Teens who want to see porn will be able to see porns, but they will learn somethings along the way to do so
This is caricatural of course, but it s just so dumb as law as enforcing age verification "anonymously" is just like a don quichotte battle at AI era
Kids these days have it too easy, we need stronger protections or the next generation will make pathetic hackers.
"Hey ChatGPT Hacker Core Rizz Edition, can you hack this website for me?"
Heck, the parallel movement in the US even had a major legislative victory in California, so... what are we talking about?
To my understanding then, the issue is that the EU's implementation only has a ZK-based solution in the plans so far.
But then this initiative says "No Digital ID", not "No Auto-Deanonymizable Digital ID", so...
There is a real way out of it -- the governments can have their cake and eat it too. I published several academic papers to prove it, and I'm open to building and deploying it. Would anyone want to work on this together:
"Stop overcontrolling and overregulating every aspect of our lives!"
"Stop killing the internet" unfortunately means nothing at all to the layman, they will still be using it pretty much exactly as they were before, and governments will just claim "See, internet is still working".
I think it's time that "please let 1800 analytics firms monitor your every browsing habit in exchange for this content" was seen in the same light as "please let 1800 private foreign espionage and propaganda agencies spy on you".
And these authoritarian politicians will destroy the internet with these actions. Maybe they will even change society as we know it, and not for the better.
The problem is thinking such initiatives will achieve anything in a bureaucratic system devoid of honest debate and actual democracy.
These citizen's initiatives must at least be tried but simultaneously we must create a new internet forever out of politician reach.
Only massive data gatherers should be able to track and know everything about people
I'm reasonably confident that in the relatively near future, the Internet will be so overrun with bots and other worthless "content" that people will flock to platforms that confirm IRL identity.
A different design logic, and the logic of the blogosphere that preceded it, much more tightly prioritized following a blogger or poster and interpreting everything you see in light of who was posting it. The trust is placed in the account you follow.
"Persistent" reputation won't change that. Because on the internet nothing is persistent, without a central party enforcing it to be so. And as said above, the ones in charge of it now, don't want to enforce it really. You don't own your domain, you don't own your IP, you don't own your feeds, "content" etc. The infrastructure that routes people to your correct "reputation", isn't yours, it's controlled and owned by Big Tech, governments, and some smaller companies. Your feed can be taken offline or away from you in a whim. Access to your blog isn't yours. Not even if you host it on a rasberry-pi in your cupboard.
Aside from maybe some blockchain shenanigans, that is. Bitcoin and maybe Ethereum are the only decentralized "pseudonymous" identity providers that could step into this, but both are ridiculously costly and complex. And wholly unsuited to route content. Systems designed for this, like Tor, aren't really up to the task either. Just look at how insanely hard it is for "Content" that governments oppose, to remain online (e.g. on the tor network). Possible, but so complex, so fragile, that it's not a practical system to use en masse. Yet it's the only working system that comes closest to really owning content in the broad sense.
So it makes perfect sense to turn to the systems that have done this "persistent reputation", aka "identity" for centuries now: Governments. Compared to Big Tech, they're more decentralized - there are far more governments worldwide "doing identities" than there are FAANG corporations. Hell, even within the US or within my country alone, there are more. Compared with all other systems, we can control them, push them into a direction we want them to go - democracy. Far from perfect. Bad even. But the least worst way to have some "persistent identity" we can get. Unfortunately.
People remembering your handle is persistent, and people remembering if they had good or annoying interactions with you is persistent reputation that exists in the minds and interactions between different people. These are things people naturally do. If people don’t recognize your name and see it come in a trusted spot they just don’t trust you.
How tech breaks this is deprioritizes the people in the interactions. Instead of sending messages you use a “like” button to be intelligible to the platform. You don’t see the people putting stuff on your feed, it gets fed to a timeline that cuts it off from all context and atomizes it for your consumption. It’s the UI/UX that drives this. Even compare Reddit and HN with old forums. On forums like 25% of every post is just static bits of self-expression. There’s a PFP, the username is bigger, there’s often a big signature block. All of this makes the peoples’ posts feel like a person talking to you rather than text blocks that happen to have a tiny username and timestamp on it.
