165
age verfication in linux is shady (quokk.au)
submitted 7 months ago by to c/peoplemastodon
48 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 7 months ago (6 children)

Except that you're claiming it empowers tracking when it does no such thing. The server-side age verification that's happening already, and which this exists as an alternative to are tracking. This is a way of achieving a good outcome (children not accessing porn, and parents being given tools to help parent their children instead of big tech letting them roam free on their harmful addictive algorithms) without tracking.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 14 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (5 children)

    It does because it legitimises something that should not exist in the first place and is part of a large global push to get verification of users embedded everywhere from the OS level to websites.

    Once it’s in place it’s only a matter of time until “this doesn’t go far enough, the bot accounts are set to adult age and bypassing the age check we need them to verify it with us to ensure it’s legitimate”

    Wrapping up loss of freedom under “think of the children” is nothing new, and it’s sad to see people supporting it still.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    I don't buy the slippery slope argument. Ever. It's fallacious lazy reasoning. If they introduce bad policy, oppose it when it's bad policy. Not when it's a good policy that might later become bad policy if it's changed.

    That's not the same, fwiw, as opposing bad policy that's bad now and also has the potential to be extended to be worse policy in the future. Which is where I honestly think you're sitting with this here, based on your other comments. But if that's the case, don't hide behind a comment like this one that entirely rests on "it could be bad in the future".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 7 points 7 months ago* (3 children)

    And I don’t buy the Mrs.Lovejoy. You don’t wait until the car hits someone to tell them to stop accelerating.

    There is zero benefit to this, it’s not a good policy at all. If your issue is parental control over children how about you take issue with parents giving their children access without oversight.

    And you should be far more concerned over kids playing predator den child centric games like Roblox vs them going to pornhub.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    how about you take issue with parents giving their children access without oversight

    Because that's not a bad thing? Children deserve privacy and the ability to explore. Exactly how much freedom they should have to do that will change as they age. The digital realm is no different in this regard than the physical. A toddler should basically never be out of sight of a responsible adult. A young teenager's parents should probably know vaguely where they're going and with whom, but they don't necessarily need to know the precise details as their child develops their sense of independence. This is a tool that simply helps parents with that. That is unequivocally a good thing.

    You're not wrong about Roblox. I agree it needs to be harshly cracked down on. But that's not the subject of this conversation and serves only to distract from the topic at hand.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    This whole argument is part of why I never want children. Having unfettered internet access was a hugely formative, largely positive aspect of my childhood, and I would hate to deny that to my children, but I obviously know that you should.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    Apparently a lot of people disagree that it's even a good idea.

    I grew up without much parental oversight online. And I'm glad for it. But today's algorithmic social media didn't exist when I was young. I strongly opposed Australia's social media minimum age law when it was passed, and still do. But that was because of the manner in which it was passed, and the particulars of its approach.

    If it had been done by mandating operating systems provide a feature like this. And by having the Minister designate sites it applies to, instead of applying everywhere, so he can designate Facebook, Instagram, and other sites with known harmful algorithms while not applying to the fediverse, I'd have enthusiastically supported it.

    Ironically, this approach would have brought a kid today's experience online closer to what you and I grew up with than what no law whatsoever probably gives them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent