3 ms·

> The problem is that any age verification system effectively becomes an identity verification system. And such tools rarely remain "just for kids"—they quickly

• iamnothere 2mo ago
  What is “harmful behavior” when it comes to words? You may have your own definition, but I guarantee that you can’t get a supermajority to agree with it. (There are some basic things like fraud and such that are already illegal.) Most people don’t actually want to ban “harmful” speech except for the speech of their political enemies.
  • braiamp 2mo ago
    Nobody mentioned speech. Infinite scroll isn't speech. Engagement-maximizing algorithms that push increasingly extreme content to keep you on the app longer ain't speech. The business model that makes outrage more profitable than accuracy isn't speech. You can have complete freedom of expression and still regulate that a platform isn't designed to psychologically exploit the people using it. These are not the same thing
    • shevy-java 2mo ago
      > You can have complete freedom of expression Not if you must ID before accessing information on the world wide web.
      • braiamp 2mo ago
        What are you talking about? I'm against that. I'm saying to remake Facebook so that you don't have the cesspool anymore. Did you read the post?
    • iamnothere 2mo ago
      I’m fine with regulating some aspects of the business model, particularly targeted advertising (which should fall under interstate commerce). I’m less comfortable with the idea of legislating UX, which does seem to be an issue of speech, equivalent to legislating the layout of books. But if you destroy the engagement farming business model, none of that other stuff matters anyway.
    • pibaker 2mo ago
      > Engagement-maximizing algorithms that push increasingly extreme content to keep you on the app longer ain't speech Who decides what makes an algorithm engagement maximizing instead of you know, user satisfaction maximizing (because satisfied users stay around for longer, right?) And who decides what is extremist and what is acceptable? Was Rush Limbaugh reading the names of patients who died of AIDS on a hundred year old media more or less extreme than someone praising mao zedong for killing all landlords on social media?
      • pessimizer 2mo ago
        > Who decides what makes an algorithm engagement maximizing instead of you know, user satisfaction maximizing (because satisfied users stay around for longer, right?) Let the user decide. The evil algorithms require the "algorithms" such as "all my subscriptions, completely, in chronological order" to be removed. If "all ragebait" or "maximize profits for facebook" are just other buttons, I have no objection, but I do not think they will be popular.
        • ipaddr 2mo ago
          You do they visit or not. Should hackernews be forced to presenting their content a million ways? They present based on decisions made by the people who created the site.
        • pibaker 2mo ago
          Ok. What about a "Viewpoint Diversity" tab that lets you read the dumbest opinions from the other side of politics so that you stay in touch with what your fellow countrymen actually thinks. Not rage bait, I promise.
      • lo_zamoyski 2mo ago
        > Who decide The law already concerns itself with determining intent (hence murder vs. manslaughter). I don’t see why similar criteria and methods cannot be applied here. We can assess the objectively bad psychological consequences of social media and look for evidence that establishes moral certainty about the intent. I am not impressed with manufactured skepticism.
    • ipaddr 2mo ago
      Infinite scrolling is now evil? But pagination is fine? The form you use is part of expression. Engagement maximizing is a buzzword that translates to content people are interested in viewing. Why would you want to regulate content to be uninteresting? I can't see that benefiting anyone.
• anramon 2mo ago
  > and radicalize It always beautiful how single-word choices like this can reveal the actual intent behind seemingly "reasonable" words.
  • braiamp 2mo ago
    So social networks dont benefit from radicalizing people? Abusing their own human nature against them? Thats your argument, really?
    • iamnothere 2mo ago
      I may be off here, but I believe that they are referring to the political aspect of the word “radicalize”. In a standard democracy, it’s not really appropriate for the government to attempt to halt the spread of competing philosophies that may result in electoral changes. (This doesn’t apply to so-called “defensive democracies” as well as “guided democracies” which IMO aren’t really democracies.) The problem in these discussions is that radicalize is an overloaded term. It could mean convincing someone of your non-mainstream political view, or it could mean inspiring someone to commit an act of terror. The former seems perfectly fine to me and well within freedom of speech and association.
      • hamper653 2mo ago
        [dead]
  • tobyjsullivan 2mo ago
    You might be reading this through your own filter. It's an overloaded term right now but I took the parent to be referring to actual violent radicalization which is a real online threat: https://rcmp.ca/en/corporate-information/publications-and-manuals/five-eyes-insights-young-people-and-violent-extremism-call-collective-action https://rcmp.ca/en/corporate-information/publications-and-ma... (Forgive the link source - I can see in hindsight how that might not be perceived as the most objective source - but there are many other sources for those who care to look.)