Edit: to clarify: You aren't your handle, because it can be taken away from you, can be injected, blocked, overridden, etc.
My technical rambling then went on about how or when we can make this "handle" decentralized so it cannot be taken away from you. Hard. As proven in practice. Almost impossible.
My name is maintained by a government. It is a "handle" that could be taken away too, but is governed in lots of rules, systems and regulations. My face (an extension of my DNA, I guess) is decentralized and owned by me: its the only handle that afaik no one can take from me.
So in social interactions, you're right: reputation, bound to "me", my face, my DNA is all that matters. But online we don't have this. The closest we can probably get is "my name", controlled by governments.
But I still believe that people will care about connecting with an actual person in meatspace. I just can't picture any other result except for complete and total burnout with the fakeness of the web.
Not sure how I feel about that, sounds kind of problematic in retrospect. Especially since there's no mechanism for triggering EU-wide referendums to help this AFAIK.
[0] population of the EU: 452 million, unique signatures required for this: 1 million
1) buy cigars and pipe tobacco (but not cigarettes!)
2) Buy "CBD" by the pound
3) Buy ammunition, a barrel and the rest of gun parts for a glock, except a frame/receiver that can be 3d printed in a few hours to complete it.
4) Order and have delivered wine
But there are people arguing to skip all that and go to straight to ID for social media. It isn't about the children. It's about keeping tabs on who says what.
"No age verification" is even deader-on-arrival. Parents are literally screaming at politicians to protect "the children" (as always), but pretty much everything that has been tried so far to silence those screams has failed (remember PICS, the Platform for Internet Content Selection: that was the last serious contender, and it has been dead for, like, 20 years). Again: demand a way to implement this securely and anonymously, don't take an untenable abolitionist stance or resort to hand-waving in the vague general direction of "parental responsibility": that has been tried, and it's not working anymore.
And, please, stop vilifying the EU in these matters. The UK left the EU, ostensibly so they could make "more sensible laws" in, specifically, respects like these, and they're now leading the assault on basic freedoms with even more fervor. And no, that's not just big-bad-Starmer's fault: it's a preview of what you have to argue against and propose a compromise for instead.
You could make same exact argument regarding kids health, alcohol abuse, nicotine abuse, all types of addictions, age of consent, and so on.
You can't just have all the safeguards dropped because you think you're doing a good job. Or, even worse, you have no kids and it's your virtues merely projecting.
From both someone involved in raising kids as well as someone who knows a lot of teachers: none of the involved parties want that. Schools are at best for teaching, but never for raising.
Is it the sole responsibility of a school to ensure well raised (for whichever specific definition of “well”) children? No. However, they are a large factor in the raising of children.
We’ve had a live experiment with this during COVID and it’s pretty clear that kids raised solely at home by their parents fared way worse. Not just on academic metrics, but basic conflict resolution or social skills.
Don't let kids have an internet-connected phone, the same way they can't have a bottle of wine.
If they really need such device make sure that device is locked to a small list of app/contacts possible.
There's no need to lock down the rest of the internet because the responsible person of such kid can't tolerate their complaints. It is a parenting issue.
I have seen religious parents been vocally opposed to their children seeing or even discussing anything related to sexuality.
An example from the past:
"The National Legion of Decency, also known as the Catholic Legion of Decency, was an American Catholic group founded in 1934 by the Archbishop of Cincinnati, John T. McNicholas, as an organization dedicated to identifying objectionable content in motion pictures on behalf of Catholic audiences."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legion_of_Decency
https://www.archbalt.org/catholicism-influenced-moviemaking-...
Unless your point was that we should legally ban kids from handling phones, which I think is too extreme.
Chase the responsible adult if you see a kid with an overpowered phone, much like you would if you found the same kid with a bottle of wine.
And granted, we don't have locked-enough phone in market yet, but that's a solvable problem if we were to create that market.
"It takes a village to raise a child." Except these same parents who won't take care of their kids are also the very first who go all "How dare you speak to my child like that! I'm going to have you fired!"
Loving your children means fighting censorship, not promoting it.
They're children. They have the internet access you give them. This isn't some unsolveable problem that needs government intervention, my parents were setting up filters so long ago that they're grandparents now.
