[godelski]

  > Some things do that.

I think you're missing the point...

  > Sounds pretty good to me

Really? Be a bit more serious now. There are a lot of things that connect to the internet, and not just for stupid data harvesting reasons. I gave other examples. I think you can understand that this gets pretty hairy pretty quickly. If you don't, then dig in deeper to how the networking is done. You're an older account so I'm assuming you actually understand computers.

  > They do not.

They definitely do. I explicitly stated how that happens too. If you want me to take you seriously you have to respond with something better than "trust me bro".

There is no evidence that these companies are actually handling that data properly. There is a lot of evidence that they are handling it improperly. That data being leaked does in fact, endanger kids.

I'm also unconvinced these things even achieve the goals they claim to be after. Which is keeping pedos away from kids. i.e. the reason I said you're missing the point. So either it is not achieving that goal, or lulling people into a false sense of security. Imagine if Roblox was saying "we don't allow adults on the platform" and so now all the tech illiterate parents and kids think their kids are exclusively talking to other kids. That's just a worse situation than now.

So what do these laws even solve?! I'm serious

[Dylan16807]

> Be a bit more serious now.

The serious answer is in the next line.

> They definitely do. I explicitly stated how that happens too. [...] data being leaked

Again "Some totally different system could endanger people, but this one doesn't."

Any system that has companies handling personal data and able to leak it is not the system this kind of law talks about.

> false sense of security. Imagine if Roblox was saying

In that situation, Roblox is the problem, not the law.

> So what do these laws even solve?! I'm serious

If widely implemented, a parent can set a single toggle and then the accounts their kids make will all be appropriately restricted.

It wouldn't replace direct checks from the parent on what their kids are doing, but it would greatly reduce the risk profile. And making it simple and built-in means that non-tech-expert parents can set it.

[godelski]

  >> Be a bit more serious now.

  > The serious answer is in the next line.
  > ...
  > Again "Some totally different system could endanger people, but this one doesn't."

  >> If you want me to take you seriously you have to respond with something better than "trust me bro".

I do have a hard time taking you seriously

  > If widely implemented, a parent can set a single toggle and then the accounts their kids make will all be appropriately restricted.

HOW

[Dylan16807]

> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47434546

Up here you wrote two options.

People keep telling you option 1 is the correct one, and that it's not actually useless.

You keep describing privacy problems that only exist with option 2.

This law is not option 2. Stop interpreting people as if they're badly defending option 2. They're not.

> HOW

They take an OS where only admins can change the age setting. They set the age on a non-admin account, which they give their child access to. The OS passes the age setting along to programs, which pass it along to services that need to restrict behavior.

This is not the same as how it works today. It's impossible for a parent to do this today. The best they can do is try to keep track of every account their child has and dig through the settings manually.