this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
1130 points (97.6% liked)

Technology

59392 readers
2534 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] wheresmypillow@lemmy.one 70 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I think a lot of these states are going about this wrong. We should be helping parents restrict access for their children rather than trying to verify identities of adults who likely want to remain anonymous.

[–] ShakyPerception@lemmy.world 86 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I am pretty sure these laws have nothing to do with "protecting children"

[–] EighthLayer@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's the same rhetoric that the UK government are using to get a backdoor on messaging apps with E2EE.

[–] Buelldozer 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The UK is trying to get the age verification for porn thing going as well.

[–] tony@lemmy.hoyle.me.uk 1 points 1 year ago

They've been trying for years and never get anywhere.

They face an issue that introducing age verification requires an ID system and whilst age verification polls well (as did earlier silly ideas like a watershed for the internet . Unfortunately, timezones exist..) ID verification polls extremely badly

So I suspect trying and failing is their holding position where they satisfy both.

[–] Khotetsu@lib.lgbt 4 points 1 year ago

Yeah, anytime you see somebody making the "think of the children!" argument, look at what the possible end goal could be with that removed. Protecting kids is a favorite smokescreen because kids can't speak up for themselves in these cases.

[–] psychothumbs@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

Yeah I think that's the proper route. Parents who want to restrict what their children see need to take responsibility for doing so and not try to make the government do it for them at the expense of everyone else's privacy.

[–] Eggyhead@artemis.camp 10 points 1 year ago

I’m of the opinion that protecting children has little to do with the actual intended purpose of laws such as these.

[–] knobbysideup@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Make a kid safe tld that requires whatever government certification. Done. Now parents, if they choose, can filter all but the kidsafe tld. Trying to instead blacklist is never going to work.

Whether companies choose to certify and publish there is something those who want this type of thing should provide incentives for.

[–] jantin@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Creating a parallel internet for children is a very intriguing idea