8 ms·

I simply do not understand the optaphobia of the tech literate. Social media already tracks it's users with or without laws. The general populace simply will n

by fyredge 2mo ago

I simply do not understand the optaphobia of the tech literate. Social media already tracks it's users with or without laws. The general populace simply will not wish to anonymize themselves on the internet. So ID Laws only serves as a benefit by restricting children. Regarding pornography, the demand will always be there. Adding ID tracking will just shift the business model to be more covert, which is also a net benefit to children. And for the adults who seek it, they will find it, with or without ID laws. So again, I do not understand the rejection of ID law. Either you are known on the internet, of which ID law is just a confirmation of your identity (less bots maybe?), or you are anonymous, and you will skirt any ID laws and not participate in the known identity space. What ends up is ID law straight up does not materially affect you, unless you are a literal child. And on the day the government decides to ban social media for adults, I say good riddance to it too. Anonymous internet may even thrive because of it.

Scaled 2mo ago
One of the lobbyist organizations is backed by the data broker industry (AVPA). And it's well known several privacy rapist corporations (Meta) are also backing these bills. So yes, it absolutely affects us, and that should be obvious. I'm convinced the pro comments are astroturfing. They've been caught doing it already on Twitter for these bills.
- fyredge 2mo ago
  Is this [AVPA](https://avpassociation.com/ https://avpassociation.com/)? As far as I can tell, they are a group that benefits from age verification because they directly provide the service. This is typical lobby behaviour? I was not aware that Meta is backing the bill, but based on how they already fingerprint each of their users, I don't see how an additional ID number affects their business model. I'm still left wondering how it affects us? Is my insurance rate going to change because of this? Because if they can sell the data after ID laws, they can definitely sell it before ID laws too. I suppose there will always be some astroturfing for such an issue, but I'm not convinced that it is the majority voice. I don't use Twitter anyways, don't plan on giving my data to them. In fact, with anonymous websites like HN, you would never know either way. So to me, we can either eliminate astroturfing with identification, or consider every anonymous voice in good faith.
  - Tangurena2 2mo ago
    > because they directly provide the service. This is typical lobby behaviour? Yes. Think of it this way: I make a profit from doing this, therefore I will lobby politicians to make my product mandatory.
    - fyredge 2mo ago
      Right, but that's typical company behaviour. "Hey I have a product, use me!" Does not seem to be the dystopia level action that the previous commenter implied, unless we know that they are willfully selling the data to third parties, which I won't fully discount, but innocent until proven guilty.
sophrosyne42 2mo ago
Similarly, I do not understand the willful ignorance and bootlicking attitude of those who want to support coercing others into sharing orivate information. The reasons are mentioned every single time these laws are brought up, I can only assume you're willfully ignoring the concerns people have: It's a security black hole, increasing our attack surface astronomically. It causes undue compliance costs for websites to meet basic security standards. It does not reliably prevent the determined teenager from bypassing these restrictions, e.g. with a vpn, but imposes enormous costs on allegedly a nontarget demograpgic (e.g. everyone else). Small benefit with a large cost is a bad policy. The problem is entirely manufactured by bureaucrats, the public is concerned with gas prices and making ends meet. The parents that are concerned about their child's internet access can and do take the appropriate precautions because child controls already exist. Whatever justification is given, the end result is mass surveillance, with the expected consequences in reduction of personal and social liberties. This is nothing to scoff at.
- fyredge 2mo ago
  Thank you very much for taking the time to reply. Here's what I think: > Similarly, I do not understand the willful ignorance and bootlicking attitude of those who want to support coercing others into sharing orivate information. I think by enacting these ID laws, we immediately add a barrier of entry to social media. Social media has been too easy to participate, and many people have let their guards down allowing them to collect our data and sell our attention. Just like how cookie banners annoy users, my hope is that the additional barrier of ID laws will make people think twice before submitting themselves to social media. > The reasons are mentioned every single time these laws are brought up, I can only assume you're willfully ignoring the concerns people have: > It's a security black hole, increasing our attack surface astronomically. Do you mean the possibility of a data leak? Social media is public. When people are broadcasting their location willingly, I don't see how an ID number adds harm. > It causes undue compliance costs for websites to meet basic security standards. And they should. Restaurants follow food safety and hygiene regulations. Websites should follow child safety regulations. That is fair. > It does not reliably prevent the determined teenager from bypassing these restrictions, e.g. with a vpn, but imposes enormous costs on allegedly a nontarget demograpgic (e.g. everyone else). Small benefit with a large cost is a bad policy. The effect of juvenile subversion, I think, has been overstated. The UK government released a study that [30% of teenagers used VPNs](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/childrens-circumvention-behaviours-online/childrens-circumvention-behaviours-online#executive-summary https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/childrens-circumv...). If 70 percent of teenagers are off social media, I think it's a worthwhile endeavour. > The problem is entirely manufactured by bureaucrats, the public is concerned with gas prices and making ends meet. The parents that are concerned about their child's internet access can and do take the appropriate precautions because child controls already exist. One can do both. Again, child safety is not an issue of the individual. Peer pressure is a real phenomenon. I wouldn't blame a parent stuck in the ghetto for not being able to give their children better opportunities. > Whatever justification is given, the end result is mass surveillance, with the expected consequences in reduction of personal and social liberties. This is nothing to scoff at. I would like to add that it is mass surveillance of public spaces, which is already plenty surveilled. I believe in ID laws for public online activity, not your personal WhatsApp chats. If this sounds like a slippery slope, there are many alternative solutions to be found. The crux of ID laws for child safety should not be its existence, but its scope. Apply it to social media companies who have shown that they cannot be trusted with the attention of children, nothing more.
bothers 2mo ago
> And on the day the government decides to ban social media for adults, I say good riddance to it too. The government's response to Facebook intentionally being toxic and preying on children was to strip rights from its citizens. Banning social media is not on the table.
- fyredge 2mo ago
  Do we say the same for age restrictions of tobacco sales? There must be a better way than "we can't".

