[cvoss]

> If you love your family, you must stop online age verification.

> If you want the best for your children, you must stop online age verification.

> Your children are being targeted. The infrastructure being built under the cover of child safety is designed to enslave them for the rest of their lives.

Jumped the shark on that one, and really off-color. I'm less inclined to listen to guy, not because of his actual points, but because of how unreasonable he sounds when articulating them. A great lesson in how not to do rhetoric.

[emptybits]

When I read those seemingly outrageous claims, I didn't immediately dismiss the author. I allowed him to substantiate the claims and kept reading. I found myself agreeing with his argument and his train of thought of how, once digital IDs are accepted as a norm, they won't be unwound, and all online activity will likely require them and then, as he says,

"Your children will never know what it was like to think freely online. They will never explore ideas anonymously. They will never question authority without it being logged in their permanent profile. They will never speak freely without fear that every word will be used against them.

They will grow up in a digital cage. And you will have to tell them you saw it being built and did not stop it when you had the chance."

So I'm with the author on this one. Under the cover of child safety, digital IDs will cage us (or at least children entering the verification age), and it will probably never be rolled back.

[paisawalla]

That's the role of rhetoric as a skill: all the true and sufficient syllogisms in the world will be ignored by most readers, if the argument leads with priors-triggering hyperbole and bombast.

[Ifkaluva]

The best way to not be in a digital cage is to opt out of the current digital products.

Would that be such a bad thing? Frankly I would welcome a world in which kids are not using Instagram or TikTok. They don’t have to live in a cage if we don’t let them in the cage.

Personally, my plan is that when age verification laws get passed, every service that requires ID is a service I stop using. And I expect my life to be better for it!

[noah_buddy]

What if all services require ID?

Let’s take a basic example: Wikipedia, which hosts pornography, easily could be a target of such legislation. Now there is infrastructure in place to know when you read about “Criticisms of policy X” and maybe it’s handled safely or maybe it’s handed directly to the government.

What about news? It’s a hop skip and leap from “age verify pornography with ID” to “age verify content about sexual abuse or violence.” Now the infrastructure is in place to see the alt-news criticisms you read.

Twitch or YouTube wouldn’t even wait to comply, ID verification is something that these corporations are already perfectly fine with. Now, you watching a history of your government’s crimes is a potentially tracked red flag that you’re a dissident to be watched.

Do you think if this sort of legislation is enacted, it will stop at large websites? It will be an excuse used by the government and supported by big tech firms to shut down any small websites which don’t comply. After all, Google, MS, et al, they would rather that your entire concept of the internet start and end in a service they control.

[matheusmoreira]

> The best way to not be in a digital cage is to opt out of the current digital products.

But will your friends and family opt out? Their phones are always listening. They can just as easily listen to you, even if you go to great pains not to expose yourself to technology. They'll make a shadow profile of any avoidant user whether they want it or not.

[pessimizer]

> The best way to not be in a digital cage is to opt out of the current digital products.

Bullshit. These are all-encompassing monopolies and government services. More likely, they'll ban you and you'll end up having to go to court out of desperation to demand that they service you.

This is very limited thinking. If you lacked this sort of imagination 20 years ago, you wouldn't have been able to predict today.

> Frankly I would welcome a world in which kids are not using Instagram or TikTok.

This is the sort of passive reactionary nonsense that causes the danger that we're in. Everything isn't something to give up lightly, even if you think that it will force your neighbor to turn his music down, or get rid of bad reality television. I don't like kids on social media either. I don't like adults on it. I think kids are suffering more from surveillance than from TikTok.

[acheron]

Nah that’s silly, because Google has been doing all that already for the past quarter century. This “age verification” shit isn’t going to move the needle on the Google-created dystopia we already have.

The time to worry about not having a digital cage was quite awhile ago. Instead tech people pushed Chrome and Android and Gmail and ads onto us.

[mcdow]

Chrome, Android, and Gmail are optional to use.

[vrganj]

So is social media.

[afpx]

It's framed as being only for social media. But, really, it's about network access. Without network access, it's difficult to thrive in the modern world.

Are you not alarmed at the possibility that a person's network access could be cut arbitrarily and at-will?

[vrganj]

I'm mostly alarmed by kids parroting Andrew Tate and a whole generation being raised propagandised by Tiktok brainwashing.

[Barbing]

Is Google tracking which teenagers make which posts on 4chan?

Curious about via Google Chrome versus not

[awkward]

Responding to tone but not to content is what a dog does.

[cvoss]

Dogs are on to something! Tone matters in persuasion. A whole lot. If the author were interested in persuading (as I assume he must be, given his strongly held convictions) then he should consider his tone more carefully.

