palata

19 ms·

481.
by palata 4mo ago
> But yeah, there are plenty of people like the parent in that camp, so the author's plan to add even more granularity will be an uphill battle. I find it sad to see it as a battle. Can't we agree on the idea that different peo
482.
by palata 4mo ago
I find it interesting that when a government tries to "put guardrails" (whatever they try) they are immediately considered authoritarians, but when a private company that has waay too much power for an entity that is not elected d
483.
by palata 4mo ago
I may be naive, but I have the feeling that "I will arbitrarily set numbers on things and call it impartial" is... weird at best. I understand how one may wonder if there was a way to do that, but it feels insane to me that one wo
484.
by palata 4mo ago
Isn't that completely expected when the intermediary has that kind of control? Amazon, Uber, Meta, Google... they all abuse their position. You are an Uber driver and accept everything because you need the money? Uber will pay you less
485.
by palata 5mo ago
> It is definitely not the best solution from a security perspective. But that's compared to alternatives that virtually nobody uses, isn't it? No public service is using ChromeOS. In Europe they probably all use Windows, I wou
486.
by palata 5mo ago
> Unless you count ChromeOS/Android which are not really OSS Wouldn't ChromiumOS and AOSP count? Though I read a lot of people generally complaining about secure boot on desktop (for reasons I honestly don't understand: se
487.
by palata 5mo ago
Genuinely interested: does it bring something to say "everything is crap anyway, but given that we must choose between one of them, we may as well choose the least bad" instead of "the best solution we currently have is X&quo
488.
by palata 5mo ago
Please read my original comment again. I said Mullvad had good arguments, I just criticised the way ZKP is generally dismissed, including in their article. You then went for your "this is all authoritarian, that's the definition o
489.
by palata 5mo ago
They all started with chocolate. I don't see your point. Remove all laws?
490.
by palata 5mo ago
> the EU implementation doesn't use ZKP The EU implementation is work in progress. I am not aware of any country using it for age verification. I am not sure I get the argument of "it's not finished, but I will pretend tha
491.
by palata 5mo ago
My point was that having the state regulate stuff is not always a bad idea. The problem for many parents is that all the other kids have it . It's not always easy to develop a relationship with your kid to convince them that they don&
492.
by palata 5mo ago
> I did. I am confused. Did you? Do you mean this: > [the solution] is regulating social media companies to stop abusing their users, and by extension, children. strict laws around adtech and tracking tech Pretty sure it has been trie
493.
by palata 5mo ago
> Can you point to anywhere that has implemented ZKPs? The EU initiative explicitly mentions ZKP: https://ageverification.dev/ . > The linked article suggests that is quite hard to do. It's technical, just like ge
494.
by palata 5mo ago
I would love to be insulted by that, but I genuinely can't tell what point you're fumbling toward. Try again when you've sobered up.
495.
by palata 5mo ago
> but to actually implement age controls in the way they are being bought in you basically need to be an authoritarian I don't see how this sentence can make any sense at all in the context of ZKPs. Can you elaborate? > you'
496.
by palata 5mo ago
Yeah I agree with all of that. I do believe that there exist ZKPs, but then it raises more questions, like: - Do we ban VPNs? I don't think we should. - What happens if the ZKP doesn't work? It's not okay to fall back to iden
497.
by palata 5mo ago
I can see that you don't get the problem, indeed. One problem (there are others) is that it's not always possible (or easy) to not give your kid a smartphone, or access to social media. Imagine that your kid doesn't have thos
498.
by palata 5mo ago
What this misses is that many parents do allow their children to access social media because kids need to conform . If all the other kids have social media access, your kid is excluded by not having access. Is it better to have TikTok AN
499.
by palata 5mo ago
I totally agree with that, and all those points scare me a lot more than privacy-preserving age verification.
500.
by palata 5mo ago
> Should I worry about having to verify my age/identity if I want to host a page on a vps in the future? Today I cannot get a VPS without verifying my identity. Can you? > I feel like most politicians and people don't unders
501.
by palata 5mo ago
I appreciate the comment, but I feel like you miss my point in a way that is (not purposely) manipulative, again. I don't think that we would call "authoritarian" someone who would ask for, say, guns control. Or at least we w
502.
by palata 5mo ago
> There absolutely is you're just not aware of it. Can you show here that you understand how privacy-preserving age verification works? I mean the rest of your message really, really sounds like you don't. Don't get me w
503.
by palata 5mo ago
I strongly disagree. Democracy is not "they" vs "us". Democracy is not "opposition has to be absolute". What you describe here is extremism. If you believe that anyone disagreeing with you is an extremist and t
504.
by palata 5mo ago
> Think carefully about why a politician might disregard this extremely simple mechanism and you'll have your answer about the real goals here You (and many others) frame it as "the government versus the people". I think t
505.
by palata 5mo ago
The state mandates laws that say we cannot sell guns to kids. Is that a bad idea? Would you rather let the parents deal with that?
506.
by palata 5mo ago
What about this: go ask parents why they allowed their kid to get a smartphone and access to social media, and only then decide whether they are morons, fascists or just bad parents? I have a simple example: when all the kids have a sma
507.
by palata 5mo ago
> there is such a variety of ways to tackle this problem, and this is the most authoritarian one. If you think that privacy-preserving age verification is the most authoritarian way to tackle this problem, then you really, really don&#
508.
by palata 5mo ago
Not sure what you mean. I am totally against surveillance capitalism and TooBigTech. I am in favour of end-to-end encryption and privacy-preserving tech. I shouldn't have to show an ID to buy a newspaper or to load the website of a new
509.
by palata 5mo ago
> at the expense of That's the thing: it's not trivial to know what is possible and what is not. If you look at the messages in HN, many (most?) messages about privacy-preserving age verification are (at least partially) wrong.
510.
by palata 5mo ago
Good arguments there, and for once addressing privacy-preserving age verification. I just don't like that proponents of age verification are systematically (including in this article) dismissed as authoritarians hiding behind "jus

More ›