Online threats to children are real, but the headlong pursuit of age verification that we’re seeing around the world is unacceptable in its approach and far too broad in scope — and we simply can’t afford to get this wrong.
To be clear, parents’ concerns are valid and sincere. Few people would argue that kids should have unfettered access to adult material, to self-harm how-tos, to social media platforms that manipulate them and expose them to abuse.
But it’s the very depth of those worries that is being cynically exploited. Age verification as is currently being proposed in country after country would mean the death of anonymity online.
And we know exactly who stands to gain: The same tech giants who built the privacy nightmare that the internet is today.
He has a vested interest in saying that, but he’s right, and it would be awful
Man, parents not wanting anything to do with their kids’ upbringing will believe anything, huh. They’d rather offload any and all responsibilities to automation than spend one minute teaching kids how to protect themselves.
Then again, they probably don’t know, either.
Clearly this man is a genius.
Anyone who could not see that Trump was going to extort business for his own personal gain was clueless to Trump and his cabinet of blackmailers.
Anyone of color giving support to White Nationalists is fucking insane and shows a complete lack of understanding of current US politics.
That’s quite obviously the end goal here.
Make social media unprofitable instead of this.
Basically don’t allow ads for kids and only show social media posts from their friends in chronological order instead of any fancy algorithm. Also make them liable for showing scams to minors. That kills most profit.
Kill it from the other direction. Make it illegal to algorithmically adjust a users experience to prioritize interaction regardless of whether that’s positive or negative. Ultimately that’s the problem with places like Facebook, they weigh an angry rant the same as a positive one, higher even in a lot of cases. Things that make people angry generate a lot more interaction than positive things so it drowns people in hate and fear. If you treat any interaction as a positive signal things just devolve.
Surely it’s the death of anonymity for those who want to access stuff which would be age restricted in any other scenario (like a real shop). The rest of the population (most?) don’t care to access that stuff & don’t want it and can carry on being anonymous.
And yes that gives the likes of Facebook et al a problem because they’ll have to categorise their content, but the whole point of this current fad for governments to legislate to restrict stuff is that the big tech companies could have (made efforts to) fix it but chose not to because it’s (waves hands and wails) hard.
kids dont get unrestricted access unless the parent is too lazy and not putting limiations on thier devices. ive seen them give a toddler under 5 a PHONE TO play with.
When done correctly, and someone’s ID remains anonymous from the general public if they wish so, then I’d also be fine with that. Way too many trolls and other forms of bad actors on the Web who intentionally or unintentionally use ad hominems or other toxic communication, it’s so hopelessly divisive and draining.
I recently saw a documentary about looksmaxxing. The forums these kids peruse echo the deepest pits of hell; insisting on suicide and all the forms of psychological bullying one cannot even imagine.
Whether it’s the best solution I don’t know, it’s probably not. But from my point of view, taking away the anonymity from the authorities would significantly lower the amount of depravity on the Web. The crux in this whole matter is of course that the authorities are virtuous, fair, just. If they are not, which all too often is the case, then removing anonymity can be an equally dangerous thing as well.
Obviously everything boils down to education, which needs a complete overhaul. But that’s something that will take decades if not a century to turn humanity into a predominantly virtuous species.
⚜︎ https://www.arscyni.cc/: modernity ∝ nature.
this would be the ideal, but the problem is that we dont have governments that can be trusted to not abuse the system. It will turn into tool of control and surveillance even if it starts well.
Before this can even be considered, we need ways to depose shitty politicans and governments without having to destroy everything in the process. Just “voting the good guys in” does not work and has never worked.
Anyone think that’s not the point?
Social media functions as a kind of gatekeeper for public interactions, not unlike credit scores, driver’s licenses, and college degrees. The absence of a presence on social media is not only socially debilitating (you’re cut out of the information stream for local events and public amenities) but a red-flag for college recruiters and employers. It’s much like how not using a credit card regularly in your teens/20s impacts your ability to access low-interest lending in your 30s/40s. Or not having a driver’s license interferes with your right to vote.