[therobots927]

looks like you ruffled some feathers with this one

[Barbing]

Tone was off

[streetfighter64]

Yeah, calling people "dogs" for pointing out that TFA is a hyperbolic (AI-written) screed without substance would ruffle some feathers.

Edit: yes it is hyperbolic and ridiculous to suggest people will be "enslaved" because they don't have access to the internet. Do you realize that makes everybody who grew up in the 90s or earlier a "slave"?

[matheusmoreira]

Nothing "hyperbolic" about the points made. If anything it's not nearly extreme enough. People have no idea how bad things really are.

[jasonjayr]

A lot of people dismissed RMS's "Right to Read"[1] essay long ago. All the things it was warning about have come to pass, in spades.

1: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

[matheusmoreira]

It's mind boggling how far Stallman saw into the future. Saddest part is we're losing this war. They're going to destroy freedom of computation, freedom of information, and it turns out that... Nobody cares. Nobody but a bunch of nerds.

[peyton]

The kids are our future adults. It should be pretty obvious that getting them used to the state yanking access is a future problem. I don’t see anything off-color or unreasonable.

[cvoss]

Invoking the concept of enslavement to describe even a grotesque digital surveillance state is the really off-color part.

[bondarchuk]

>They are counting on you caring more about sounding reasonable than protecting your kids from a system designed to control them forever.

[jrm4]

Maybe you're not the target, then.

I haven't heard too many people say these extreme-sounding, yet at least arguably true points out loud.

Someone should be saying them, and the fact that it's not your particular cup of tea may not be the biggest issue here.

[nandomrumber]

Do you actually have an argument to make?

He’s 100% correct.

For a start, child are parents responsibility, and the state should stay out of that as much as reasonably possible.

Nothing more would need to me said on the matter if that’s as far as it went, but it isn’t.

There can be no free speech if the state can imprison you for what you say, and they know everything you say.

I dropped the word ‘online’ from the above paragraph, because on is the real world. Touch grass, but there’s no way online isn’t real. Are these words not real simple because I telegraphed them to you?

That’s not a world I want to live in.

[nonethewiser]

>For a start, child are parents responsibility

And not distributing porn to children is a porn company's responsibility.

You are repeating a very common talking point but its not a good one.

Age verification laws make it possible to hold services providers liable for breaking the law (it's already illegal to distribute porn to minors in many places, like the US).

It's both true and completely irrelevant that parents should do a better job protecting their children from harmful services online.

[cvoss]

Yes, my argument, to restate it, is that rhetoric can be misused to counterproductive effect, as is the case here.

Carefully note that I have neither affirmed nor contradicted anything of the substance of his argument. So defending his position to me is a non sequitur.

[nandomrumber]

Yeah, fair enough.

The goal should probably be convincing people at the margins, and not turning away those in opposition.

Preaching to the echo chamber is probably less productive.

[raverbashing]

> For a start, child are parents responsibility, and the state should stay out of that as much as reasonably possible.

Yes

That's why stores let kids buy alcohol and tobacco, of course, because no responsible parent would let them buy that, right?

That's why any kid can go watch any movie in the cinema right?

Yes it's the parents responsibilities. Do you think a middle class single mother has the resources to keep their kids entertained and out of social media for the whole day?

The problem with age verification is 100% the lack of anonymity in its implementation (which I do agree has ulterior motives) - but honestly not the age check in itself

[rationalist]

> That's why any kid can go watch any movie in the cinema right?

Yes. At least in the U.S., the federal government does not regulate that, it is voluntary by the MPA (formerly MPAA) and theaters. A kid can buy a ticket for a PG movie and walk into an R-rated movie.

> Do you think a middle class single mother has the resources to keep their kids entertained and out of social media for the whole day?

Mine did. While not everyone has a backyard, things like pencils, papers, books, used toys, etc can be found inexpensively or for free.

[nonethewiser]

So why are there laws that dont let them buy cigarettes and alcohol?

[nandomrumber]

I don’t believe there are, at least not here in Australia.

In Australia, I’m fairly certain it is not an offence for a minor to purchase alcohol or tobacco.

It is an offence to supply alcohol or tobacco to a minor.

[olelele]

Did social media exist when you grew up?

[rationalist]

Xanga and MySpace are what my friends had; yes

[hackable_sand]

It's weird that none of your arguments or proposals hold accountable the responsible parties.

You want to force us to compromise when we were minding our own goddamn business.

[nonethewiser]

Responsible parties like porn companies that distribute porn to minors? Parents are still accountable with age verification laws.

If parents suck at parenting, they will suffer.

If porn companies distribute porn to minors, which is illegal in many places such as the US, they will not suffer. Unless you start holding them accountable.

