[charcircuit]

One big problem is that the verification is trying to estimate your age instead of looking up who is the actual person and then checking what the age is of that person. If the lookup returns that the face is that of a video game character it should reject as opposed to trying to estimate the age of that character.

[i_think_so]

That's one idea. I have a different one.

What if we...now hear me out....what if we didn't try to shoehorn a stupid and unworkable technological solution into this problem space and just...made parents responsible for their kids?

[kakacik]

Nono too radical, parents dont have time, they need it to scroll some shitty social media cash grab to feel themselves even more shitty about their lives.

... and we would like to call our generation 'smart'. While knowing deep inside very well what a failure as a parent many of our generation are. The proof for/against are our kids right in front of our eyes and there is no escaping from this basic truth, thats why its so crushing.

Sorry gotta go, need to check some shitty sites who spy on me and try to push in vain on me some primitive ads.

/s

[bandie91]

whaaat? parents?? being responsible? let alone to their kids? what are you? some kind of backward medieval luddite?

btw, yes, we must not lose the skill of parenting. no any technology give it back to us.

[croes]

Parents who work fulltime, some even more than one job?

[jochem9]

Says a lot about the state of society when parenting is outsourced to technology, so that the parents can be further enslaved (because almost no one chooses to work two jobs).

[i_think_so]

Oof. Now I has a sad. :(

[crote]

What if we...now hear me out....what if we paid people a living wage?

[AnthonyMouse]

Most of a "living wage" is from the cost of living. We make living space artificially scarce and then your rent is high but so is the rent on the small businesses that employ people. The restaurant can't pay the waitress more when their own costs have gone up, and the money is going to the landlords rather than the employers.

Likewise, when some megacorps capture the government and monopolize a market, the costs go up on both individuals and all the employers in other markets who are now paying monopoly rents with the money they could have otherwise used to hire more people (bidding up wages) or lower the prices workers pay when they buy their products.

Just asking them to pay more doesn't work when the party you want to pay more isn't the party which is extracting the money, and higher costs are just as much of a problem as lower wages.

[heavyset_go]

There are computing and communication devices designed for kids to use.

Stop handing your kids brand new iPads and complaining, especially if you aren't willing to use parental controls.

[locao]

I'm not saying you're wrong, but Apple's parental controls just don't work.

[Dylan16807]

It's possible to design something parents can control without using lots of their time to do so.

[croes]

So you are back to

> what if we didn't try to shoehorn a stupid and unworkable technological solution into this problem space

[Dylan16807]

Depends on how you end that sentence.

If you end it with "and make a good easy to use technical solution instead" then you found my stance.

If you end it with "and just...made parents responsible for their kids?" like GP then no that's not my stance at all.

[AnthonyMouse]

> If you end it with "and make a good easy to use technical solution instead" then you found my stance.

That assumes a good easy to use technical solution is possible. What if classifying user-generated content as safe for kids is enormously subjective, and the labor required to accurately classify it even given a hypothetical objective standard would cost more than users are willing to pay to have it done?

[croes]

So you could say the same for original echnical solution. > make a good easy to use technical solution instead

[AngryData]

That sounds like a problem for society to fix directly, not shoehorn 30 other fixes on top of an inherently broke system.

[marcus_holmes]

ok, now you've identified the real problem, how can we solve that?

[bandie91]

well, everyone need to clarify their priorities.

[croes]

Food and shelter vs children?

[croes]

Massive downvote because I don't want to blame hard working parents?

I get a hard tech-bro vibe who like to blame others to deflect from responsibilty of their technology

[protocolture]

Right they didnt put enough panopticon in. Got it.

[pjc50]

> looking up who is the actual person

"Fallacies programmers believe about people"

(you can sort of do this in countries with national ID schemes if you don't care about foreigners; for example, various people have found this in China where random things are gated behind having a WeChat account which requires a Chinese ID. You can't do this in the US or UK, which are big pushers of the ""age verification"" scheme)

[charcircuit]

You don't need an Id. For example, you can crawl the internet for selfies and then try and tie that face with the person it belongs to. With enough datasets you can start to put together a database of relevant people enough that it's okay to do deeper validation for the people you did not collect a face for.

[ben_w]

In addition to being illegal under GDPR, that's not going to work very well.

I don't look like the other people whose name I share.

Famously, neither does this guy: https://iammarkzuckerberg.com

[pjc50]

> you can crawl the internet for selfies and then try and tie that face with the person it belongs to

Yeeeah .. this is not the sort of thing that GDPR ought to allow, though.