| ▲ | Morromist 4 days ago |
| Its going to be funny when there are married 17 year olds driving cars with guns and children but who can't install linux or access facebook without calling their dad. Why are so many bi-partisan bills so bad? |
|
| ▲ | OhMeadhbh 4 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| I don't think that's what this bill is about. I think they want to be able to attach a government issued ID to logins for various services. They tried claiming it was to fight terrorism, but that didn't really work so now they're saying "it's for the children!" |
| |
| ▲ | dotwaffle 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Someone came up with a good theory a while ago that I'm inclined to believe: The social media companies (esp. Meta as I understand it) were looking at huge fines for showing adult content to under-18s, so they lobbied hard to ensure that the burden of proof for age verification was on anyone else but themselves, hence why the OS vendors are being targeted now. Ultimately, they seem to have realised that they can't stop adult content from being shared, so the easiest way to get there was to mark anything even vaguely possible of being adult, and require age verification -- which comes with a lot of political cover vs. just deleting it. Of course, if you stoke up the right people, you end up with lots of support from the puritanical brigades, and label all naysayers as putting children in harm's way. | | |
| ▲ | trollbridge 3 days ago | parent [-] | | They could stop adult content from being shown to minors; it would just take effort on their part to do so, so why not shift the effort on to everyone else? | | |
| ▲ | phkahler 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | >> They could stop adult content from being shown to minors; it would just take effort on their part to do so If you voluntarily sensor content, you might be in danger of being held responsible for various things since you control what people see. Phone companies in the US are "common carriers" which means they just connect people, but are not responsible for what people do over the phone (plotting crime or whatever). Social Media is still trying to have it both ways - censor some stuff but not be responsible for anything. IMHO that will eventually fail. | | |
| ▲ | heavyset_go 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Section 230 allows for as much censoring as you want, you are not liable for user generated content as an interactive computer service provider if you censor or don't. |
| |
| ▲ | shoxidizer 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Showing adult content to minors is also probably not an insignificant part of their business (certaintly a major part if the classification of social media as adult becomes more widespread), and having age be an os-user property might give children more opportunity to subvert the verification. And if enough applications end up behind the maturity wall, they can count on children to badger their parents into setting their account to adult, and the industry will absolve itself of all responsibility once more. | |
| ▲ | packetlost 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'm really quite confident I don't want these companies collecting face and ID scans to prove age, so no I think this being an OS problem is actually a very reasonable solution. | |
| ▲ | red-iron-pine 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | because stock price must go up |
|
| |
| ▲ | Morromist 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yeah, you're probably right. I couldn't find the text of the bill in the link. I'm sure the effort to do this kind of thing goes back to the 90s: like a lot of the really intense copyright bills - the CASE Act (ability for big companies to easily fine people who they think are breaching their copyright for $5,000 + legal fees without anything resembling a trial or evidentiary hearing) has been popping up in different forms for decades - but in its current name they took 5 years of trying to pass it, but the main idea was officially proposed in 2006 - so 14 years to get the bill passed, but then it was a thing long before it was officially proposed by a house comittee too. I guess they figure if they keep trying they'll eventually get it passed - which is probably true. | | |
| ▲ | Longlius 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Most of these "online safety" acts have been sitting around in congress for half a decade at this point. Mike Johnson keeps blocking them because he has serious doubts about their constitutionality (which keep getting borne out whenever the laws end up in court). |
|
|
|
| ▲ | cik 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| For years people have been able to legally murder on behalf of their country, with not have a beer. This is another item that will operate as intended. |
|
| ▲ | varispeed 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Because of corruption, sorry lobbying. Big corporations want the data. |
| |
| ▲ | Izmaki 4 days ago | parent [-] | | They already have the data and much more of it. This has nothing to do with “Big Corp” wanting to know how old their users are. | | |
| ▲ | awkwardpotato 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Meta is the largest sponsors of these bills... https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1rshc1f/i_traced_2_b... | |
