[gertlex]

Am I wrong in feeling like the solution you outline is only applicable to an individual's kids? But at the societal level, it clearly seems we can't depend on enough parents to do what you talk about. Something else is needed.

I don't have answers to give. Certainly not a fan of the government approach of "everyone must prove their age online now", which I believe is how the AU law is done. (casual listening to Security Now podcast about this for a long while now)

[indymike]

"Everyone must prove their age online now" creates a trail of identity that kills anonymous speech dead. Anonymous speech is very important to maintaining freedoms... such as freedom of speech and freedom of association.

[tzs]

> "Everyone must prove their age online now" creates a trail of identity that kills anonymous speech dead.

That depends on the implementation. Do it the wrong way, like many countries or US states, and that is a problem.

Do it right, like the EU is doing in their Digital Identity Wallet project, which is currently undergoing large scale field trials, and the site you prove age to gets no information other than that you are old enough, and your government gets no information about what sites you have proved age to or when you have done so.

[indymike]

> That depends on the implementation.

Not really. Either you have freedom of speech or you have restricted speech. The more restriction, the less freedom you have.

> the site you prove age to gets no information other than that you are old enough, and your government gets no information about what sites you have proved age to or when you have done so.

As long as the broker in the middle can be trusted, cannot be extorted by government power or private wealth... in other words: unpossible.

[tzs]

In the system the EU is using you are the broker in the middle.

Briefly, your government issues you a digital copy of your identity documents cryptographically bound to a hardware security module that you provide. For the first iteration this will be the security module in your smartphone. Later iterations will support standalone smart cards and plug in security modules like YubiKeys.

If you wish to prove your age to a site a cryptographic protocol takes place between you and the site which demonstrates to the site that you have a government issued identity document that is bound to a hardware security module, and that you have that module, and that the module is unlocked, and that the identity document says that your age is above the site's minimum age requirement.

No information is transmitted to the site from the identity document other than the age is above the threshold. There is also nothing transmitted that identities the particular hardware security module.

[rdm_blackhole]

> Do it right, like the EU is doing

Doing it right like the EU? You mean like the EU, scan everything that is sent through anybody's phone in the name of protecting the children?

> the site you prove age to gets no information other than that you are old enough, and your government gets no information about what sites

That is the case for now. What happens when the lobbies get in there and decide that this info is actually very valuable and that they should have the right to know who is visiting their client's websites and apps, will the anonymity remain? I think not.

And what about the defense industry who in the name of fighting terrorism will demand that users that identify themselves on "suspicious" sites now need to have their data recorded?

The issue is that once everyone is using this system, then it's very easy for any government to come and start expanding the scope of the data recorded and as always under the cover of good intentions.

This is how it goes: - In 2025, they record nothing - In 2026, they start logging IP addresses and passing along suspicious log ins to the cops - In 2030 they start recording more and more data until all anonymity is gone

I wouldn't touch the EU's identity wallet with a 10 foot pole and I certainly wouldn't use anything that the EU is doing now as a benchmark considering what happened with the Chat control law recently.

[BlueTemplar]

Logging IP addresses for use by law enforcement started in like 2004.

I remember ISPs and Web cafés complaining quite a lot.

But I guess you mean on the client software side itself ?

[zelphirkalt]

The EU is very double edged though. It has great projects, undoubtedly. For example GDPR was a gigantic step forward, even if many people here, who are US-centric mostly, don't want to hear that. But on the other hand the EU also has loads of shit that members and lobbies try to push, like for example chat control.

Let's hope that this project you mention works out, if indeed it works like you describe.

[SiempreViernes]

> Anonymous speech is very important to maintaining freedoms... such as freedom of speech and freedom of association.

Ha! Tell that to an American and they would laugh if it wasn't for ICE threatening to shoot you for trying to get close enough to ask.

[intended]

It is frustrating, to have this argument, when the current state of the art to mould speech, has already found ways around this defensive line.

Currently speech is shaped by producing a glut of speech, and then having the most useful narratives platformed by trusted personalities. Simultaneously, any counter views which do not support the goals of the media-party, do not get aired. Education, science, evidence and journalistic standards are eschewed and authoritarian techniques of loyalty and trust are used to take advantage of whatever story is currently most engaging.

The churn in anonymous forums is used to identify narratives that are the best evolved to spread and gain engagement.

Don’t mistake me for saying anonymity must be given up. Do recognize that worrying about anonymity today, is very much like people talking about the way things were back in their time.

If it helps - from a utilitarian perspective, free speech enables the free exchange of ideas in the service of debates to understand reality. The marketplace of ideas.

Currently the marketplace is captured, and it is not a fair fight between state actors, media teams, troll farms, A/B tested algorithms, and regular folk on the other side.

The invisible hand of the market IS working, ensuring the optimum outcome given the current constraints, or lack thereof.

If we want to defend speech for individuals, if we want a fair fight, we need to address the asymmetry of powers, and lack of recourse.

[lovich]

Hard disagree on anonymous speech. Individual humans should have free speech but that is divorced from anonymous speech.

With anonymous speech you don’t even know if you’re talking to a person or a program.

If you want to say something, then say it with your identity. You don’t get to be anonymous when saying something to my face so why should it be allowed across a screen?

[squigz]

> If you want to say something, then say it with your identity. You don’t get to be anonymous when saying something to my face so why should it be allowed across a screen?

My face is not my identity. Do I have to tell you my full name and address when I talk to you? I sure hope not!

Beyond that, what about the threat of violence for saying something? As another commenter points out, this is a real issue for marginalized groups, but also could easily become an issue for your average citizen sharing their political opinion.

