john_strinlai

56 ms·

1201.
by john_strinlai 8mo ago
can you explain why it matters? i am trying (and failing!) to see any reason the account age matters in this particular case. but i could be missing something. (i did not make this account just to reply to you)
1202.
by john_strinlai 8mo ago
never, it is a shining success when viewed through the eyes of venture capital
1203.
by john_strinlai 8mo ago
you seem really eager to catch me in some sort of "aha gotcha!" scenario so that you can... what? feel good about winning a hackernews argument? you are trying to argue with someone who largely shares the exact same views as you.
1204.
by john_strinlai 8mo ago
> As I mentioned, what you propose is exactly as useful and protective as what we have now. i disagree, for reasons i have already said and for other reasons i havent yet. but it is clear that we wont end up agreeing, so no need for us
1205.
by john_strinlai 8mo ago
sure, make them good for like 1 year or 3 months or something. or make them good for 1 month, but sold in 12-packs.
1206.
by john_strinlai 8mo ago
> Consider that such arguments [...] we should loudly reject them in the strongest possible terms. me and you can yell into the void all we want. and i will continue to do so! but, age verification is already here. so while i continue t
1207.
by john_strinlai 8mo ago
> Your hypothetical 14-year-old needs to first be able to bypass the parental controls that come with every modern OS. You keep ignoring that. because they dont matter. parental controls exist today but have been deemed ineffective for
1208.
by john_strinlai 8mo ago
> Right. That's exactly as protective as that tickbox. [0] no, it isn't, for reasons already mentioned but i will say it again for clarity: - a 14 year old can click "im of age" on a checkbox. - a 14 year old cannot
1209.
by john_strinlai 8mo ago
> The problem with this scheme is that it's exactly as protective as requiring someone to tick a "I'm of legal age" tickbox in the software they wish to access. no, it is exactly as protective as the protections for
1210.
by john_strinlai 8mo ago
if the goal is to "protect children", or just generally make parts of the internet age-gated, my proposal is 100% fine. if the goal is "surveil everyone using the internet", yes, very obviously my proposal would not be s
1211.
by john_strinlai 8mo ago
seems dead simple to me: if you host public wifi, you are responsible for the people that use it. easy! just like you already are responsible for what happens on your free public network (torrenting, hacking, CSAM, etc.) in most jurisdic
1212.
by john_strinlai 8mo ago
it has none of the privacy problems described, and 95% of the infrastructure exists right now (have you ever purchased smokes or alcohol?) to go on tiktok, you enter a UUID once onto your account, and thats it. the only person that sees you
1213.
by john_strinlai 8mo ago
> We are missing accessible cryptographic infrastructure for human identity verification. like most proposed solutions, this just seems overcomplicated. we don't need "accessible cryptographic infrastructure for human identity
1214.
by john_strinlai 8mo ago
ah, fair, but with an easy enough fix. make data-enabled SIM cards be 18+ (or whatever age). show ID to the store clerk at purchase time, just like if you were buying smokes/alcohol.
1215.
by john_strinlai 8mo ago
every contract by every ISP i have ever signed has required me to be over the age of 18 to enter the contract.