• RiverCrochet 2mo ago
  Here's a better fix: If a parent continuously allows their child to go to a known unsafe place, they are negligent and should no longer be a parent. The exception is if the operator of said unsafe place specifically enticed children. I haven't been following closely but weren't there internal emails showing Facebook was specifically trying to addict and hook teens? That's definitely wrong and a bad thing Facebook did, and they should be held accountable for sure. However, if my platform says on the outside that it's for 18+, identifies itself as such using machine-readable signals, and I don't take specific action to entice children into the service, it's your failure to parent if they access it, and you should shoulder most or all the liability for it. The slipperly slope here to avoid is this: do you really want to adopt a model where the state is the one who "owns" your child (except financially, of course, you still have to pay everything) and can unilaterally do things to you and your child in the same of child safety without your input or consent? This exists currently to some extent, it can get much worse. A government body may review a service and determine it is addictive and radicalizing. This is fine, and helpful. Even requiring the service to display a warning is OK. Then, parents who ignore the clear warning and repeatedly fail to control their children from accessing it should lose parental rights.
  • braiamp 2mo ago
    Why does your "better solution" shift responsibility from the people who built the unsafe environment to the parents? A platform labeling itself 18+ doesn't make it safe, it just moves the blame. Adult content isn't where the supposed "harms" we are trying to protect children from are coming from. They're from how the platform is designed to keep people on it. That's fixable. Infinite scroll, algorithmic radicalization, engagement mechanics, etc. None of that requires an age label, it requires a different product. I want every platform to be safe no matter who uses them and a warning sticker on the door is not a substitute for that. We don't allow arsenic in bread just because people got used to eating it
    • ipaddr 2mo ago
      Parents can decide what their children view. It's literally their decision to allow them on platforms or decide what movies they can see or what friends they are allowed. Those who say how can I tell my child they can't have what others in school have. Then yoi are letting other parents raise your child.
• classified 2mo ago
  > making the platform safe for everyone No. I don't want to be treated like a child.
• braiamp 2mo ago
  Since I can't edit the top post, a response to all of the above: the solution is platforms with sane defaults. Honest by default. No content discovery unless you go looking for it. The feed shows what you chose to follow, in order and stops there. The platform behaves how you configured it, not how it's most profitable for them. Right now the default is whatever keeps you on longest, that's the only thing that needs to change
  • two-sandwich 2mo ago
    Strongly agree. I even wrote about this myself recently. I offered a solution in either being a publisher (where companies show what they choose), or a distributor (where they show only what users created, in order). A loud and clear distinction would assist in establishing what to expect, and how to reduce harm online. https://blog.bix.computer/pick-a-lane/ https://blog.bix.computer/pick-a-lane/
• sophrosyne42 2mo ago
  You take it for granted that everyone agrees with you that what you regard as addictive or radical should be restricted by the government. These are not facts-of-the-matter, but opinions, and opinions for which there is disagreement, and for which people deserve the opportunity to decide for themselves and make a decision. You want to make that decision for them. You are a disguised dictator and fascist. Simple-as.
• txrx0000 2mo ago
  That's still treating the symptom. Regulating the entire Internet's platforms would end up creating a surveillance state. And the big companies would find some way to worm out of it, or simply treat the financial consequences of breaking the laws as a cost of doing business. Parental supervision and content filtering can and should be solved on the client-side at the OS/app-level, entirely locally. No user info like age ever needs to be sent anywhere, and it doesn't even need to be collected. The reason smartphones can't do this right now is because these companies are deliberately making the client-side filtering solutions difficult to implement and use, as explained in a past comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49118578 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49118578
  • braiamp 2mo ago
    What? Nobody is asking someone to collect more information, in fact the solution is to collect even less information. How can you survey if you collect less?
    • txrx0000 2mo ago
      I was agreeing with you that age verification is not the way to go, but your solution to "make the platform safe for everyone" would centralize the power to determine what is/isn't safe in the hands of the government and the tech companies. It's a legal excuse they could use to justify checking everything sent online and censor whatever they don't like.
      • braiamp 2mo ago
        [dead]
• cromka 2mo ago
  Bingo. This is meta pulling a page from Green Washing book, i.e. how big corp made regular people be responsible for all the waste and recycling instead of being liable of it themselves.