5 ms·

Even for a "Citizens' Initiative", this stuff is remarkably tone-deaf. "No Digital ID" ignores the very-real need for people to prove their identity to governme

Even for a "Citizens' Initiative", this stuff is remarkably tone-deaf. "No Digital ID" ignores the very-real need for people to prove their identity to government(-ish) entities online, and to do so in a reliable, cheap and convenient way. Sure, you do not want that ID to become mandatory for publishing or existing on the Internet in general, but that's a separate discussion: demand sufficient protection for anonymous/pseudonymous posts instead, which is absolutely something that needs to be codified as part of basic human rights. "No age verification" is even deader-on-arrival. Parents are literally screaming at politicians to protect "the children" (as always), but pretty much everything that has been tried so far to silence those screams has failed (remember PICS, the Platform for Internet Content Selection: that was the last serious contender, and it has been dead for, like, 20 years). Again: demand a way to implement this securely and anonymously, don't take an untenable abolitionist stance or resort to hand-waving in the vague general direction of "parental responsibility": that has been tried, and it's not working anymore. And, please, stop vilifying the EU in these matters. The UK left the EU, ostensibly so they could make "more sensible laws" in, specifically, respects like these, and they're now leading the assault on basic freedoms with even more fervor. And no, that's not just big-bad-Starmer's fault: it's a preview of what you have to argue against and propose a compromise for instead.

dgellow 2mo ago
They don’t seem to oppose any of that if you read the intro > We call on the European Commission to propose legislation ensuring that digital identity and age-assurance systems used to access online services in the Union remain voluntary, privacy-preserving and non-discriminatory. Citizens must not be forced to identify themselves to access lawful online content or services unless strictly necessary, proportionate and provided by law. The legislation should require anonymous or pseudonymous proof-of-age, data minimisation, selective disclosure, open-source implementation, independent security audits, prohibition of cross-service tracking by relying parties, and equivalent alternatives for citizens who do not use a digital wallet.
- iLoveOncall 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - perching_aix 2mo ago
    While that's fair, would be kinda nice if the title was consistent with the content, instead of being, say, "reach optimized" (populist), wouldn't it?
  - TryingToBeNice 2mo ago
    My apologies for joining this community. Do you have any more valuable tips, other than "get lost newbie"?
    - dgellow 2mo ago
      Welcome! I would recommend to read the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html And don’t pay attention to downvotes, that’s part of the game, it’s nothing against you, just accept that sometimes you lose karma :) in some way it’s a good exercise for the ego
  - dang 2mo ago
    It is not ok to post like this here. Please see this longer reply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49114611 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49114611.
- jvuygbbkuurx 2mo ago
  It has been quite a slippery slope. Services that used to allow password auth have retired them in favour of bank detail login. I can kind of get it, since it's offloading support to the banks, but it's also annoying since the bank logins themselves are a pain to setup, maintain and use (mobile app only). It would be nice to have some good standard that is less invasive.
  - victorbjorklund 2mo ago
superxpro12 2mo ago
not all parents are screaming this. Only the parents who refuse to parent their children, and conveniently scapegoat society for their parental failings
- cromka 2mo ago
  We cannot possibly expect all parents to take proper care of their kids. This has never been the case and never will. That's why we have schools and other institutions that oversee our growth within society. You could make same exact argument regarding kids health, alcohol abuse, nicotine abuse, all types of addictions, age of consent, and so on. You can't just have all the safeguards dropped because you think you're doing a good job. Or, even worse, you have no kids and it's your virtues merely projecting.
  - ndr 2mo ago
    It is a parenting issue. Don't let kids have an internet-connected phone, the same way they can't have a bottle of wine. If they really need such device make sure that device is locked to a small list of app/contacts possible. There's no need to lock down the rest of the internet because the responsible person of such kid can't tolerate their complaints. It is a parenting issue.
    - hobom 2mo ago
      You totally ignored the point OP was making! Even if it is a parenting issue, simply declaring that will not make parents parent better. It's the same reason why we ban children from drinking wine, because parents cannot be relied upon here. Unless your point was that we should legally ban kids from handling phones, which I think is too extreme.
      - ndr 2mo ago
        But that is my point. Chase the responsible adult if you see a kid with an overpowered phone, much like you would if you found the same kid with a bottle of wine. And granted, we don't have locked-enough phone in market yet, but that's a solvable problem if we were to create that market.
seany 2mo ago
I'm a parent and would rather ban age verification. So it's certainly not everyone...
- kbelder 2mo ago
  Right. Care for your children includes the responsibility to keep the society they're eventually going to participate in, free and open. Loving your children means fighting censorship, not promoting it.
OkayPhysicist 2mo ago
There are also fascists screaming at the government to do other wildly illegal stuff. The lousy parents begging the government to "tread on me" would get wildly better results by spending less time trying to create an authoritarian state and more time with their kids they claim to care so much about. They're children. They have the internet access you give them. This isn't some unsolveable problem that needs government intervention, my parents were setting up filters so long ago that they're grandparents now.
- TryingToBeNice 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - OkayPhysicist 2mo ago
    And the solution already exists, one that doesn't empower the government to do some truly heinous shit. Every power you grant the government is another knife they'll eventually stab you in the back with. Maybe you like your current government, but what about the next one, and the one after that? Instead, just use the tools you already have access to. I was not opposed when California mandated that applications add parental controls, that's fine. If parents want to restrict their children's internet access, there's a continium there ranging from "prudent parenting" to "child abuse", but that can be worked out on a case-by-case basis. I am, however, rabidly against the state requiring you to dox yourself every time you log into a website, because inconceivably lazy parents can't figure out how to use the parental tools that they already have.
    - Muromec 2mo ago
      Parenting controls are shit on the end device side. It's not working, it's not even trying to. Nobody would need this blanket approach if parenting controls actually worked.
      - naravara 2mo ago
        Back when smoking was more normal we basically did leave it up to Big Tobacco to determine how best to tackle underage smoking and they would literally say insane things like “Oh course we’re not targeting elementary school kids! We’re not monsters! Our advertising doesn’t hit them until they’re in 8th grade at least!” Expecting platform monopolists and dopamine dealers to design for this is folly. They are wired to try to normalize an unhealthy level of dependence on them. Their business model is addiction.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
trallnag 2mo ago
>securely and anonymously Not possible. Why do advocates of age verification bring this argument up again and again? It is not possible.

