You can't sign up for a Facebook account without giving a live selfie.
Any image of your family you post will be scraped by Clearview AI, bypassing the restrictions that make it hard for you to create accounts, to create a worldwide facial recognition system.
And your data on all those platforms - Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, etc. are ALL building comprehensive profiles on you, selling your data, and probably tossing it straight to the government in one way or another.
One very simple way to give parents control over what their children see and participate in without violating everyone else’s privacy is to create adult and social TLDs and require these sites to migrate to them. So instagram.com becomes instagram.social, etc. Then mandate that all consumer network equipment mfrs and internet providers provide easily accessible ways to block these TLDs. Maybe combine that with some public education materials to teach less savvy parents how to do this.
Now you’ve given every parent a way to easily mass block all adult/social sites/apps if they want and no one’s privacy need be compromised.
There isn't much left of the free Internet anyway. Search engines no longer work, all discussion forums are ranked/censored by interest groups, mail delivery is between large entities.
Maybe we need an alternative set of root servers for a free Internet.
And content is increasingly produced for, and by, machines. Human initiative and/or access is increasingly incidental.
It's easy to create an alternative. The problem isn't that, it's keeping that alternative clanker-free. (As well as free of all the other enemies / plauges on the useful, generative, Internet.)
“Introducing age verification is based on the state being able to force social media companies to verify their users’ identities”
Users have been doing this themselves without state coercion for twenty years now by putting their real names all over Facebook and all the other socials. Nobody forced them to use their real names and post countless pictures of their faces alongside, and pour out the totality of their worthless opinions on every issue. Compared to this, when considered sensibly, the verification is almost a trivial step.
Growing up I remember all the ads about avoiding narcotics talking about getting hooked on free samples and then going to jail for theft and/or possession. The people behind that propaganda didn't know drugs do cost money, dealers being dorky teens and twenty-somethings who are about as dangerous as a butterfly. But this propaganda also illustrates how some elements aren't very bright. The internet age with free email, free social media, etc. got everyone hooked and now Zuckerberg, et al. are giving doe-eyed, hat-in-hand, and crying poverty. If people were wise to those PSAs, past and present, they'd see how the loyal opposition has been playing with their cards face-up on the table under the guise of good intentions. Much like the pedophile scare during the teens, pun unintended, with Comet Ping Pong and then come 2024 it's revealed Epstein and his cadre of deviant cronies were doing it all along while deflecting poorly to innocent parties. Goodness knows what else is still right in front of our noses but their reality hasn't come to fruition in the zeitgest.
>and that you can no longer post anonymously on social media. You cannot be certain that your criticism of the government will not be followed up by the authorities.
sorry but I don't get this point. If you're on Instagram or Facebook, did you think fifteen different three letter agencies weren't already watching you? It has the word 'face' in the name, the entire point of that site is that people mindlessly share their personal information, it's not some underground space for activists.
You can be perfectly anonymous on the internet, but demanding to be anonymous on Facebook is like trying to start a Das Kapital book club at Goldman Sachs or decrying commercial culture while you're in a Disneyland theme park
Good arguments there, and for once addressing privacy-preserving age verification.
I just don't like that proponents of age verification are systematically (including in this article) dismissed as authoritarians hiding behind "just another “what about the children” excuse to introduce mass surveillance and censorship". Many people genuinely want to find a solution that is better for the children, and telling them "if you are open to age verification you are either a fascist or a moron" is not constructive.
Also I find the way ZKP is criticised a bit manipulative. It kinda implies that "fundamentally, any kind of ZKP system can be switched off remotely and without anyone realising", and that is wrong. It can be implemented in such a way that people have pretty good guarantees about it preserving their privacy, similar to end-to-end encryption. I find it hypocritical to say "E2EE can be reasonably trusted, but privacy-preserving age verification fundamentally cannot", just because tech people like the former and not the latter.
> Many people genuinely want to find a solution that is better for the children
at the expense of everyone and everything else all to not have to be an actual parent.
These arguments are not coming from places of concern, they are coming from laziness and people taking advantage of that laziness to further even worse agendas.
Indeed it’s much easier to understand when you realize the people advocating for these laws and regulations do not give a flying fuck about your children, it’s merely an apparatus to gain control of the general populace
There is a solution, it is regulating social media companies to stop abusing their users, and by extension, children. strict laws around adtech and tracking tech. more consumer rights, in other words - that’s why this solution comes off as authoritarian, because there is such a variety of ways to tackle this problem, and this is the most authoritarian one.