State officials have been searching for a kind of uniform, iron-clad, easily verifiable public ID for ages. Linking your online presence (a thing that you need for a myriad of daily tasks) to your ID becomes a pathway to this goal. Universal, non-transferable digital ID becomes a wicked two-edged sword as it both exhaustively tracks the “documented” individuals and neatly severs the “undocumented” from society.
“Age Verification” is just them attaching “THINK OF THE CHILDREN” to their push to have every single bit of information about every person on the planet.
I mean, I’ve got boxes full of physical books and self hosted movies and Tv. At that point, I’ll just stop using the internet. I need to go outside more anyway.
The next step will be to make more essential services online only, so people have to use the internet.
Harder to organize protests though. Like if they implement a new renter’s/homeowner tax, or sales tax, or whatever, that means we’d have to sell our books to make ends meet. And then make “digitally inciting” protests illegal too maybe so you don’t feel comfortable even discussing it on your devices. (Not that our opsec today is sufficient, wager it’s not for like 95+% of us, but this feels yet worse)
Scary stuff
Finally all my friends that been giving me shit about having a dvd collection can eat shit.
I’ve got a mean collection myself. I have saved every cassette, record , DVD , VHS , book , magazine ( some bit the dust but anything with good info stayed) , zine and CD I’ve ever baught since I was a young teen ( and their many versions of various players for the many formats)
I’ve had more than a few people appear angry that I have kept all these “things” in my life. Blows my mind that they never saw this coming. …I guess I can rent my dad’s and books
How long before we get a Meshtastic style, decentralized internet?
What can I, as a regular guy, do to help make this happen?
I’m fine with that.
Who exactly do you mean by “I”? Preferably with an exact address, just so we know you’re serious about it.
Not being anonymous is not equivalent to broadcasting your personal information to everyone. Maybe that’s why people are so confused here. They think that they will have to post their addresses and phone numbers online?
That’s the best part, companies do that for you
Those are two different things. Being identifiable online is not the same as giving some company your personal information. People give companies their info all the time without online age verification. Age verification done the right way does not require providing any personal info. I 100% oppose forcing people to share personal data with private companies. This is not what we’re talking about here.
Age verification done the right way does not require providing any personal info. I 100% oppose forcing people to share personal data with private companies. This is not what we’re talking about here.
Handing your government ID and other personal data to private companies is exactly how current proposals for online age verification work. It could be done without this, but that’s not what governments and corporations are pushing for, because the goal is easier surveillance. Take a look at some of the problems with Persona, for example:
I don’t see you using your real name here.
A bit hypocritical if you ask me.
What’s your first and last name?
I’m fine with that.
When done correctly, and someone’s ID remains anonymous from the general public if they wish so, then I’d also be fine with that. Way too many trolls and other forms of bad actors on the Web who intentionally or unintentionally use ad hominems or other toxic communication, it’s so hopelessly divisive and draining.
I recently saw a documentary about looksmaxxing. The forums these kids peruse echo the deepest pits of hell; insisting on suicide and all the forms of psychological bullying one cannot even imagine.
Whether it’s the best solution I don’t know, it’s probably not. But from my point of view, taking away the anonymity from the authorities would significantly lower the amount of depravity on the Web. The crux in this whole matter is of course that the authorities are virtuous, fair, just. If they are not, which all too often is the case, then removing anonymity can be an equally dangerous thing as well.
Obviously everything boils down to education, which needs a complete overhaul. But that’s something that will take decades if not a century to turn humanity into a predominantly virtuous species.
Way too many trolls and other forms of bad actors on the Web who intentionally or unintentionally use ad hominems or other toxic communication, it’s so hopelessly divisive and draining.
How exactly would id verification help against that. Do you want “toxic speech” to become a crime and punished by a court of law?
Hey, guess what you need to buy an internet connection in the first place! Wanting more ID verification is only fascism.
Exactly this + all the trolls promoting fascism with great success.
Also, congrats on going against the groupthink on lemmy. The pro anonymity crowd here is especially toxic, which only further proves our point.