dgellow 2mo ago

They don’t seem to oppose any of that if you read the intro > We call on the European Commission to propose legislation ensuring that digital identity and age-assurance systems used to access online services in the Union remain voluntary, privacy-preserving and non-discriminatory. Citizens must not be forced to identify themselves to access lawful online content or services unless strictly necessary, proportionate and provided by law. The legislation should require anonymous or pseudonymous proof-of-age, data minimisation, selective disclosure, open-source implementation, independent security audits, prohibition of cross-service tracking by relying parties, and equivalent alternatives for citizens who do not use a digital wallet.

iLoveOncall 2mo ago
[flagged]
- perching_aix 2mo ago
  While that's fair, would be kinda nice if the title was consistent with the content, instead of being, say, "reach optimized" (populist), wouldn't it?
- TryingToBeNice 2mo ago
  My apologies for joining this community. Do you have any more valuable tips, other than "get lost newbie"?
  - dgellow 2mo ago
    Welcome! I would recommend to read the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html And don’t pay attention to downvotes, that’s part of the game, it’s nothing against you, just accept that sometimes you lose karma :) in some way it’s a good exercise for the ego
- dang 2mo ago
  It is not ok to post like this here. Please see this longer reply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49114611 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49114611.
jvuygbbkuurx 2mo ago
It has been quite a slippery slope. Services that used to allow password auth have retired them in favour of bank detail login. I can kind of get it, since it's offloading support to the banks, but it's also annoying since the bank logins themselves are a pain to setup, maintain and use (mobile app only). It would be nice to have some good standard that is less invasive.
- victorbjorklund 2mo ago

superxpro12 2mo ago

not all parents are screaming this. Only the parents who refuse to parent their children, and conveniently scapegoat society for their parental failings

cromka 2mo ago
We cannot possibly expect all parents to take proper care of their kids. This has never been the case and never will. That's why we have schools and other institutions that oversee our growth within society. You could make same exact argument regarding kids health, alcohol abuse, nicotine abuse, all types of addictions, age of consent, and so on. You can't just have all the safeguards dropped because you think you're doing a good job. Or, even worse, you have no kids and it's your virtues merely projecting.
- ndr 2mo ago
  It is a parenting issue. Don't let kids have an internet-connected phone, the same way they can't have a bottle of wine. If they really need such device make sure that device is locked to a small list of app/contacts possible. There's no need to lock down the rest of the internet because the responsible person of such kid can't tolerate their complaints. It is a parenting issue.
  - hobom 2mo ago
    You totally ignored the point OP was making! Even if it is a parenting issue, simply declaring that will not make parents parent better. It's the same reason why we ban children from drinking wine, because parents cannot be relied upon here. Unless your point was that we should legally ban kids from handling phones, which I think is too extreme.
    - ndr 2mo ago
      But that is my point. Chase the responsible adult if you see a kid with an overpowered phone, much like you would if you found the same kid with a bottle of wine. And granted, we don't have locked-enough phone in market yet, but that's a solvable problem if we were to create that market.

seany 2mo ago

I'm a parent and would rather ban age verification. So it's certainly not everyone...

kbelder 2mo ago
Right. Care for your children includes the responsibility to keep the society they're eventually going to participate in, free and open. Loving your children means fighting censorship, not promoting it.

OkayPhysicist 2mo ago

There are also fascists screaming at the government to do other wildly illegal stuff. The lousy parents begging the government to "tread on me" would get wildly better results by spending less time trying to create an authoritarian state and more time with their kids they claim to care so much about. They're children. They have the internet access you give them. This isn't some unsolveable problem that needs government intervention, my parents were setting up filters so long ago that they're grandparents now.

TryingToBeNice 2mo ago
[flagged]
- OkayPhysicist 2mo ago
  And the solution already exists, one that doesn't empower the government to do some truly heinous shit. Every power you grant the government is another knife they'll eventually stab you in the back with. Maybe you like your current government, but what about the next one, and the one after that? Instead, just use the tools you already have access to. I was not opposed when California mandated that applications add parental controls, that's fine. If parents want to restrict their children's internet access, there's a continium there ranging from "prudent parenting" to "child abuse", but that can be worked out on a case-by-case basis. I am, however, rabidly against the state requiring you to dox yourself every time you log into a website, because inconceivably lazy parents can't figure out how to use the parental tools that they already have.
  - Muromec 2mo ago
    Parenting controls are shit on the end device side. It's not working, it's not even trying to. Nobody would need this blanket approach if parenting controls actually worked.
    - naravara 2mo ago
      Back when smoking was more normal we basically did leave it up to Big Tobacco to determine how best to tackle underage smoking and they would literally say insane things like “Oh course we’re not targeting elementary school kids! We’re not monsters! Our advertising doesn’t hit them until they’re in 8th grade at least!” Expecting platform monopolists and dopamine dealers to design for this is folly. They are wired to try to normalize an unhealthy level of dependence on them. Their business model is addiction.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

trallnag 2mo ago

>securely and anonymously Not possible. Why do advocates of age verification bring this argument up again and again? It is not possible.