Parents need to either control the internet, or control their children’s devices and screentime. The latter sounds like the obvious option, except that Google wants every second grader to have a school-mismanaged chromebook and Google wants to mediate control of the internet, and by pushing parents to the former they win on both fronts.
Age verification literally already exists in a way that doesn't require orwellian centralized control. The <meta rating> tag has existed for decades. If you want to restrict access force websites to apply these tags, then use a browser that obeys them. Parents control what their kids access, mostly, like it's been since forever.
Think carefully about why a politician might disregard this extremely simple mechanism and you'll have your answer about the real goals here
Many people genuinely want to find a solution that is better for the children, and telling them "if you are open to age verification you are either a fascist or a moron" is not constructive.
We know they'll take a mile if you give them an inch. Ditto with "trusted" computing and the rest of that wormcan. That's why the opposition has to be absolute.
Sure but that absolute opposition hasn't, as far I can tell at least, achieved an iota of success. So it's largely a self indulgent merit badge than an actual strategy.
We have age verification for all kinds of things that can harm minors. Most of them have adequate penalties for breach such that operators of said harms ensure they comply (checks for ID when selling alcohol, entry to over-18s pubs/clubs, etc.)
There's nothing sinister going on here, just attempts to prevent social/mental harm to minors.
This whole thing is meta financially backing right wing conservative groups that want age verification because meta wants to avoid liability for the harms their platforms cause.
In addition, this is the beginning of the end of any sort of anonymity on the internet, which has disastrous consequences for politically minded individuals, minority populations, or targets of stalking. This is a privacy nightmare bring pushed through in the guise of "muh children".
So, to post something in 2027:
- You have to have an approved browser.
- It has to be installed on an approved platform, Google or Apple, for which you have a valid account.
- You have to have an account on the posting platform.
- You have to get past moderation on the posting platform.
That's without age verification.
You can't sign up for a Facebook account without giving a live selfie.
Any image of your family you post will be scraped by Clearview AI, bypassing the restrictions that make it hard for you to create accounts, to create a worldwide facial recognition system.
And your data on all those platforms - Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, etc. are ALL building comprehensive profiles on you, selling your data, and probably tossing it straight to the government in one way or another.
And just so we're clear: these companies are building these profiles even if you haven't registered and/or logged into their services.
One very simple way to give parents control over what their children see and participate in without violating everyone else’s privacy is to create adult and social TLDs and require these sites to migrate to them. So instagram.com becomes instagram.social, etc. Then mandate that all consumer network equipment mfrs and internet providers provide easily accessible ways to block these TLDs. Maybe combine that with some public education materials to teach less savvy parents how to do this.
Now you’ve given every parent a way to easily mass block all adult/social sites/apps if they want and no one’s privacy need be compromised.
There isn't much left of the free Internet anyway. Search engines no longer work, all discussion forums are ranked/censored by interest groups, mail delivery is between large entities.
Maybe we need an alternative set of root servers for a free Internet.
And content is increasingly produced for, and by, machines. Human initiative and/or access is increasingly incidental.
It's easy to create an alternative. The problem isn't that, it's keeping that alternative clanker-free. (As well as free of all the other enemies / plauges on the useful, generative, Internet.)
Already exists: Opennic.org
“Introducing age verification is based on the state being able to force social media companies to verify their users’ identities”
Users have been doing this themselves without state coercion for twenty years now by putting their real names all over Facebook and all the other socials. Nobody forced them to use their real names and post countless pictures of their faces alongside, and pour out the totality of their worthless opinions on every issue. Compared to this, when considered sensibly, the verification is almost a trivial step.
So there are walled gardens with restrictions. The internet will route around these restrictions.
EU law gives every citizen a right to a bank account.
I wonder if EU law could give every citizen a right to a google or Apple account, including a forced recovery option if the account is 'deactivated'?
If at some point such an account becomes essential to function in society, access to such an account becomes a legal mandate.
I mean, try getting a job without an email account and a cell phone number.
