What I find puzzling about these proposals is that it SEEMS like they could be designed to achieve 90% of the stated goals with almost 0% of the loss of privacy.

The idea would be that devices could "opt in" to safety rather than opt out. Allow parents to purchase a locked-down device that always includes a "kids" flag whenever it requests online information, and simply require online services to not provide kid-unfriendly information if that flag is included.

I know a lot of people believe that this is just all just a secret ploy to destroy privacy. Personally, I don't think so. I think they genuinely want to protect kids, and the privacy destruction is driven by a combination of not caring and not understanding.

▲

jacquesm 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You are mistaking cause for effect. The loss of privacy is the goal, not a side effect, the rest is just a fig leaf.

▲

c22 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Better yet, require online services to send a 'not for kids' flag along with any restricted content then let families configure their devices however they want.

Even better, make the flags granular: <recommended age>, <content flag>, <source>, <type>

13+, profane language, user, text

17+, violence, self, video

18+, unmoderated content, user, text

13+, drug themes, self, audio

and so on...

▲

mjevans 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

No - Kid friendly should be something site's Attest to and claim they ARE. That becomes an FTC enforceable market claim (or insert other thing here).

Foreign sites, places that aren't trying to publish things for children? The default state should be unrated content for consumers (adults) prepared to see the content they asked for.

	▲	c22 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Okay... 0+, kid friendly, self, interactive content

▲

struant 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Just say the whole internet is not for kids without adult supervision and leave it at that.

It doesn't even matter if you can get something that technically works. Half the "age appropriate" content targeted at children is horrifying brainrot. Hardcore pornography would be less damaging to them.

Just supervise your damn children people.

	▲	glenpierce 41 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		This gets complicated when you need to start giving your kids some degree of independence. I would also argue this could be implemented in a more accessibility-oriented approach. Also, not all 13-year-olds are of equal level of maturity/content appropriate material. I find it very annoying that I can’t just set limits like: no drug-referencing but idgaf about my kid hearing swear words. On other machines: I do not want certain content to ever be displayed on my work machine. I’d like to have the ability to set that. Someone who has specific background may not want to see things like: children in danger. This could even be applied to their Netflix algorithm. The website: does the dog die, does a good job of categorizing these kinds of content.
	▲	cowboylowrez 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		yep, 18+, show id at the time of purchasing access soooo easy and zero technical issues.

▲

duskwuff 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Other advantages include:

- It's much easier for web sites to implement, potentially even on a page-by-page basis (e.g. using <meta> tags).

- It doesn't disclose whether the user is underage to service providers.

- As mentioned, it allows user agents to filter content "on their own terms" without the server's involvement, e.g. by voluntarily displaying a content warning and allowing the user to click through it.

	▲	wiml 16 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		This exact method was implemented back around the turn of the century by RSAC/ICRA. I think only MSIE ever looked at those tags. But it seems like they met the stated goal of today's age-verification proposals. That's why I have a hard time crediting the theory that today's proposals are just harmlessly clueless and well intentioned (as dynm suggests). There are many possible ways to make a child-safe internet and it's been a concern for a long time. But, just in the last year there are simultaneous pushes in many regions to enact one specific technique which just happens to pipe a ton of money to a few shady companies, eliminate general purpose computing, be tailor made for social control and political oppression, and on top of that, it isn't even any better at keeping porn away from kids! I think Hanlon's razor has to give way to Occam's here; malice is the simpler explanation.

▲

user3939382 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Internet Explorer had content ratings back in the day

	▲	AnthonyMouse an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The "problem" back then was that nothing required sites to provide a rating and most of them didn't. Then you didn't have much of a content rating system, instead you effectively had a choice for what to do with "unrated" sites where if you allow them you allow essentially the whole internet and if you block them you might as well save yourself some money by calling up your ISP to cancel. This could pretty easily be solved by just giving sites some incentive to actually provide a rating.

▲

asdff 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As others have said, the goal is the surveillance. But this notion goes further than that. So many ills people face in life can be solved by just not doing something. Addicted to something? Just stop. Fat? Stop eating. Getting depressed about social media? Stop browsing.

Some people have enough self control to do that and quit cold turkey. Other people don't even consciously realize what they are doing as they perform that maladaptive action without any thought at all, akin to scratching a mosquito bite.

If someone could figure out why some people are more self aware than others, a whole host of the worlds problems would be better understood.

▲

an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

KoolKat23 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I have not once seen a proposal actually contain zero knowledge proof. This isn't something exotic or difficult. It is clear to me there is ulterior motives, and perhaps a few well meaning folks have been co-opted.

▲

dynm 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

FWIW, the EU is working on zero-knowledge proofs: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/commission-mak...

But I strongly prefer my solution!

▲

digiown 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

A ZKP will work as a base, but the proof mechanism will have to be combined with anti-user measures like device attestation to prevent things like me offering an API to continually sign requests for strangers. You can rate-limit it, or you can add an identifier, both of which makes it not zero knowledge.

Parent's proposal is better in that it would only take away general purpose computing from children rather than from everyone. A sympathetic parent can also allow it anyway, just like how a parent can legally provide a teen with alcohol in most places. As a society we generally consider that parents have a right to decide which things are appropriate for their children.

	▲	KoolKat23 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Honestly I think no measure is and should be perfect. It's completely disproportionate. If there's a will there's a way.

▲

rolph 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

it may be simple to sleuth out over time kid status or not, but i would be very uncomfortable with a tag that verifies kid status instantly no challenges, as it would provide a targeting vector, and defeat safety.

▲

OutOfHere 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It has nothing much to do with kids and everything to do with monitoring and suppressing adults.

▲

ImHereToVote 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You are assuming good faith. This is why you are puzzled.

▲

sublinear 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I completely agree. The problem is the lack of compromise on both sides of the issue.

I wouldn't say it's a lack of understanding, but that any compromise is seen as weakness by other members of their party. That needs to end.