weakened if, instead, the production and distribution of pornography is outlawed. That you cannot perfectly enforce the law doesn't mean the law has no value or function. The purpose of the law is not undermined by imperfect enforcement, and it isn't exhausted by enforceability. Law is a teacher. Anti-porn laws would still carry psychological and social weight. They are a declaration of what is not tolerated and what is not good and contributes to the stigmatization of bad things. That creates a higher hurdle in people's minds to seek out and engage in such activity and creates shame around such activities that itself dissuades. I would also add that pornography and drugs have a history of being used in psychological warfare. Oligarchs ruining society? Allow pornography and it will absorb people's attention and cripple them emotionally and rationally to neutralize them. Or consider the recent loosening of drug laws or debate about loosing them - which I do not accept is coincidental - to give people another dulling and numbing agent and an escape. It is in the corrupt interests of an oligarchic elite to corral the herd. The police baton is painful and creates a dangerous indignation and resentment, but pornography and drugs do not.
  - nerdsniper 3mo ago
    So, re-instate the Hays Code, essentially? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hays_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hays_Code
echelon 3mo ago
We need to stop this helicopter civilization bullshit. We're building 1984 to protect from god knows what imaginary harms. Stop putting plastic wrap around people's freedoms, liberty, and right to privacy.
- countcol 3mo ago
  [flagged]
  - echelon 3mo ago
    I'd seen all the shock websites by age 12. Kids love to prank each other. None of this is a real harm. The real harms are the government being able to put a muzzle on speech, track who says what, and begin to cordon off areas of thought and expression. You might think it's a win that this is happening, but you won't be the one in charge and you won't have a say how it's used against you.
    - doginasuit 3mo ago
      I don't think it is a win, I'm not sure how you got that from my comment. There should be enough room for nuance to acknowledge that the internet is uniquely unhealthy for young people. I don't find 'I saw all the bad stuff and look how great I turned out' very compelling. If empirical research showed that some kind of intervention would be helpful, I'd be in favor of it even if it comes at a cost. But I don't think age-gating will prove effective as an intervention. If anyone needs to be reined in, it is tech companies that exploit attention and gather data, and the age-gating controversy is a costly distraction.
    - denkmoon 3mo ago
      Shock sites are materially different to the harm kids do to one another on social media.
      - echelon 3mo ago
        > Shock sites are materially different to the harm kids do to one another This would be the "fixed" version of your comment. The social media bit is irrelevant. Kids have always been assholes to other kids. I took the school bus a few times, and the older neighborhood kids tried to chase me down, beat me, and piss on me. That was before the internet. You can't make up for other parents' bad parenting by trying to invent a system to bubble wrap all the kids. You teach your own kids to be strong in the face of adversity, to grow a thick skin, and to stand up for themselves.
vasco 3mo ago
If you saw a bunch of it and presumably are fine what does it matter then? Sure it might have been uncomfortable for a few days and you may not have understood right away but so what? That's almost every week as a kid. Seeing some titties is probably the least confusing.
- anonzzzies 3mo ago
  Many uncles of friends (or fathers, who knows) had stacks of porn mags we knew where they were as 70s kids. When very young they were icky and after that we took them home. Who cares.
giancarlostoro 3mo ago
I was going to name drop one, but then I realized, I wouldn't want others on HN to wind up looking it up. Let's just say, you eventually see snuff films and the like. Not something any child should be exposed to, heck even as an adult, I want nothing to do with such things, but there it was, a random .mp4 someone shared, what do you do? Curiosity killed the innocence.

skybrian 3mo ago

Websites should have an easy way to check whether the connecting device has a child lock turned on. We don’t need to identify the person using the device at all. It should be up to parents to make sure their kids use device that are locked.