| ▲ | varispeed 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's not about the age, but whole identity. You know you are serving ads to a real person and not a bot and so on and you can correlate person across different services with 100% accuracy. Currently you can still reasonably easy fake a persona. | | |
| ▲ | figassis 3 days ago | parent [-] | | If this is the case, this can be gamed. People can use stolen documents. Nothing says a person can’t own multiple computers so what happens if someone uses your id in 20 laptops? Will the companies just claim “but the machine said they where old enough?” The law may not have teeth, but will violate privacy. Something like https://protocol.humanidentity.io (disclaimer: I built it, sorry for the plug) or any other privacy preserving service might work better. A platform can then require that a person verifies age in a privacy preserving way before viewing adult content. | | |
| ▲ | natpalmer1776 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I really like your solution. Have you considered making connections with well connected individuals and potentially making small compromises on your products integrity to appeal to the people who would make this a legislated standard across the board? Or perhaps golfing at the right clubs to make it a defacto industry standard like ID.me seems poised to become? I hate seeing stuff like this once and then never again due to people who are capable of making something this… Good being unable to “play the game” or whatever optimize to break the social-moral glass ceiling for a given problem space. | | |
| ▲ | figassis 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Thank you, this is very early stages. Still trying to validate the idea. But yes, the reason there is a sovereign verifier tier is because I am sure governments will want their own rules, and the protocol is meant to be decentralized. So one govt can legislate that they are the exclusive verifier for their country, while another takes a more hand off or hybrid approach. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | burnt-resistor 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is being pushed by dark money billionaire PACs and lobbyists all over the world. Techbro feudal lords demand total control, de-anonymization of users, and monetization of such data but sell it as "think of the children" "safety". It's also why Flock is popping up to bring Big Mommy while it's using taxpayer money to force privacy elimination and mass surveillance by continuously tracking innocent people. |
| |
| ▲ | varispeed 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | That also reveals true (at least) two tier law enforcement. Banana republic level of corruption is fine as long as it's called lobbying and law enforcement looks the other way. | | |
| ▲ | foxglacier 4 days ago | parent [-] | | This is an endless complaint I've heard for many years but Americans always vote for lobbied parties. They are clearly happy with this compared to whatever other reasons they have to vote. Somehow there's always something more important that makes them think "I'll tolerate a bit of corruption because at least he's promising XYZ". | | |
| ▲ | Morromist 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | As an american voter I confess you're right. - but also there aren't many good alternatives for us. Say you have 3 people running for senate to choose from. Canidate A and B have super PACs that spend $80 million each on ads. Canidate C doesn't. You could vote for canidate C, but he will likely lose - nobody sees anything about them, they can't employ many people to work their campaign, they don't get interviewed on tv. It feels better to vote for someone who has a chance to win. Also candiate A is a nutjob who thinks we should take over Tierra del Fuego as our 51st state and all young boys should have a year where their schooling is just learning how to throw knives really good like a Ninja, so you really want them to lose - you pretty much have to vote for Canidate B. | | |
| ▲ | SAI_Peregrinus 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Also the official presidential debates are a privately run event, not a public thing open to all candidates. The president isn't the only politician, but it exemplifies the problem that our election campaigns are privatized. | |
| ▲ | foxglacier 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | But why not vote for a loser? Is it just some irrational pride/feeling thing? One vote is never going to determine the outcome anyway, yet a spoiler vote is still a signal to A and B about how competition is stealing their votes and how they could win you back. That other reason you mentioned is ridiculous too. Since parties A and B always win, alternating each one or two cycles, it's not the end of the world if your hated one wins this time - if they don't, they'll just win next time anyway. |
| |
