| ▲ | Stop Killing the Internet: No Digital ID and No Age Verification(citizens-initiative.europa.eu) |
| 154 points by doener 3 hours ago | 54 comments |
| |
|
| ▲ | 220hertz an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| Hopefully this fares better than Stop Killing Games. |
|
| ▲ | mixxit 13 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Stop letting regular people know they are engaging with bots Only massive data gatherers should be able to track and know everything about people |
|
| ▲ | metalliqaz 20 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The Internet is already dead. 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. |
| |
| ▲ | kristerv 18 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah I've been wanting ID for years. Because i neighbor Russia and their propaganda game is top notch. One person one account. | |
| ▲ | naravara 9 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | You don’t need IRL identity, you just need persistent reputation. That reputation can be attached to a pseudonymous identity or an IRL one. But the design of most modern social media is to detach the “content” from the context of the author. The feeds you subscribe to are funnels that channel atomized bits of content to you. Some of it may be authored by them, but it’s the platform that intermediates your relationship to that content more than the creator. The creator is subordinated to it. 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. |
|
|
| ▲ | Bender an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| As far as I know the only thing that influences change is money. What methods could be implemented to take money away from governments that implement with such things? All of my ideas would be very low traction but there are clever people here on HN that I am sure could come up with a few better ideas. 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. |
| |
| ▲ | hnav 32 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | They control the last mile of the Internet so it would require satellite networking run by another country to cut them out like this. | |
| ▲ | Muromec 29 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Another thing that influences change reliably is a good old (threat of) violence. | | |
| ▲ | Bender 9 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | I would rather not incite violence on this platform. That just gets a bunch of people put in a cage limiting their career options and potentially "justifies" even greater dystopian actions. | |
| ▲ | forgetfreeman 19 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Who are we threatening today? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | iLoveOncall an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think it's a missed opportunity to not have called it "Stop spying on every EU citizen online". It would make for great headlines and might finally wake people up when they see that the EU has rejected a proposal called that. "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". |
| |
| ▲ | jck86 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | You may be overthinking this. It is privacy that means little to the regular joe. The internet they use every day and it being changed beyond recognition is much more tangible than privacy being curtailed just a little bit more. 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. | |
| ▲ | ben_w an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Agreed. 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". | |
| ▲ | Cider9986 42 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | "Stop enabling pedophiles in government" |
|
|
| ▲ | mothballed 35 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| A few things you can legally do online without ID or age verification in the US 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. |
| |
| ▲ | Dwedit 29 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Usually the delivery person asks for ID when delivering the wine? | | | |
| ▲ | mr_mitm 32 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Is teens ordering wine a big issue in the US? Bigger than social media? | | |
| ▲ | forgetfreeman 22 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Of course not. But literally any excuse that comes to hand will be deployed if it helps the tech industry continue to avoid meaningful consequences. The same handful of companies that have engineered a global surveillance suite that rivals the most tyrannical sovereign governments wildest dreams (and can trivially detect the approximate age of a user) will without a shred of irony deploy legions of paid influencers and other astroturf to decry age verification as an assault on privacy. | | |
| ▲ | hnav 13 minutes ago | parent [-] | | But it is an assault on privacy. If "protecting kids" was the goal here they'd push for regulation that forces websites to return standardized metadata that then gets interpreted by the user agent which can be configured by the parent. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | perching_aix 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I haven't considered this before with SKG, but if this progresses, it means the EU parliament may choose to take action based on an initiative that potentially only a vocal minority supports [0], while coming across as if they were simply following the will of the people. 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 |
| |
| ▲ | Muromec 20 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It would be nice to have a digital referendum on this topic. I could think of some tech that makes it happen, something like a digital ID maybe? |
|
|
| ▲ | TryingToBeNice 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Even for a "Citizens' Initiative", this stuff is remarkably tone-deaf. "No Digital ID" ignores the very-real need for people to prove their identity to government(-ish) entities online, and to do so in a reliable, cheap and convenient way. Sure, you do not want that ID to become mandatory for publishing or existing on the Internet in general, but that's a separate discussion: demand sufficient protection for anonymous/pseudonymous posts instead, which is absolutely something that needs to be codified as part of basic human rights. "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. |
| |
| ▲ | superxpro12 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | not all parents are screaming this. Only the parents who refuse to parent their children, and conveniently scapegoat society for their parental failings | | |