IshKebab 3mo ago
This is clearly the right way to do things. Just make devices have a forced choice for their age setting on initial setup, and expose that to apps and websites. Insane that they didn't even try this simple solution first. Yeah people will get around it, but they'll get around any solution.
- tzs 3mo ago
  That’s what the California law does.
kevincox 3mo ago
Or even better, just let the website return a set of flags (like age_rating=18) in a header and let the user agent decide if it wants to show it, block it, ask for approval, ... Then the policy lives on the user agent.

Nevermark 3mo ago

You are imagining that a solution for you will be deemed a solution for the political powers pushing for this. Or that being age-verified is the main danger of having age-verification. That would be nice! But if there isn't a safe market driven solution to age-verification, which provides anonymous, unsurveiled, age-attested site access, with no ability for the government to individual monitor, deny or revoke, then that is exactly what is going to get pushed on all of us. You don't defeat an enemy by not needing the manacles they are very motivated to force on everyone.. Increasingly: We adopt zero knowledge proofs, and other decentralized open-sourced hard-security technologies, and resolve seemingly-small, but not-going-away practical issues like age & porn, or empower and "trust" every weak politician, interest group and stranger on the internet to not use our lack of awareness and defense against us. Add AI to the mix, and the risk/damage of passivity becomes extreme.

nerdsniper 3mo ago

I hesitate to comment on these because hundreds of comments have already said it and I don't have anything new to add. - The age-gate should just be a setting on the device: either over 18 or under 18. Websites/apps should at most only be legally required to respect the device's assertions. - Devices should be controllable by parents: let the parents decide whether the child should be age-restricted or not. - Devices should have profiles so that you can let your kids use your own phone/laptop without messing up your stuff or getting into things they shouldn't. Historically parents have been allowed to rent R-rated movies for their kids with nudity and sex and violence even if the video store isn't supposed to rent it out to the kids directly. That was always considered okay. If I think my 16-year old is mature enough to watch some porn, that should be the parents' decision.

tzs 3mo ago
That’s pretty close to the California law.

delis-thumbs-7e 3mo ago

I do. I’m going to take a wild guess that you are an old head like me, male, and lived your youth in the wonderful internet free of commercialisation of human interaction, free to roam and find new cool things and people, a wonderful library of Alexandria to learn and spend time in. Discuss what the experience was/is to zoomers and younger, especially girls. Did you try to play a silly online game with your friends while being constantly harassed by 3-4 adult men? How many times someone offered you money (in form of “lootboxes”) to get nude pictures of you when you were severely underage? Or was on every site you visited an algorithm pushing on your face content about how you should embrace anorexia, start gambling on what Trump says on TV, use drugs, or simply do a suicide? Hey fellow unc’s, we really need to stop nostalgising on the computer childhood of our youth and listen to the kids (as well as a bunch of research on the topic) and face the fact that the internet of the friendly geeks and nerds of the yesterday does not exist anymore. Things have to change, if we want to have any kind of working society left whatsoever.

finghin 3mo ago
I completely agree with you, but what this shows is a momentous change in the landscape of the internet, facilitated by mass marketing, data collection, commercialisation and even financialisation of digital game assets. This is a huge shift that cannot be rectified by simple age filters. Being realistic about the problem requires being realistic about ill-conceived solutions with conspicuous benefits for commercial actors. Besides an array of largely static, non-interactive websites, there is no hard line between content that is suitable for young eyes and not.
corroclaro 3mo ago
A bit further up there's a really nice comment about how those studies are just garbage.
tancop 3mo ago
you said listen to the kids, but if you actually ask kids they will tell you they want a way to block predators and bullies. they want to restrict interactions with specific people or groups on their own terms because thats where all the real harm comes from. they do not want whole sites or categories of content to be blocked. and even if you think kids dont understand it enough to make that choice for themselves you should let parents do it. if a family thinks their kids can have unlimited access the government should let them. thats where the california bill comes in as the only reasonable option. it gives families a choice instead of forcing restrictions on everyone and theres no privacy problem because its using self reported age data that stays on device. and i know you might ask what about kids who secretly buy a unrestricted phone with their own money. i think at that point they deserve to have it.

deleted 3mo ago

[deleted]