• Zagorath@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    9 hours ago

    The fact that they haven’t gone for this approach that delivers age verification without disclosing ID, when it’s a common and well known pattern in IT services, very strongly suggests that age verification was never the goal.

    I don’t agree. It certainly makes it possible that it isn’t the goal. But I genuinely believe that, at least here in Australia (where our recent age-gating law is not about porn, but about social media platforms, with an age limit of 16), the reason behind the laws being designed as they are is (1) optics: despite what those of us here say, keeping young children off of harmful social media algorithms is very politically popular and they wanted to pass a bill that banned it as quickly as they could. No time for serious discussion about methods. And (2) a complete lack of knowledge. Because they wanted the optics, they passed the bill extremely quickly and without a serious amount of consultation. And I don’t trust that even if they had done consultation, they would have known who is more reliable to listen to, the actual experts and privacy advocates, or the big AI companies with big money promising facial recognition will somehow solve this. Because politicians are, by and large, really fucking stupid at technology.

    What is it they say? Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity?

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      39 minutes ago

      First, Mastodon is talking about Mississippi in the US.

      Second, why can’t people parent their own kids? What if I don’t agree with the government and want my kid to see stuff the government has decided to block? The government isn’t the parent of your child and you shouldn’t be treating them as such. If you child is doing something you don’t want, it’s your job as their parent to stop it.

      • Zagorath@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 minutes ago

        The article says “Mississippi and elsewhere”, so I assumed all sorts of bans were fair game for discussion.

        As for your second point, I genuinely don’t really care all that much. Take my solution and require platform vendors provide a parental controls API and require websites and apps call it. From there, whether you legally required parents to set up parental controls, you strongly suggest they do it, or you just leave it there as an option doesn’t matter as much. Maybe different places can have different laws.

        The important thing is that parents should at least be given the tools necessary to be able to do this.