Remix.run Logo
hedayet 3 days ago

Still, even the most libertarian among us generally won't oppose restricting youth access to tobacco, or restricting recreational access to hard drugs.

johnnyanmac 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

That's the thing. We don't really ban "youth smoking". We ban sellers selling to youth. Who's accountable is everything in law.

Targeting platforms is like only banning one brand of cigarette. People will just find another. We should instead attack the "seller" here, being the algorithms optimized for selling and not for the enrichment of society.

DocTomoe 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So, considering there is a clear health issue with fast food and television, shall we ban them from having anything other than fruit and books (but not too complicated ones, we don't want them to get potentially suicidal ideas)?

hedayet 3 days ago | parent [-]

You’re framing this as an all-or-nothing choice. The logical inverse of your argument would be: "should we unban hard drugs for everyone, and allow alcohol, tobacco, or porn for kids?"

That kind of binary framing doesn’t really move the discussion forward.

A more constructive approach is case-by-case. Different things sit at different levels of harm, and "ban everything" vs. "ban nothing" isn’t a workable model for society.

DocTomoe 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

You know, I am in a country that allows alcohol for children (in different intensities, e.g. beer at age 14 with parents present, age 16 in the supermarket, age 18 for the hard stuff). As it turns out, our kids are alright.

Tobacco and porn have been more strongly regulated lately. In my teenage years, they were easily available to anyone with coins in their hands. Turns out: that didn't destroy us either.

The first beer, the first pack of strong tobacco (Rothändle, the dirtiest, hardest stuff), the first tiddie magazine from the railway station kiosk, those were rites of passages. It was a way for teenagers to push the envelope, realise alcohol makes you wobbly, tobacco causes diarrea (believe me, that Rothändle stuff was more chemical weapon than 'smooth'), and ultimately, all women look about the same undressed, so it is pointless to keep buying. They were small, recoverable mistakes that taught teenagers where their limits were.

Now we have banned all that away - but the teenage urge to self-realization and rebellion found a new way to social media. And: social media is safer: no-one got lung cancer from TikTok. No-one woke up in a hospital for facebook poisoning.

Ultimately, it is the rebellion the fascists dislike, not the fact that people earn money with it. So we ban that, driving teenagers to ever-more-destructive behaviour.

Teenagers need an outlet to be teenagers without living in a state sanctioned panopticum. If society pathologizes every form of adolescent experimentation, if you let control freaks raise your children, do not be surprised if they turn out to be either actual rebels, or something much, much darker.

raw_anon_1111 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes because it is so hard for kids to get alcohol and cigarettes. Kids have been sneaking and smoking cigarettes forever.

hedayet 2 days ago | parent [-]

Prevention policies work:

"In 2015, 9.3% of high school students reported smoking cigarettes in the last 30 days, down 74% from 36.4% in 1997 when rates peaked after increasing throughout the first half of the 1990s"

raw_anon_1111 2 days ago | parent [-]

I am seeing 22%

https://www.getsmartaboutdrugs.gov/news-statistics/2024/10/1...

armenarmen 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As one of the libertarian people here, my concern is that this “what about the children” will force IDs to post. Because how else could it be done?

That said smoking and Instagram are probably best avoided by kids

owisd 3 days ago | parent [-]

It’s already a solved problem- load a digital ID into a wallet app, the operating system can then perform a zero knowledge proof for each website that the user is over 16. The government issuing the ID doesn’t know which websites it’s being used for and the website only gets a binary yes/no for the age and no other personal info:

https://blog.google/products/google-pay/google-wallet-age-id...

heavyset_go 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

How does this solve the problem of both governments and corporations wanting to implement this in ways that allow them to hoard datasets?

As it stands, the government in the US uses an identity verification vendor that forces you to upload videos of multiple angles of your face, enough data for facial recognition and to build 3D models, along with pictures of your ID.

I use Tor, so I get to see how age verification is implemented all over the world. By large, the process almost always includes using your government issued ID and live pictures/videos of your face.

There are zero incentives to implement zero knowledge proofs like this, and billions of dollars of incentives to use age verification as an opportunity to collect population-wide datasets of people's faces in high resolution and 3D. That data is valuable, especially for governments and companies that want to implement accurate facial recognition and who have AI models to train.

akoboldfrying 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Nothing "solves" the problem of governments wanting to collect data on you. Governments will likely always want this, until we start caring about the issue enough to elect ones that don't.

The important point is that such invasive approaches are not required; clearly, however people already authenticate with government agencies for getting a driver's licence or passport would suffice. I think it's the responsibility of knowledgeable tech people to advocate for this.

mat_b 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I suspect that this is going to happen one way or another anyways. You already have to scan your face at the airport here.

raw_anon_1111 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Well, phones and computers have had parental controls for well over a decade.

wizzwizz4 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That doesn't solve the problem: it just defers it. Who's allowed to have a digital ID?

nottorp 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Microsoft users :)

Or do you expect the government to understand there are other operating systems out there?

bawolff 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Most people in western countries already have id. I think the ship has ling sailed on that.

wizzwizz4 2 days ago | parent [-]

Most being the operative word. In human-centric bureaucracies, people who don't have ID (for whatever reason: religious conviction, a feud with the relevant government agency, a legal status the computer system was never designed to represent) can still access services in many cases. Naïvely computerising everything will effectively remove rights from those whose paperwork doesn't check out.

ID verification is a universal hammer, to which all problems look like nails, but we shouldn't be so quick to reach for it. Not all of its downsides can be solved with cryptography.

akoboldfrying 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Everyone the government decides can have one, the same way every other government ID works.

IOW, this problem is as "unsolved" as the problem of deciding who's allowed to drive a car, or travel to another country.

lII1lIlI11ll 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> restricting recreational access to hard drugs.

You might want to double-check your definition of "hard drugs", "libertarian" or both.