72
Governments are ruining the internet to protect kids but there is a much better way (www.neowin.net)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/privacy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 13 points 5 months ago (4 children)

Content should be able to send a request asking the OS if you’re old enough to view

You've got it backwards. This is letting them frame the narrative. There's no need to tell anyone else anything about yourself when requesting content. The local device should be where any content filtering happens.

If you're in a kid mode, it should block the incoming content, not rely on a third party to give a shit about blocking itself.

No chance for "whoops we fascismed" that way

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

    My opinion: The other way around puts the onus for violating the law on the OSes.

    Also the telemetry is the same either way:

    "Are you over 18?" Yes/No is basically the same signal to the server as "This content is rated 18+" followed by downloading more content or not.

    It's also vulnerable to basically the same brute force age guessing which should be outlawed, e.g., "This pixel is for 5+, that one is 10+, ....." Until you get the user's age, but that also should be considered a violation by the website and not the OS, in my book.

    Policing the OS is like policing credit card companies for kids buying cigarettes. It could work but it's not really their responsibility to check.

    Also, my personal suggested approach leaves room for the OS not to disclose age and we're just back to the normal Y/N checkbox or calendar drop down on a website.

    Finally, when a website tells the device the content is 18+, the device can't go "but wait, is it the kind of 18+ I'm okay with??" It'll still get blocked either way. End user effect will be the same.

    Nothing about my proposal fixes fascism because they can always write a new law with more restrictions. Fascists gonna fascist, but without a working system, they can play the "protect the kids, give pornhub your full ID" card all day.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Except your yes/no it's what traps you in the block all or nothing scenario. Having local devices be able to filter based on content tags would be way easier to implement and allow for nuance.

    We have already had keyword filtering for decades.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago*

    Keyword filtering is complementary to but not a replacement for age tags. The problem with keywords is they are:

    1. practically infinite, and thus almost impossible to keep on top of an allow/blocklist - you have to be technically savvy and well informed (which does not describe most of the population) to manage a tag list

    2. basically saying you can just ignore laws you disagree with on content access

    I agree that there should be more responsibility on parents not governments to decide what their kids can/cannot have access to, but I also am not full libertarian on this view - there is content that is well documented as being clinically inappropriate for children to access and should eb regulated IMO.

    Just like we have seat belt or helmet laws, smoking/drinking ages, etc. not everything should be up for people to "do their own research" on, and negligent parents should not be giving their children carte blanche access to the internet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent