7 ms·

Two things can be true, and I am in the same boat. Should the next generation have their brains fried by ad-tech corporations and their algorithms? Absolutely n

Two things can be true, and I am in the same boat. Should the next generation have their brains fried by ad-tech corporations and their algorithms? Absolutely not. Should the overdue off-ramp from this trend be the on-ramp to mass-surveillance and government overreach? Also a firm no.

jimbokun 6mo ago
So you're saying these corporations are responsible for verifying the age of their users without verifying the age of their users?
- MildlySerious 6mo ago
  I'm not saying that, nor did I allude to it in any way. I made no assertions as to what the solution should be. The ideal scenario would be everyone choosing not to engage with these predatory platforms. Going from there, the right question to me is what steps we have to take as a society for that to become even remotely realistic and, subsequently, what role governments can or should have in that. For starters, I would be in favor of fines that actually hurt the bottom line instead of this "cost of business" bullshit. We have handed these corporations unprecedented access to and control over our lives, to the point that they erode democracy and the social fabric itself. The inevitable abuse of that power when it comes with barely any strings attached needs to be punished in a way that makes it unattractive as a business model at the very least. Instead of lowering the attack surface by locking out kids, and in turn introducing mass surveillance which at best also lends itself to abuse, the root issues of ruinous greed and lack of accountability need to be addressed. The whole concept that there is no price too high for profits needs to burn. Social media is just one of the more recent manifestations of it.
kaospilot1800 6mo ago
[dead]
Forgeties79 6mo ago
They’re the oil barons of our day. They frack our data and output psychological/social pollution.
benrutter 6mo ago
I really wish this take was more prominent. I really don't buy that mass-surveillance should be required for age verification. There are plenty of very smart people who have created much more complicated things than a digital age verification that doesn't track every time you use it. This also isn't helpful, but I think the sudden push of urgency isn't helping. The internet has existed without any kind of age verification or safety measures for about 30 years. We could have used that time to have a sensible conversation about policy trade offs, but instead we've waited till now to decide that everything has to be rushed through with minimal consideration.
- jt2190 6mo ago
  > We could have used that time to have a sensible conversation about policy trade offs [of age verification]… There is always a conversation, but it is often not the popular one and gets drown out by whatever everyone is excited about at the moment. You can find it if you seek it out. Lawrence Lessig’s book “Code” (1999), for example, talks about how a completely unrelated internet is an anomaly, and that regulation will certainly be necessary, and advocates that it be done in a thoughtful manner.
- pixl97 6mo ago
  >used that time to have a sensible conversation about policy trade offs, On HN itself, no way. Too many people here make far too much money on ads to want that. It seems the other part that want freedom also want so much freedom it gives huge corporations the freedom to crush them. >things than a digital age verification that doesn't track every time you use it. The big companies that pay the politicians don't want that, therefore we won't get that.
  - intended 6mo ago
    > On HN itself, no way. Too many people here make far too much money on ads to want that. Ya know, this might explain why the warnings seem to fall on deaf ears here. New favorite person on the internet.
- jimbokun 6mo ago
ed_blackburn 6mo ago
Absolutely: I said something similar recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46766649 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46766649
svachalek 6mo ago
Exactly. There's a clear alternative in my mind, one I'm sure is objectionable in its own way but I think is the least evil of the three: require providers to label their content and make them liable for it. This allows parents to do the censoring, which is functionally impossible now because no parent can fight the slippery power of multibillion dollar software investments designed to prevent them from having control over what their kids see.
gopher_space 6mo ago
A Kindernet would solve many problems. Hardware-gated access, local moderation and control, zero commerce or copyright, whatever you want to do to make the environment uninteresting to bad actors. Frame opposition to the concept as demand for access to your children.

jimbokun 6mo ago

So you're saying these corporations are responsible for verifying the age of their users without verifying the age of their users?

MildlySerious 6mo ago
I'm not saying that, nor did I allude to it in any way. I made no assertions as to what the solution should be. The ideal scenario would be everyone choosing not to engage with these predatory platforms. Going from there, the right question to me is what steps we have to take as a society for that to become even remotely realistic and, subsequently, what role governments can or should have in that. For starters, I would be in favor of fines that actually hurt the bottom line instead of this "cost of business" bullshit. We have handed these corporations unprecedented access to and control over our lives, to the point that they erode democracy and the social fabric itself. The inevitable abuse of that power when it comes with barely any strings attached needs to be punished in a way that makes it unattractive as a business model at the very least. Instead of lowering the attack surface by locking out kids, and in turn introducing mass surveillance which at best also lends itself to abuse, the root issues of ruinous greed and lack of accountability need to be addressed. The whole concept that there is no price too high for profits needs to burn. Social media is just one of the more recent manifestations of it.

kaospilot1800 6mo ago

[dead]

Forgeties79 6mo ago

They’re the oil barons of our day. They frack our data and output psychological/social pollution.

benrutter 6mo ago

I really wish this take was more prominent. I really don't buy that mass-surveillance should be required for age verification. There are plenty of very smart people who have created much more complicated things than a digital age verification that doesn't track every time you use it. This also isn't helpful, but I think the sudden push of urgency isn't helping. The internet has existed without any kind of age verification or safety measures for about 30 years. We could have used that time to have a sensible conversation about policy trade offs, but instead we've waited till now to decide that everything has to be rushed through with minimal consideration.

jt2190 6mo ago
> We could have used that time to have a sensible conversation about policy trade offs [of age verification]… There is always a conversation, but it is often not the popular one and gets drown out by whatever everyone is excited about at the moment. You can find it if you seek it out. Lawrence Lessig’s book “Code” (1999), for example, talks about how a completely unrelated internet is an anomaly, and that regulation will certainly be necessary, and advocates that it be done in a thoughtful manner.
pixl97 6mo ago
>used that time to have a sensible conversation about policy trade offs, On HN itself, no way. Too many people here make far too much money on ads to want that. It seems the other part that want freedom also want so much freedom it gives huge corporations the freedom to crush them. >things than a digital age verification that doesn't track every time you use it. The big companies that pay the politicians don't want that, therefore we won't get that.
- intended 6mo ago
  > On HN itself, no way. Too many people here make far too much money on ads to want that. Ya know, this might explain why the warnings seem to fall on deaf ears here. New favorite person on the internet.
jimbokun 6mo ago

ed_blackburn 6mo ago

Absolutely: I said something similar recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46766649 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46766649

svachalek 6mo ago

Exactly. There's a clear alternative in my mind, one I'm sure is objectionable in its own way but I think is the least evil of the three: require providers to label their content and make them liable for it. This allows parents to do the censoring, which is functionally impossible now because no parent can fight the slippery power of multibillion dollar software investments designed to prevent them from having control over what their kids see.

gopher_space 6mo ago

A Kindernet would solve many problems. Hardware-gated access, local moderation and control, zero commerce or copyright, whatever you want to do to make the environment uninteresting to bad actors. Frame opposition to the concept as demand for access to your children.