6 ms·

HN has this guideline for comments: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says. If the same standard were applied for pos

HN has this guideline for comments: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says. If the same standard were applied for posts, this one would fail. I recognize that it is a popular perspective that these measures are essentially a war on anonymity, but that is not what they intend to fix, although it is quite possible that anonymity is a casualty of whatever war is at hand. I believe efforts to resist these measures would be more effective if they engaged with the problem: the modern internet is a harmful experience for young minds, beyond what any society should consider acceptable. I personally don't think shocking content is the worst of it. Algorithms that maximize engagement over enriching experience are a curse for any age group, and developing brains face the worst of it. Is age-gating the internet the right answer? Will it even help? Are there ulterior motives? Those are open questions that need discussion. Dismissing a genuine problem is choosing not to engage in the discussion.

walrus01 2mo ago
> the modern internet is a harmful experience for young minds Because of the goal of advertising revenue as the ultimate driver as to build an addictive permanent scroll of slop on tiktok or instagram, and the desire of social media companies to build walled gardens where someone's entire online experience stays in their "app.". As you say, this affects young and old alike.
- blackqueeriroh 2mo ago
  Capitalism. Your problem is capitalism. The so-called vaunted “free market.”
  - inigyou 2mo ago
    "free market" and "capitalism" are antonyms.
Computer0 2mo ago
[dead]
iamnothere 2mo ago
I disagree with you. Plans to eliminate anonymity have been discussed for years in elite circles, at Davos and similar events, and it’s most often framed in the context of social control (eliminating dissent or foreign influence). Larry Ellison on surveillance: “Citizens will be on their best behavior, because we’re constantly recording and reporting everything that’s going on.” This is not new and it’s not about kids. This is the culmination of years of planning that began after the Arab Spring, when elites began to get concerned about how the Internet could be leveraged for domestic regime change.
- KennyBlanken 2mo ago
  Ellison is probably in favor at least partially because he's a database salesman, and oppressive domestic spy agencies need lots and lots of really big databases.
- doginasuit 2mo ago
  As far as the matter of ulterior motives, we're not in disagreement. Assuming that's true, it is important to address the real problem they are hijacking to realize their goals. Dismissing it as a made up problem just means you lose credibility with anyone who is paying attention.
  - iamnothere 2mo ago
    It will always be possible to find a cause du jour to justify violating the rights of citizens, because crime happens and reality is messy. The real problem is that the mass media is complicit in this agenda, so they amplify the excuse until bad laws are passed (laws which seldom solve the problem). While I do think we should make efforts to reduce crime and create better spaces for kids, laws like this aren’t the answer.
inigyou 2mo ago
Always a good day when HN guideline quotes are downvoted to the bottom of a thread.

walrus01 2mo ago

> the modern internet is a harmful experience for young minds Because of the goal of advertising revenue as the ultimate driver as to build an addictive permanent scroll of slop on tiktok or instagram, and the desire of social media companies to build walled gardens where someone's entire online experience stays in their "app.". As you say, this affects young and old alike.

blackqueeriroh 2mo ago
Capitalism. Your problem is capitalism. The so-called vaunted “free market.”
- inigyou 2mo ago
  "free market" and "capitalism" are antonyms.

Computer0 2mo ago

[dead]

iamnothere 2mo ago

I disagree with you. Plans to eliminate anonymity have been discussed for years in elite circles, at Davos and similar events, and it’s most often framed in the context of social control (eliminating dissent or foreign influence). Larry Ellison on surveillance: “Citizens will be on their best behavior, because we’re constantly recording and reporting everything that’s going on.” This is not new and it’s not about kids. This is the culmination of years of planning that began after the Arab Spring, when elites began to get concerned about how the Internet could be leveraged for domestic regime change.

KennyBlanken 2mo ago
Ellison is probably in favor at least partially because he's a database salesman, and oppressive domestic spy agencies need lots and lots of really big databases.
doginasuit 2mo ago
As far as the matter of ulterior motives, we're not in disagreement. Assuming that's true, it is important to address the real problem they are hijacking to realize their goals. Dismissing it as a made up problem just means you lose credibility with anyone who is paying attention.
- iamnothere 2mo ago
  It will always be possible to find a cause du jour to justify violating the rights of citizens, because crime happens and reality is messy. The real problem is that the mass media is complicit in this agenda, so they amplify the excuse until bad laws are passed (laws which seldom solve the problem). While I do think we should make efforts to reduce crime and create better spaces for kids, laws like this aren’t the answer.

inigyou 2mo ago

Always a good day when HN guideline quotes are downvoted to the bottom of a thread.