by fyredge 2mo ago

Scaled 2mo ago

One of the lobbyist organizations is backed by the data broker industry (AVPA). And it's well known several privacy rapist corporations (Meta) are also backing these bills. So yes, it absolutely affects us, and that should be obvious. I'm convinced the pro comments are astroturfing. They've been caught doing it already on Twitter for these bills.

fyredge 2mo ago
Is this [AVPA](https://avpassociation.com/ https://avpassociation.com/)? As far as I can tell, they are a group that benefits from age verification because they directly provide the service. This is typical lobby behaviour? I was not aware that Meta is backing the bill, but based on how they already fingerprint each of their users, I don't see how an additional ID number affects their business model. I'm still left wondering how it affects us? Is my insurance rate going to change because of this? Because if they can sell the data after ID laws, they can definitely sell it before ID laws too. I suppose there will always be some astroturfing for such an issue, but I'm not convinced that it is the majority voice. I don't use Twitter anyways, don't plan on giving my data to them. In fact, with anonymous websites like HN, you would never know either way. So to me, we can either eliminate astroturfing with identification, or consider every anonymous voice in good faith.
- Tangurena2 2mo ago
  > because they directly provide the service. This is typical lobby behaviour? Yes. Think of it this way: I make a profit from doing this, therefore I will lobby politicians to make my product mandatory.
  - fyredge 2mo ago
    Right, but that's typical company behaviour. "Hey I have a product, use me!" Does not seem to be the dystopia level action that the previous commenter implied, unless we know that they are willfully selling the data to third parties, which I won't fully discount, but innocent until proven guilty.

sophrosyne42 2mo ago

Similarly, I do not understand the willful ignorance and bootlicking attitude of those who want to support coercing others into sharing orivate information. The reasons are mentioned every single time these laws are brought up, I can only assume you're willfully ignoring the concerns people have: It's a security black hole, increasing our attack surface astronomically. It causes undue compliance costs for websites to meet basic security standards. It does not reliably prevent the determined teenager from bypassing these restrictions, e.g. with a vpn, but imposes enormous costs on allegedly a nontarget demograpgic (e.g. everyone else). Small benefit with a large cost is a bad policy. The problem is entirely manufactured by bureaucrats, the public is concerned with gas prices and making ends meet. The parents that are concerned about their child's internet access can and do take the appropriate precautions because child controls already exist. Whatever justification is given, the end result is mass surveillance, with the expected consequences in reduction of personal and social liberties. This is nothing to scoff at.

fyredge 2mo ago
Thank you very much for taking the time to reply. Here's what I think: > Similarly, I do not understand the willful ignorance and bootlicking attitude of those who want to support coercing others into sharing orivate information. I think by enacting these ID laws, we immediately add a barrier of entry to social media. Social media has been too easy to participate, and many people have let their guards down allowing them to collect our data and sell our attention. Just like how cookie banners annoy users, my hope is that the additional barrier of ID laws will make people think twice before submitting themselves to social media. > The reasons are mentioned every single time these laws are brought up, I can only assume you're willfully ignoring the concerns people have: > It's a security black hole, increasing our attack surface astronomically. Do you mean the possibility of a data leak? Social media is public. When people are broadcasting their location willingly, I don't see how an ID number adds harm. > It causes undue compliance costs for websites to meet basic security standards. And they should. Restaurants follow food safety and hygiene regulations. Websites should follow child safety regulations. That is fair. > It does not reliably prevent the determined teenager from bypassing these restrictions, e.g. with a vpn, but imposes enormous costs on allegedly a nontarget demograpgic (e.g. everyone else). Small benefit with a large cost is a bad policy. The effect of juvenile subversion, I think, has been overstated. The UK government released a study that [30% of teenagers used VPNs](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/childrens-circumvention-behaviours-online/childrens-circumvention-behaviours-online#executive-summary https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/childrens-circumv...). If 70 percent of teenagers are off social media, I think it's a worthwhile endeavour. > The problem is entirely manufactured by bureaucrats, the public is concerned with gas prices and making ends meet. The parents that are concerned about their child's internet access can and do take the appropriate precautions because child controls already exist. One can do both. Again, child safety is not an issue of the individual. Peer pressure is a real phenomenon. I wouldn't blame a parent stuck in the ghetto for not being able to give their children better opportunities. > Whatever justification is given, the end result is mass surveillance, with the expected consequences in reduction of personal and social liberties. This is nothing to scoff at. I would like to add that it is mass surveillance of public spaces, which is already plenty surveilled. I believe in ID laws for public online activity, not your personal WhatsApp chats. If this sounds like a slippery slope, there are many alternative solutions to be found. The crux of ID laws for child safety should not be its existence, but its scope. Apply it to social media companies who have shown that they cannot be trusted with the attention of children, nothing more.

bothers 2mo ago

> And on the day the government decides to ban social media for adults, I say good riddance to it too. The government's response to Facebook intentionally being toxic and preying on children was to strip rights from its citizens. Banning social media is not on the table.

fyredge 2mo ago
Do we say the same for age restrictions of tobacco sales? There must be a better way than "we can't".