It’s just remarkably disappointing that so many of said cohort is all for freedom or libertarian, but they simultaneously downvote comments into being hidden and offer no counter-arguments. The irony.
But I sigh at discourse online in general, on all sides, for it’s riddled with fallacies. Or even downvotes and upvotes, they mean little to nothing. I know because as an admin I realize there’s tons of people who use multiple accounts, not two or three, but tens of accounts, to skew the votes in their favor.
I have downvotes disables on my instance so I really don’t care about them. I know groupthink is strong on lemmy. Usually I just ignore it but when I’m bored I like to poke people a little bit. Some people are actually interested in discussing things, most just follow the masses. It’s disappointing but that’s internet for you.
Why?
Misinformation is a great threat to democracy. I live in country with independent courts, free press and freedom of speech. Everyone can criticize the government all they want without repercussions. The threats posed by huge bot farms working to promote fascist far outweigh the fantasy benefits of using anonymous communities to organize some resistance to nonexistent tyrants. Where I live the anonymity online is used exclusively to bully, threaten and defame people. It can be different in different countries but where I live I don’t see any benefits of being able to post things online anonymously.
This won’t stop misinformation. This will only allow it to run more rampant.
No, it will not.
Yawn. You sound like the lobbyists. They want ID to control us, to selectively spread more misinformation.
Nobody will be able to criticize the government, you will be targeted. The bots promoting fascism are the same ones spreading bullshit like this to push for the fascist non-anonymous internet.
It sounds like you shouldnt be using the internet at all.
You sound like a conspiracy theorist. Where I live people are criticizing the government every day. We have opposition parties, activist and unions. We have reporters uncovering corrupt politicians all the time, on all levels of government. The politicians are prosecuted and reporters keep reporting. They all act in the open, not by posting anonymous comments on twitter. As I said, if you live in a country where the government will target you for posting wrong comment then you should totally oppose those law (but your opposition will be meaningless because you already don’t live in a free country). Those laws are not global, each country will introduce them on their own. Where I live, ending online anonymity will have positive effect on democracy.
Get outta here fascist.
And that’s a great example of what people use online anonymity for and why I’m not a fan.
Do you really think no one in this thread would call you a dumb fascist to your face?
We know, fascist.
“You sound like a conspiracy theorist” such low effort way to wave away another point.
You sound like a fucking fascist then.
. I live in country with independent courts, free press and freedom of speech
Which magical country is that? Like, I get some eurohaugtiness vibes from your comment, so as a fellow eurofucker I can tell you, with quite some confidence, that you’re wrong. You’re probably just too privileged for this to matter to you, personally.
Spain.
Spain literally has a law commonly known as “ley mordaza”, which enabled law enforcement to impose massive fines to protesters, some of whom ended up spending months in prison.
Were they protesting anonymously online? If not I don’t see how’s that relevant. Anti government protests are happening all the time in Spain. There are laws that govern those, like in every other country. Did you just google that quickly and paste the first result without understanding it?
I’m a born and raised Spaniard who lived there for over 35 years, and was beaten up by cops at least once. I think I know a thing or two about the system.
You said that in Spain people have the right to protest freely against the government, yet the ley mordaza proves that’s not all true, e.g. https://www.es.amnesty.org/en-que-estamos/blog/historia/articulo/ley-mordaza/
But regardless of all that, there’s an even more solid proof that removing anonymity on the internet is a bad idea in the current Spanish climate: La Liga has been threatening individuals and companies for well over a year now, with the help of the courts and the inaction of the government. Somehow, they had access to internet users’ personal data, and have been sending out letters requesting payment for alleged “pirated content distribution and consumption”. They have pressured ISPs to throttle and even block entire blocks of IP addresses. They have sued people for libel because of insults towards their current president.
My point here is that, if a sports corporation could do that when people are still able to be “anonymous” online, how can you guarantee that Spain wouldn’t devolve into a full fledged corporate fascist state, where those with money have the effective power to target dissidents for the pettiest reason, if anonymity were to go away?
Lol
thanks democrats
