Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
You're forgetting an important detail: you submitted an official ID to prove your age. Which means your face, address, and legal name are also on record. So every time you get age-verified, you're basically checking in with your full legal identity, leaving a breadcrumb path across the Internet of everything you do. That data can be used to track your online activities and build a database on who you are as a person, based on the things you access.
THIS is why age verification is a terrifying thing for computer access. It's a form of government tracking that should be illegal. Cops can't legally barge into your home anytime they want and go through your stuff. They can't take your computer and scan it for data collection. Not without a court order.
With age verification embedded within your OS, it won't matter if there's a court order or not. If your computer is connected to the Internet, you've just publicly broadcast all your data to the world, and anyone - cops or not - can tap into that data and build a profile on you. You don't even need to be browsing the Internet; if your OS is verifying your age, it could also be broadcasting that verification for every program you use locally on your computer. None of your data is safe; it's all tied to your legal identity and trackable.
I wasn't forgetting it. As it stands, at the OS level, you aren't supplying anything to prove your age. It's just a data field that software can read. And my point was that if that field, and social media was all it ever was, then, it's not great, but I can understand why the OP isn't too upset by it.
My point was more that it will never be just that.
Thats not what the current OS-level age gating is though. Its literally pick what age the account user is on account creation. You could set yourself to be 120 and that would be valid.
“current” is not what the lawmakers are thinking of though.
Nice to see lots of downvotes for stating factually correct statements while the parent post is literally all conjecture based on "well they would do that wouldnt they?" but is upvoted.
If they were planning on doing ID verification for this why would they take this half step? It doesnt make it easier for them down the road, if anything it makes it harder as there's the ability to say "but we already have that". If the plan was to mandate face ID why wouldnt they just go straight for that like the UK and Australia have for porn?
It seems obvious to me that, invasive as it is - an OS-level "are you 18 yes/no" check at installation would not satisfy the "protect the children" crowd at all, nevermind too that immediately when/if it goes into action - every single user would suddenly have their OS downgraded to the kiddy-level unless they declare their age.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog
And there are several states that do have the age thing for porn here in the US, the biggest of which is Texas.
So exactly the same argument, while referencing an experiment where the frogs did jump out of the boiling water unless they were lobotomised. Very convincing.
C'mon, don't be that dense, it's is a metaphor explaining that people are more likely to accept change if done gradually as opposed to all at once.
Look around. Think of the average person, half of the people are below that person's intelligence and a good number of them vote.
I don't think it's "dense" to point out that your metaphor depends on a common misunderstanding of an experiment. An experiment where the true result actually is an argument against your point.
The only misunderstanding is that it is only a metaphor and not actually biologically correct for frogs in the literal sense. It is absolutely applicable in human behavior, observable, and easily replicated. Is coffee or alcohol an actual acquired taste or is it people gradually adapting to change?
https://behaviorfacts.com/boiling-frog-theory/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mindfulness-for-wellbeing/202201/whats-the-best-way-to-change
I know its a metaphor, but you can come up with any metaphor you want its still just speculation based on nothing. It's precicily the same argument that conservatives made about gay marriage: this is just the thin end of the wedge, it starts with allowing people to marry people of the same sex and then they'll move on to incest and bestiality.
Its a crap argument, if you want to oppose something show how this wither makes things worse or how it makes worse things easier to happen in the future. A good example would be the freedom restricting legislation brought in after 9/11. Despite assurances at the time that it would just be used against "terrorists" there was nothing in it to garuntee that, at you could make the argument that the legislation with no further changes could be used to do harm. Lo and behold it was.
Just pointing at something and saying "slipperly slope" or "boiling the frog" is not an argument against something unless you can show how it makes the next step easier, and I havent seen any actually thought through argument how this does make mandatory identification easier.
No, I don’t believe you’re actually this stupid, sealion
This is perfectly reasonable, but my feeling is that the real world isn't reasonable in this way.
Consider all the infractions of liberty that have been approved in the name of combating "terrorism." The no-fly lists. The universal warrant-less searches. All domestic communications recorded and archived for who-knows how long. The pervasive surveillance. The huge extension of CBP power to do things like raid Greyhound busses that aren't even crossing borders.
None of these steps were prevented with the argument "But we're already doing something about that issue." That argument never even came up, to any noteworthy degree, in the public discourse.
Look at it this way: All sorts of websites that aren't for kids already have banners requiring the visitor to affirm that they're legal adults. So, we're there: "We already have that." But no one is seriously making that argument. Because, of course, those banners do next to nothing: Visitors can just lie. So it will probably be for OS level age verification. Thus, in creating a system that doesn't work, the excuse for extending the system, to exert more control in the future, is built in from the start.
People who are interested in asserting more control over others are never content with the amount of control they have. They always want more. It is the gaining of more control that motivates them.
I actually used this same example further up. Yes the GWOT made some terrible legislation that has done real damage, but it wasnt a slippery slope. They didnt make laws a little bit invasive but generally ok before slowly nudging it further until it got to the point where it was able to be used for ill. They went in hard and fast with abusable legislation which could be criticised for what it actually was, not what it would lead to in further legislation down the line (and it was criticised at the time).
I disagree.
There was a certain (large) amount of government surveillance and eavesdropping going on before the GWOT, which was used as an excuse to massively expand it. There was already inspection and security and traveler record-keeping at airports before the GWOT, which was used as an excuse to expand those. CBP had long had the legislative authority to do all kinds of nastiness within 100 miles of a border before the GWOT, which was used as an excuse to step their activities up, to legal limits and beyond.
In every case, an initial claim of urgent, exceptional authority was used to create both the physical infrastructure and the cultural permission required to make later, expanded claims of urgent, exceptional authority much easier to implement when an excuse presented itself. That is the slippery slope, we really slid way down it, it's a real phenomenon. It doesn't have to be smooth or gradual, it can happen in jerks and waves. It doesn't have to come as a result of a plot, a plan, a deliberate conspiracy, it can be an accretion of individually opportunistic acts.
mlem is not showing me votes. so dunno what you are talking abt.
my point is that we have laws already that are perfectly appropriate to the “concern” stated, “child safety.”
any new laws will only give more access to important data to corporations who are known to do bad things with it.
that does not make it worth it. my opinion would change if there was a legit large inrush of charges using exiting laws that then did nothing to help, then one could argue we need more law. but thats just not the case today.
You are a sealion. “Factually correct” but still acting like a shitbird
Funny huh
“You gave us that previous bit of private information what’s a little bit more. You can trust us”