There's "a popular misconception that age-verification mandates are going to be the best way to rein in big tech and hold them accountable," EFF's Molly Buckley told Rolling Stone - but these laws will just further line the biggest platforms' pockets. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/age-verification-legislation-united-states-online-safety-1235419895/
@eff I agree that is probably true, but then, I also agree that we need much better age restrictions on the internet. The critical mass of governments also believe there needs to be age restrictions, so if we're to have any chance of keeping anonymity on the internet, we need to accept that age restrictions are required, and focus our work on making sure they get implemented in the best possible way. Even in the #US with its #FirstAmendment, age restrictions are legal and in place for decades.
@violetmadder @eff sure, there are some governments like that. And there are also some governments built on the concepts of taking care of their people. The idea that governments can do something to improve the online lives of children exists at the same time as authoritarian governments will use popular excuses to do things purely to prop up their own power.
NONE of them actually work the way they're supposed to according to what it says on the tin.
Governments around the world CLAIM to have been set up with the purpose of taking care of their people, but the purpose of a thing is what it actually DOES, not what it said it intended to do but isn't actually doing. And what they are doing, mostly, is grinding up most life on Earth to help rich people get richer.
@eighthave
Why would we need age restrictions on the Internet? What is the purpose? As it certainly will not "protect the kids".
If the idea is to prevent teenagers from accessing the porn they seek, they'll easily work around that by going to even darker places on the Net - barring North Korean class of restrictions. Do we want that?
And if the idea is to stop kidnappers from snatching the kids, do people really think such criminals would be bothered by breaking another law or two?!
@mnalis @eff None of the conditions here are binary, they are all continuums. Any restriction can be circumvented, but that does not make the idea useless. Just all all software insecure, its only a matter of degrees. One clear win is just preventing harmful things like gambling, pornography, addictive software, etc. from being mainstream and socially acceptable. E.g. Its possible to gamble on the internet although its restricted almost everywhere. And now, there is far less gambling online.
@eighthave @eff I agree about making bad stuff less available. But as your own examples note, it does not work. Sure, there is less gambling, but not because of age restrictions, but only because it has been superseded by even more addictive thing which you also not -- addictive software (games made to exploit ever increasing dopamine production, social network likesetc), which is rampant. It the intention of the law was made to forbid addictive apps to anyone below age of ~75? If not
@eighthave
if gambling, cigarettes, etc. are harmful (and they are), they should be forbidden from ANY advertising at all, not just advertising to minors.
And if forbiding actually worked, they should be forbidden for ALL (but as prohibition period teaches us, proclaiming things that people want illegal will not result in people stop getting them, but in all those people becoming "criminals"). So, about best that can be done to discourage buying them is to is tax them very heavily.
@eff
@eighthave @eff
The "critical mass of governments" is the authoritarian yearnings of the forces currently facilitating ecocidal war profiteering. They don't give a single fuck about protecting children, thats just the halfassed excuse they lead with for controlling EVERYONE.