| ▲ | cromka an hour ago | parent [-] | | We cannot possibly expect all parents to take proper care of their kids. This has never been the case and never will. That's why we have schools and other institutions that oversee our growth within society. 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. | | |
| ▲ | AllegedAlec an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > We cannot possibly expect all parents to take proper care of their kids. This has never been the case and never will. That's why we have schools and other institutions that oversee our growth within society. 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. | | |
| ▲ | spockz 15 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | I respectfully disagree. Yes, parents should raise their children as in be present in their lives and help them grow and shape themselves. However, schools with the rules, social engagements, and learning is also a form of raising. Teachers, especially in elementary school, are extremely influential for young kids. How teachers behave when somebody is bullied, how they handle questions, basically how they handle anything, forms the minds of young children. 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. | |
| ▲ | naravara 5 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | I feel like you must have a very restrictive definition of what constitutes “raising” kids if we’re omitting the place where they spend the majority of their waking hours and the people most of their social universe is based in. 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. |
| |
| ▲ | ndr an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It is a parenting issue. 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. | | |
| ▲ | leonidasrup 38 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | There is also the influence of the church. 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-... | |
| ▲ | hobom an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You totally ignored the point OP was making! Even if it is a parenting issue, simply declaring that will not make parents parent better. It's the same reason why we ban children from drinking wine, because parents cannot be relied upon here. Unless your point was that we should legally ban kids from handling phones, which I think is too extreme. | | |
| ▲ | ndr an hour ago | parent [-] | | But that is my point. 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. |
| |
| ▲ | naravara 3 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Just put your kids in a bubble so not a single adult is the slightest bit inconvenienced by having to exercise any social responsibility for their well being. Easy. |
| |
| ▲ | seany an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | So they should be raised by the state just in case? I feel like Ive read this story somewhere... | | |
| ▲ | kelseyfrog 15 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Parents should be imprisoned if they give children access to the internet. We have to make parents criminally liable. Without a change in incentives, we cannot expect behavior to change. Until then 'parents need to parent' is a slogan and not a solution. |
| |
| ▲ | Balooga an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > We cannot possibly expect all parents to take proper care of their kids. This has never been the case and never will. That's why we have schools and other institutions that oversee our growth within society. "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!" |
|
| |
| ▲ | seany an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'm a parent and would rather ban age verification. So it's certainly not everyone... | |
| ▲ | dgellow 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They don’t seem to oppose any of that if you read the intro > 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. | | |
| ▲ | jvuygbbkuurx an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | It has been quite a slippery slope. Services that used to allow password auth have retired them in favour of bank detail login. I can kind of get it, since it's offloading support to the banks, but it's also annoying since the bank logins themselves are a pain to setup, maintain and use (mobile app only). It would be nice to have some good standard that is less invasive. | |
| ▲ | iLoveOncall an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Are you seriously asking to read more than the title from an account created less than 30 minutes ago? | | |
| ▲ | TryingToBeNice an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | My apologies for joining this community. Do you have any more valuable tips, other than "get lost newbie"? | |
| ▲ | perching_aix an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | While that's fair, would be kinda nice if the title was consistent with the content, instead of being, say, "reach optimized" (populist), wouldn't it? |
| |
| ▲ | TryingToBeNice an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | The intro indeed doesn't sound too bad, but if you read into the underlying demands, the title is actually quite representative of what's going on here. 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. |
| |
| ▲ | OkayPhysicist an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | There are also fascists screaming at the government to do other wildly illegal stuff. The lousy parents begging the government to "tread on me" would get wildly better results by spending less time trying to create an authoritarian state and more time with their kids they claim to care so much about. 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. | | |
| ▲ | TryingToBeNice an hour ago | parent [-] | | > my parents were setting up filters Ah, OK, so you admit a problem exists. That's step one... | | |
| ▲ | sunaookami 7 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | One hour old account advocating for digital identity? And a few other posts here from other accounts doing the same? Is this a psyop? | |
| ▲ | OkayPhysicist an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | And the solution already exists, one that doesn't empower the government to do some truly heinous shit. 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. | | |
| ▲ | Muromec 23 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Parenting controls are shit on the end device side. It's not working, it's not even trying to. Nobody would need this blanket approach if parenting controls actually worked. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | trolleski an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| UA spies on Europeans, and vice versa. Then they share, it's not spying on your citizens, it's called 'intelligence sharing'. |
| |
