In the laws references in the article, the need for #1 and #3 were caused by social media. Yet we target the individual rather than the social media company for the fix. Let's don't fix the source of the problem but we can make life more difficult for many millions of people. How dumb are we in this country?
this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2025
513 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
64937 readers
4065 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Same issue as recycling. Shift responsibility to the individual for something completely out of their control.
I'm sure big tech is stoked on this idea. I mean, they were always able to figure out who most people were but now people have to straight up enter their identification and positively confirm.
I'm sure no one will use that information for nefarious reasons, right?
Frankly already a moot point - your browser fingerprints are already uniquely identifying (even before IP, cookies, and backend analytics). Realistically, tho, just more info for them to sell, leak and then eventually pay $0.25 per person in Google Play credit in the class action settlement.
short of a website provider having access to my provider ip over time vs. customer data, how is my browser fingerprint uniquely identifying me when I clear cookies every now and then and often resize the browser window? Genuinely curious - obviously between clearing cookies there's an issue, and also if I use logins to any websites that share data with some asshat like google analytics, they will recognize me across websites. And of course with the latest mozilla data grab, things will get worse :/
Privacy focused browsers can help (but don't fully resolve). Not to redo the work of others, copy/pasta:
What makes fingerprinting a threat to online privacy? It is pretty simple. First, there is no need to ask for permissions to collect all this information. Any script running in your browser can silently build a fingerprint of your device without you even knowing about it. Second, if one attribute of your browser fingerprint is unique or if the combination of several attributes is unique, your device can be identified and tracked online. In that case, no need for a cookie with an ID in it, the fingerprint is enough.
A couple of useful articles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Device_fingerprint
https://blog.torproject.org/browser-fingerprinting-introduction-and-challenges-ahead/ (Excerpt above)
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2022/3363335
There's also a number of interviews with white and red hat hackers who delve quite deeply into the subject and how they've used this telemetry to go after black hats (mainly to emphasize that even with some degree of sophistication this can be difficult to evade, especially when compounded with other methods and telemetry already modelled against your identity).
One of the experiences I will never forget was "teaching" an ICT class about 2 decades ago (I was a TA who got left to cover a class - good times).
The older ones of you will remember the trick (many of us used it for playing flash games like adventure quest!) - have two browser windows open, minimise the one with the thing you were not supposed to be doing on it when the teacher comes around - no evidence right?
These kids were doing the same thing - I swear I've never seen so much porn in my entire life. Oh and yes, a lot of it involved Japanese animation. This was on a network with parental controls enabled by the way, because it didn't block those sites.
Here's the thing - and we all know it, no matter what measures you put in place kids will find away around it. More crudely put "If little Timmy wants titties, Timmy going to move heaven and earth to find them".
They'll sneak a parental passport at 3am when you're sleeping, or just VPN on in, or even invest in a fake ID. Nothing you do is going to stop that; you have to sleep some time, you have a lot of goals, they can stay up all night, and they only have one.
Catching your kids with porn and dealing with it is a game of whack-a-mole every parent has to play, and honestly it's one they need to play. It's about having those difficult talks and saying "it's ok to want to look as long as you realise it isn't real".
Mass surveillance isn't the way - if I were a government hostile to the USA (and soon the UK), I'd be working on making the best free porn site ever made. Think of all the free documents and credentials, think of all the blackmail material, think of all the harm that could be inflicted.
Admittedly, skin cream is likely to face less of a rabid drive from kids, and isn't something you'd blackmail over. Then again, maybe little Timmy needs some lotion, or maybe president Puta wants to use my girlfriend's skin lotion addiction to compel me to spy for Russia?
Like, I remember the pirate radio station making a big hubbub during that time when rock n roll was banned in the UK. I could see illegal porn sites operating on ships in international waters, outside the boundaries of US enforcement using satellite connections to get their content out there. Problem is, the US is a little more trigger happy and might just send Navy ships out to sink them. If it happens in international waters nobody has to know.