Growing up I remember all the ads about avoiding narcotics talking about getting hooked on free samples and then going to jail for theft and/or possession. The people behind that propaganda didn't know drugs do cost money, dealers being dorky teens and twenty-somethings who are about as dangerous as a butterfly. But this propaganda also illustrates how some elements aren't very bright. The internet age with free email, free social media, etc. got everyone hooked and now Zuckerberg, et al. are giving doe-eyed, hat-in-hand, and crying poverty. If people were wise to those PSAs, past and present, they'd see how the loyal opposition has been playing with their cards face-up on the table under the guise of good intentions. Much like the pedophile scare during the teens, pun unintended, with Comet Ping Pong and then come 2024 it's revealed Epstein and his cadre of deviant cronies were doing it all along while deflecting poorly to innocent parties. Goodness knows what else is still right in front of our noses but their reality hasn't come to fruition in the zeitgest.
hey claude build me a small social media site i can use with my friends...
the beginning of the freedom of every person to become a developer
I can't let you do that, Dave
>and that you can no longer post anonymously on social media. You cannot be certain that your criticism of the government will not be followed up by the authorities.
sorry but I don't get this point. If you're on Instagram or Facebook, did you think fifteen different three letter agencies weren't already watching you? It has the word 'face' in the name, the entire point of that site is that people mindlessly share their personal information, it's not some underground space for activists.
You can be perfectly anonymous on the internet, but demanding to be anonymous on Facebook is like trying to start a Das Kapital book club at Goldman Sachs or decrying commercial culture while you're in a Disneyland theme park
Good arguments there, and for once addressing privacy-preserving age verification.
I just don't like that proponents of age verification are systematically (including in this article) dismissed as authoritarians hiding behind "just another “what about the children” excuse to introduce mass surveillance and censorship". Many people genuinely want to find a solution that is better for the children, and telling them "if you are open to age verification you are either a fascist or a moron" is not constructive.
Also I find the way ZKP is criticised a bit manipulative. It kinda implies that "fundamentally, any kind of ZKP system can be switched off remotely and without anyone realising", and that is wrong. It can be implemented in such a way that people have pretty good guarantees about it preserving their privacy, similar to end-to-end encryption. I find it hypocritical to say "E2EE can be reasonably trusted, but privacy-preserving age verification fundamentally cannot", just because tech people like the former and not the latter.
> Many people genuinely want to find a solution that is better for the children
at the expense of everyone and everything else all to not have to be an actual parent.
These arguments are not coming from places of concern, they are coming from laziness and people taking advantage of that laziness to further even worse agendas.
Indeed it’s much easier to understand when you realize the people advocating for these laws and regulations do not give a flying fuck about your children, it’s merely an apparatus to gain control of the general populace
Do you believe people should be able to traverse the internet anonymously?
You can't. Even if you haven't registered or logged in, companies like Facebook have identified you and track you everywhere you go.
There is a solution, it is regulating social media companies to stop abusing their users, and by extension, children. strict laws around adtech and tracking tech. more consumer rights, in other words - that’s why this solution comes off as authoritarian, because there is such a variety of ways to tackle this problem, and this is the most authoritarian one.
Parents need to either control the internet, or control their children’s devices and screentime. The latter sounds like the obvious option, except that Google wants every second grader to have a school-mismanaged chromebook and Google wants to mediate control of the internet, and by pushing parents to the former they win on both fronts.
Requiring parents to police their child's every move is not going to end well.
And having the state do it is better?
Age verification literally already exists in a way that doesn't require orwellian centralized control. The <meta rating> tag has existed for decades. If you want to restrict access force websites to apply these tags, then use a browser that obeys them. Parents control what their kids access, mostly, like it's been since forever.
Think carefully about why a politician might disregard this extremely simple mechanism and you'll have your answer about the real goals here
Many people genuinely want to find a solution that is better for the children, and telling them "if you are open to age verification you are either a fascist or a moron" is not constructive.
We know they'll take a mile if you give them an inch. Ditto with "trusted" computing and the rest of that wormcan. That's why the opposition has to be absolute.
Sure but that absolute opposition hasn't, as far I can tell at least, achieved an iota of success. So it's largely a self indulgent merit badge than an actual strategy.
Who is this "they" you speak of?
We have age verification for all kinds of things that can harm minors. Most of them have adequate penalties for breach such that operators of said harms ensure they comply (checks for ID when selling alcohol, entry to over-18s pubs/clubs, etc.)
There's nothing sinister going on here, just attempts to prevent social/mental harm to minors.
> There's nothing sinister going on here
There absolutely is you're just not aware of it.
This whole thing is meta financially backing right wing conservative groups that want age verification because meta wants to avoid liability for the harms their platforms cause.
In addition, this is the beginning of the end of any sort of anonymity on the internet, which has disastrous consequences for politically minded individuals, minority populations, or targets of stalking. This is a privacy nightmare bring pushed through in the guise of "muh children".