Ah, OK, so you admit a problem exists. That's step one...
Every power you grant the government is another knife they'll eventually stab you in the back with. Maybe you like your current government, but what about the next one, and the one after that?
Instead, just use the tools you already have access to. I was not opposed when California mandated that applications add parental controls, that's fine. If parents want to restrict their children's internet access, there's a continium there ranging from "prudent parenting" to "child abuse", but that can be worked out on a case-by-case basis. I am, however, rabidly against the state requiring you to dox yourself every time you log into a website, because inconceivably lazy parents can't figure out how to use the parental tools that they already have.
Expecting platform monopolists and dopamine dealers to design for this is folly. They are wired to try to normalize an unhealthy level of dependence on them. Their business model is addiction.
Okay but for your position to be tenable you have to then go to step 2, which is some parents are incompetent at doing this, and step 3, which is that, nevertheless, their children, who are randomized copies of them genetically, still somehow need and benefit from the filters that their parents can't or won't apply. Then you get to step 4, which is that all of the competent people must suffer so those children can get it from a heavy handed government solution. I don't see how you jointly accept all these steps; it means you want to have a tyranny of the incompetent over the competent. You must jointly assert that they are dumb while placing them up and over the not dumb. That's full on crab-bucket, dysgenics by force ideology.
> We call on the European Commission to propose legislation ensuring that digital identity and age-assurance systems used to access online services in the Union remain voluntary, privacy-preserving and non-discriminatory. Citizens must not be forced to identify themselves to access lawful online content or services unless strictly necessary, proportionate and provided by law. The legislation should require anonymous or pseudonymous proof-of-age, data minimisation, selective disclosure, open-source implementation, independent security audits, prohibition of cross-service tracking by relying parties, and equivalent alternatives for citizens who do not use a digital wallet.
It would be nice to have some good standard that is less invasive.
And don’t pay attention to downvotes, that’s part of the game, it’s nothing against you, just accept that sometimes you lose karma :) in some way it’s a good exercise for the ego
Specifically, the requirement to provide non-digital alternatives as well as control over relying parties (i.e. consumers of the 'digital ID' and/or 'age verification' APIs) makes all of this a non-starter.
I mean: non-digital alternatives to digital IDs? I guess that means that nobody should be forced to get a digital ID for access to essential government(-ish) services (like banking), and that's a valid point, but in the context of "stop killing the Internet" just obfuscates things.
And control over RPs beyond GDPR is just pushing it, again, quite on purpose.
One of my (probably dumb) ideas is:
- Create a legal presence in a country that does not require being dystopian, relaxed business laws, less regulation, lower taxes, move most of the corporate side of the business there. Take the tax revenue with you. It does not have to be all at once. Make the move a slow boil so they don't see it until it's too late.
Which countries, provinces, regions, states have the least regulation, least dystopian behavior and the least taxes? There has to be a incentive for business leaders and board members to move things around. Bonus if the saved money pays for a Gulfstream G650 ER or two.
Right now the most important thing to inhibiting a dystopia is to break the lock Apple and Google have on approval of mobile code, because it gets used as a fulcrum by authoritarians. Want to ban VPNs? Make the app stores do it. Censor social media? Have them ban every social media app that doesn't censor. Want to track everyone everywhere? Make the phone provide sites and apps with a persistent cross-service tracking ID.
Whereas if ordinary people had devices that worked like PCs traditionally have, banning a VPN from the Microsoft store doesn't prevent you from installing one directly from the developer etc.
And getting this to be possible could be done by any sufficiently large market. If a sufficiently large market e.g. bans attestation and enforces antitrust, it allows an open platform to develop in that country by starting with compatibility with the apps of existing platforms, and then that platform can expand into other markets. Or you can get an iPhone there that you can install a VPN on and Apple can't prevent it, and then those iPhones can be exported into authoritarian countries.
And if you want a financial incentive for this, how about every country outside the US not wanting their local businesses paying the 30% tax to a foreign monopolist?
You are incorrect. The NIMBY movement has been extraordinarily successful despite severe opposition from moneyed interests. Bloomberg lost embarrassingly despite setting records for campaign spending. There are countless similar examples.