We have a lot of land in the US that is a pain in the ass to get to, would be harder to set up but I could see some spiteful folks setting up something in the remote asshole of the mountain ranges. Would also be a lot harder to follow them if they pissed off as well.
Yeah. Keep public spaces (meaning, advertising) mostly free of porn. Aside from that, children who are interested in porn and sex are ready for it, let them explore it with the neccessary knowledge and care and avoid abuse from broken grown ups. Laws should be focused on that, a sensible approach, including the parents.
Generally saying "porn only for 18+" doesn't work, since it's a primary instinct.
Even worse, we know that sexual repression just pushes people into more extreme and unusual sexual practices in adulthood. Just give children comprehensive sexual education already. It prevents unwanted pregnancies, sexual abuse and mental illness.
Then again, maybe little Timmy needs some lotion
Maybe Timmy is building a skin suit.
Such laws are guaranteed to fail in their written objectives. The intended objective is to lead idiots to believe they help.
idiots
The people who voted for it, you include?
I have to agree with PornHub's idea.
A device should be able it indicate in its browser headers whether its primary user is an adult or a minor and the service can react accordingly.
It won't protect all the children but children of parents who can't be assed to setup a device properly will have problems no matter how much we increase the surveillance state.
A device should be able it indicate in its browser headers whether its primary user is an adult or a minor and the service can react accordingly.
I can already see that being used for targeting children with specific ads on the internet.
The laws around advertising are fucked to begin with but the headers SHOULD be used in advertising 100%
The minor flag would actually remove the LARGE gray area that platforms take advantage of to push harmful ADs and content to kids (Today they just get to play dumb)
This would actually create a framework to enforce existing advertising laws as well as data collection laws with regards to minors.
Examples: Minors should not see ads for holsters, knives, ammo, ED medications, Diet drugs, muscle building drugs, Alcohol, Tobacco products, Online Gambling
These are all things I have seen advertised on YouTube to me; Granted I am not a minor but I am also just using Youtube by going to the site with no account.
If I was an advertiser for those products I'd be pissed that my ad dollars are going non targets anyway. So it would be a win win
Kids are the target of gambling ads because it conditions them into thinking it’s normal
I imagine other products see similar benefits
advertising some products to kids will probably make them future customers. tobacco/vape/gambling etc.
These ideas are all fundamentally misguided. Let's take a step back what we are trying to do here: We want to create a system so that the government can withhold certain information from certain people. That's both difficult and dangerous.
PornHub's idea requires cooperation from the hosters. You are not likely to get global agreement on that. So you will still need to do something about those foreign sites, such as blocking them.
At that point, such a law would achieve 2 things:
- Society has decided to create a technical censorship infrastructure.
- Domestic porn providers have an incentive to support to it because it removes foreign competition.
Blocklists that parents can install on their devices already exist, so there would be no change in that regard.
Of course, minors have no trouble circumventing such software. They have plenty of time and they are horny. You can't win. The only faint hope might be to include such features at deeper levels, similar to existing DRM schemes. This would be ripe for abuse by bad actors or governments. It certainly would be used against the consumer by the copyright industry and tech monopolies; just like existing DRM schemes.
So we really should ask why we would want to walk further down this expensive, hostile, and dangerous path. Are we afraid that masturbation causes blindness?
Government in this case is forcing sites to collect PII to verify age not blocking content not blocking content themselves.
I am working under the knowledge that these age verifications are not theoretical (Its the end game of all the KYC startups from last decade)
If you are in the south in much of the US these ID checks are already forced and will only expand
A browser header gives the result without building a Database of people who like porn
Browser headers also put the responsibility on sites that promote dangerous things to kids (its in your best interest as a site that can deliver porn, things not suitable for kids to check and respect the header from a liability perspective)
Kids are babied already but if 14 year olds can vote in party elections, and 16 year olds can consent to sexual intercourse with adults, then I don't think restricting porn is our problem. Either kids can make decisions, or all of these laws need to align with each other more logically.