[EmbarrassedHelp]

Every major adult content site has warnings that you have to be over 18 when you enter the site. Its extremely easy to use parental controls to block these sites for a kid, and parental controls don't require violating user privacy.

[therobots927]

I’ve been noticing a trend among a lot of HN members where instead of contending with the arguments made in an article, they focus on the “off putting rhetoric” used by the author.

Make no mistake you are engaging in your own form of rhetoric when you respond like this. You are in effect moving the discussion away from the subject at hand, and towards the perceived faults in the author’s communication style. This is a rhetorical slight of hand and it’s highly disingenuous.

[cvoss]

It can't be disingenuous if I actually mean for you to take my argument at face value. There is no hidden motive that I haven't stated. I mean for you to focus on the author's communication style, in case you missed how bad it is, notice what's wrong with it, and seek better sources of information about the issue.

You have accused me of "rhetoric", but that is no accusation at all. Rhetoric is the art of persuasive speech. I have not accused the author of "rhetoric" but of "poor rhetoric". Perhaps that is what you mean to accuse me of.

[jcheng]

"Disingenuous?" Just because someone finds the style irksome, and chooses to share that here, they're deceptively, calculatingly trying to derail the conversation? That's an extremely cynical and uncharitable take.

If I were the author of the post, I'd value the feedback.

[JohnMakin]

Except that is not what this place is for, at all, and flirts with several explicit posting guidelines. It doesn't make for good discussion, doesn't address the topic at hand, etc.

[pessimizer]

> how unreasonable he sounds

It's important to remember that they're targeting your children. You grew up with freedom from surveillance and constant identification. You were able to communicate anonymously and without the content of your speech being sold to Walmart and the cops. They are putting in effort to make sure that your children will never have that reality as a reference point. The idea of the government and a dozen corporations not knowing everything that they are doing at all times, and not using and selling that information freely, will sound like the ramblings of a delusional old fool.

It's important that you engage with that. Denial is not something to brag about.

[cvoss]

> they're targeting your children

Who is the "they" that you refer to? Did you know that many people are in favor of age verification? Like, many parents of children who are at a loss for how to protect them from early access to obscene material? Could it be that that is why a large segment of government actors are moving in this direction? Or must it necessarily be a secretive nefarious play by some evil tech companies in cahoots with that one administration?

Or is it actually the opponents of age verification who are the ones targeting my children by encouraging early access to obscene materials for grooming?

That last point sounds like a conspiracy theory. It should. I wrote it that way to be provocative, and I hope that you, as a result, dismiss it out of hand. But I want you to understand that TFA's argument also sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. If you want me to engage, you want to make a serious attempt at persuasion.

To that end, I do appreciate that you have not adopted the tone of the article.

[streetfighter64]

Ironic that he's relying on the same ridiculous "think of the children" rhetoric that's being used to promote age verification. Really says a thing or two about online discourse in our day and age.

[nonethewiser]

Do you think children are harmed by porn? Did you know it's illegal to distribute porn to a minor in the US?

It seems reasonable to me to hold porn companies responsible for distributing porn to minors.

[EmbarrassedHelp]

There is actually extremely little evidence for anything when comes to individuals, sexual content, and their sexual fantasies. There is even less evidence available for anything when it comes to minors.

I've read papers on the topic, and the good papers always point out that there is almost no focus on any potential positives. Many "authors" have already made up their minds before they've even started conducting research, and that's only if they manage to get funding (everything sex related gets very little or no research funding).

[streetfighter64]

The difficulty of getting funding for such "research" is probably due to ethical concerns (regarding the methodology itself).

As for focusing on potential positives, I'd be surprised to see any studies focusing on the potential positives of gambling or doomscrolling.

Any arguments of "lack of evidence of harm" sounds a lot like what tobacco or asbestos companies used to claim not long ago.

[EmbarrassedHelp]

I was talking about adult content, which does not appear to be plagued by the same recommendation algorithm feedback loop that social media companies are using.

Sex and sexual content interacts with the brain differently then addictive short form videos.

[streetfighter64]

That's a discussion that's entirely tangential to age verification. However, I think porn should be illegal entirely as it's just prostitution. As such I think porn companies should not exist, the same as brothels or heroin dealers. If they have to exist for practical reasons along with other objectively harmful things, such as alcohol, marijuana or gambling, then obviously they should be regulated to ensure they're not targeting minors.

That does not detract from the fact that the people arguing for age verification are using "think of the children" in order to push surveillance.

[babypuncher]

5 years ago I would have agreed, but seeing how the GOP has been fighting tooth and nail to protect actual child sex traffickers, I don't think so anymore. There's just no possible way that the safety of children is an actual concern to any of them. To these people, kids are little more than sex toys for billionaires.

[babypuncher]

It seems the Epstein class didn't like this comment