| ▲ | Terr_ 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Americans always vote for lobbied parties. They are clearly happy with this compared to whatever other reasons they have to vote. That's kinda backwards. (Yes, I know you said "compared to".) Rather, citizen are seldom "happy" about their selection of choices, and many are so very not-happy that they don't even vote. The main fault is in the math and mechanics of our voting system, rather than the personal-traits of the people. The spoiler effect [0] is unusually strong with plurality-voting, an archaic scheme that still dominates US politics. It's main "feature" is how it was easy to implement 250 years ago when more people were illiterate, calculating and printing was harder, and nothing traveled faster overland than a galloping horse. Nowadays there are many alternatives [1] and most would be an unequivocal upgrade. > "I'll tolerate a bit of corruption because at least he's promising XYZ". Hey now, don't tar the whole electorate with a worldview that is concentrated into a much smaller bloc. There's a reason that the most blatantly corrupt President in history never got anywhere when he spent years trying to run as a Democrat. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect [1] https://fairvote.org/resources/electoral-systems/comparing-v... |
|
| |
| ▲ | rexpop 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Dark money PACs and billionaire donors have indeed engineered a system where immense wealth dictates public policy, frequently hiding their identities behind 501(c)(4) "social welfare" groups. These organizations act as "dark money ATMs," allowing a tiny fraction of the ultra-wealthy to spend hundreds of millions of dollars entirely anonymously. To sell their profit-driven agendas, they construct "astroturf" front groups designed to simulate grassroots support, relying on market-tested public relations strategies to convince ordinary citizens that these initiatives are simply about promoting society's "well-being" and "freedom". The collaboration between tech billionaires and state surveillance is also thoroughly documented. Silicon Valley venture capitalists and tech founders—such as Peter Thiel (Palantir) and Palmer Luckey (Anduril)—have aggressively integrated themselves into the military-industrial complex. By leveraging their immense wealth and political access, they have secured billions in taxpayer-funded contracts with the Department of Defense, ICE, and local police departments. Palantir, for example, got its start with seed funding and direct guidance from the CIA’s venture capital arm, In-Q-Tel, and now provides the digital infrastructure that enables federal agents to track and arrest individuals en masse. Data monetization and the elimination of anonymity are the financial engines of this model. The modern digital economy operates on "surveillance capitalism," offering supposedly free services to harvest user data, craft highly detailed profiles, and monetize every click and interaction while entirely deemphasizing user privacy. In the political sphere, dark money networks have poured millions into their own high-tech data firms (such as i360) to assemble meticulously detailed, de-anonymized profiles on over 190 million active voters and 250 million consumers, enabling precision targeting and psychological manipulation. Mass surveillance justified by "safety" is precisely how these technologies are deployed against the public. The software systems sold by tech companies to law enforcement agencies explicitly ingest commercial license plate reader (LPR) data, providing authorities with access to over 5 billion data points used to continuously and physically track vehicles and individuals across the country. This geographic tracking is fused with other aggressive domestic surveillance methods like digital dragnets, "Stingray" cell phone interceptors, facial recognition, and fake social media profiles—often using photos of attractive young women—to trick youths as young as twelve into accepting friend requests. Authorities use this access to map out social networks and establish guilt by association, heavily surveilling minority youth without any concrete evidence of criminal behavior. Ultimately, these technologies fulfill the state's historical obsession with "legibility"—the utopian, often tyrannical desire of authorities to categorize, monitor, map, and standardize every aspect of human life so that the population becomes a closed, predictable, and easily manipulated system. By merging state power with Silicon Valley's data-harvesting capabilities, this infrastructure enforces control by turning human sociality and everyday life into an endless series of trackable, monetizable data points. | | |
| ▲ | windexh8er 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Why waste the time generating slop like this? | | |
| ▲ | rexpop 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I spent a lot of time reading the books on which these perspectives are based. You probably won't read the books. So I hope that, by writing about reality here on HN, I can expose you to some facts and ideas that you're too complacent to bother investigating, yourself. | | |
| ▲ | GeorgeWBasic 2 days ago | parent [-] | | The parent was saying that AI wrote that, not you. | | |
| ▲ | NoGravitas a day ago | parent [-] | | I don't see any of the typical markers of AI slop, like "It's not this, it's that" or overuse of the rule of threes. Are they just accusing based on the length of the reply? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | downrightmike 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| they are work arounds to get what they are really after |