We have taken parents rights away to allow children to make decisions on their gender and name changes, yet we expect parent to be responsible for their actions like accessing porn.
I could not care less about whatever the final say is on age restrictions, but if there are gonna be rules, at least make them make sense you know? I also do not love that I have to verify my identity to use the internet. Look at the UK and how that's working out there even without IDs. Talk about authoritarian control.
This stuff is the whole reason I switched to this platform.
I am actually in full agreement.
A header would put the setting on the device and only indicate "Minor" or "Not Minor" which would allow to restrict or allow porn without having to collect everyone's PII just so they can crank their hog.
If you read previous things though such an indicator would put a lot more responsibility onto Social Media platforms to not show harmful content to minors. Today they get away with it because "TOS says only 18 year olds are allowed to us this service"
South Park kind of nailed the attitude https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Park_(Not_Suitable_for_Children)
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(26 replies)
This is all dumb. If you're worried about kids surfing porn sites then the legal guardian should act accordingly. There are so many methods to blocking porn sites that it's almost hilarious. Web filtering; most ISPs are able to support website filtering on their supplied gateway or DNS. Parental controls on device; most devices come with opyional locks built-in at this point especially if it's aimed towards children.
Sure, it's not perfect but it's better than removing yet another layer of web anonymity. We see how well browser fingerprinting is going, let's not make it easier to track who is browsing where than it already is. But that's the real point behind these bills, isn't it?
Edit: I guess I was ranting mainly about the porn, but honestly, these are all things that parents should be aware of their children doing. If it's an awareness issue, then that should be the next step. The government going straight from "oh there's a problem" to "let's make it illegal" without trying to raise awareness is extremely heavy handed.
I don't even have kids and I have protection in place at home to block devices from accessing sites, not exclusively porn tho, gambling and social networks.
Porn can be bad, okay, but if we taught our kids properly it's not that bad and curiosity is ok. Gambling is terrible and more and more people are getting addicted to it.
Fuck government paternalism.
That's reasonable. It's a good idea to have additonal protections and if you have the knowledge, something like a pihole can go far.
In a perfect world the parent(s) would know the needs of the child and adjust. Curiosity should be encouraged but the guardians should be the ones to prepare the kids for the world, as far as home life is concerned.
Access to porn and gambling is impossible to guage the best age for granting access to in the legal sense; it's a different situation for everyone. That's why it really should be up to the guardian to dictate when is appropriate.
Unfortunately, instead of teaching with an open mind, what gets passed on usually is the parent's frustrations and dispositions. To even things out, I also think public education is helpful, but that's a different topic.
Block it to the point where you are not going to accidentally stumble upon it. Once they are determined to find it then there really isn't much point.
Also, Reddit will block anything NSFW if you are under 18. Anything related to sex often gets flagged as NSFW. So I guess fuck you if you are 16 and trying to have safe sex I guess. NSFW probably shouldn't always mean 18+
Agreed, they are and will be relentless. We'll need to be comfortable 'missing out' on popular sites e.g., Lemmy instead of Reddit.
For those who want to rewind the clock to when the web was anonymous, check out how to access I2P.
And for parents, there are some good blocklists at https://oisd.nl/ including NSFW blocklists.
load more comments
(1 replies)
cosmetics that contain certain chemicals like Vitamin A or alpha hydroxy acids.
I believe I can buy a ton of these chemicals over the counter and shove them all at once down my cockhole without ID. Is dabbing a smidge on my cheeks dangerous?
I wouldn’t recommend doing that
load more comments
(4 replies)
Yes. Teach a new generation how to operate around such lunacy.
You don't even need to visit adult sites to find porn nowadays. Its all on social media.
What? Now kids have to learn how to download a VPN before buying makeup? Should be some good pepperidge farm memes soon
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›