While I agree it would be nice having some level of assurance that you're talking to a human, particularly going forward, the only way I could support such a system is if no party involved would be able to track what I visit or pin an actual identity to me as a user - but, perhaps more importantly, it also needs to not be easily broken by those actors who it's trying to stop. Otherwise it's useless and just hurts your actual citizens.

[lovich]

> My face is not my identity

Nah, it’s infinitely more identity than a screen name. If you speak in person I know which human being had those thoughts. In the medium we’re communicating over right now neither I nor you could tell if the counterparty was just a computer program.

> Beyond that, what about the threat of violence for saying something? As another commenter points out, this is a real issue for marginalized groups, but also could easily become an issue for your average citizen sharing their political opinion.

If you’re in that situation then you already don’t have free speech, so honestly that tradeoff seems like it doesn’t matter

> While I agree it would be nice having some level of assurance that you're talking to a human, particularly going forward, the only way I could support such a system is if no party involved would be able to track what I visit or pin an actual identity to me as a user…

That’s a lot of words to say you don’t agree with the idea. Pinning an actual identity to you is what makes it non anonymous

[squigz]

> If you’re in that situation then you already don’t have free speech, so honestly that tradeoff seems like it doesn’t matter

What? Are you saying that if you face the threat of violence for saying something, you don't actually have free speech? By this logic, literally nobody anywhere has free speech.

[grog454]

> By this logic, literally nobody anywhere has free speech.

Nobody anywhere has freedom of speech. And a majority of people don't really think about what it means and don't want it in the purest form despite what they say.

Two examples of "free speech" that are protected in the U.S. under the first amendment:

1. Overt racism (less threat of imminent violence).

2. Nazi apparel.

Say the wrong word or show the wrong symbol in certain settings and you'll quickly understand what I mean. Furthermore I'm confident > 50% of U.S. citizens would find you in the wrong and would support whatever happens to you without much consideration of legality.

Freedom of speech is an ideal with no successful implementation and I don't think that's a bad thing. I prefer to live in the real world where saying stupid shit has consequences and people think just a little bit more carefully about what they say.

[lovich]

Yea, if you don’t say what you think because of fear of violence, you don’t have free speech.

I’m actually surprised at your surprise. Is there a definition of free speech that includes not speaking because of violence?

To be clear I’m speaking of “free speech” as a right in the absolute sense. I am aware that various situations and events degrade that in every attempt to implement it. Having anonymous speech lets your circumvent that somewhat, but comes with the tradeoff of disinformation and societal manipulation we’re currently dealing with.

Also for clarification are you describing violence from other citizens or violence from the government? I need the clarification as I wasn’t specific enough myself in that I don’t think there is currently any anonymous speech if the government wants to identify you, only anonymity from the average Joe.

[heavyset_go]

Just thought I'd share the EFF's take[1] on the importance of anonymity and its long history with free speech:

> Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A frequently cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:

> > Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

> The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States. Founders Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym "Publius " and "the Federal Farmer" spoke up in rebuttal. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the First Amendment.

> The right to anonymous speech is also protected well beyond the printed page. Thus in 2002 the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring proselytizers to register their true names with the Mayor's office before going door-to-door.

To build on that, the Fourth Amendment protections against general warrants stems from the fact that general warrants were used to identify and persecute anonymous authors, many of which were founders and framers.

[1] https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity

[zelphirkalt]

Probably only works for as long as you are not living in a dictatorship, authoritarian state, utterly corrupt country, or similar. Then suddenly we would want our anonymity back.

While anonymity comes with its own issues for society, I am not convinced it would be worth it getting rid of it.

[Doxin]

While what you're saying sounds like a reasonable enough stance on the face of it, keep in mind that this would deeply fuck over closeted queer folks among other marginalized groups.

[lovich]

It would. Currently they and everyone else are getting deeply fucked because the signal to noise ratio on the internet has been obliterated and everyone is being manipulated all the time by misinformation from humans lying to bots.

I think the trade off for a lack of anonymity is worth it. This is crass and old but the penny arcade guys identified this decades ago

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/greater-internet-fuckwad-theo...

[Doxin]

I agree misinformation is a big problem. Possibly the biggest problem of our time, right next to global warming. But as it stands now, as a queer person, you can find a spot on the internet with like-minded people. Even when closeted. Hell when closeted it's the only place you can find like-minded people.

If we require people identify themselves online you drive all closeted queer people away, into solitude, into feeling no one will ever understand them. That's not worth the price of admission.

We need a better solution than that.

[anon84873628]

Yes, this is one of those game theory traps like the prisoners dilemma, because it requires coordinated action across a large group of people. Unfortunately the lowest common denominator parenting is not able to handle the problem, because the parents don't understand the situation, are addicted to platforms themselves, and just generally don't have the necessary skills.

Government regulation is a ham fisted approach that risks unintended consequences / secondary effects, but it is generally good at breaking the game theory traps because it changes the playing field for everyone. That is fundamentally why we have government at all - to solve coordination problems.

[Gigachad]

The government can also act as the faceless bad guy who 13 year olds can get mad at while parents shrug and say “sorry that’s just the law”.

[deminature]

>not a fan of the government approach of "everyone must prove their age online now", which I believe is how the AU law is done

This is not how the law is implemented. The vast majority of verification is being done by 'age inference', ie analysis of the content the user consumes or posts to infer likely age. Only accounts suspected to be children by the inference process are being required to verify or have the account disabled. In practice, the inference process means very few accounts are required to provide any proof of age. Personally, I haven't been asked to verify by even a single website.

The age inference process is described on this page under 'What is Age Assurance?' https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/your-privacy-rights/social-m...

[makeitdouble]

If you think we can't depend on parents for the kids education, school should handle it.