[onion2k]

If we taught systems thinking in schools things like internet age verification would never get past being an idea on the back of a napkin. People struggle to consider the second-, third-, and nth-order effects of anything so asking them to consider what else might happen if we bring in laws and technical mechanisms to 'protect the children' is unfortunately too a big leap for a lot of them. Most people are bad at spotting causal links between parts of a system, and people who are good at it exploit that.

[roenxi]

In fairness, the evidence is that people already pretty firmly against things like chat control and the will to push it through tends to come from the political circles more than popular belief it is a good idea. I expect that if the measure itself went to a general vote, the majority would be against it once they have to deal with a specific proposal. It takes repeated pushes by the authoritarians looking for an opportunity to get things like speech controls or privacy violations through and the politicians mysteriously give up trying to roll it back no matter what the public pressure might be.

That being said, any expectation of thoughtfulness at all makes politics frustrating. Even basic things like why people keep making small random changes when most of these problems and solutions haven't changed in more than 2 millennia. And there is a pretty easy consensus to come to about what works. The repeated failures of authoritarianism to get to a good place are so consistent it is wild that people keep trying it.

[beezlewax]

I emailed my local TD minister in Ireland about the inherent dangers of chat control. They had some lacky respond with an email that framed the conversation in a way that made it look like I was interested in the illegal content and not privacy/control or nefarious future governments.

[monssooon]

This is what I fear the most. It is gas lighting and just manipulation. The idea of privacy will become associated with crime.

Further down the line technical solutions that are private will become illegal and in general not being pro survailance will get you in trouble

[friendzis]

When you think about it, the idea of a representative democracy is rooted in the technical difficulties of implementing a direct democracy: both spread of information/discussion to the masses and organizing the votes.

In this day and age, probably with a relatively tiny investment into public access points, we could very reasonably have a technically functional direct democracy. The legislative cycle is already authenticated so there's no need to solve "authenticated anonymous vote" problem, European countries already have functional eIDAS systems to back the authentication part and the legislative systems are already to some degree digitized.

On one hand, the problem "what if someone sells their vote" is already present and unsolved, in the shape of lobbying. What's interesting, though, that we have built entire systems to shape public opinion and entrenched them into our daily lives, which are used by corporations and politicians alike.

This begs a question: is there such a thing as unbiased public opinion without authenticated internet access?

inb4: direct democracy does not mean parliamentary systems could be abolished altogether, central spaces for debate would still help solve discussion exchange problems

[lelandbatey]

Is there such a thing as "unbiased public opinion" at all though? The memetic effects of language and communication means propaganda and similar tools of rhetoric and leveraged communication will always work, with or without an internet. There's no "solution", only "good enoughs".

Direct democracy is cool, but also impractical. I do not want to vote on every counties appropriations for road maintenance. So what's a level of direct democracy that's "good enough"? How do we make sure we're directly voting in things relevant to our lives? What if "relevant to our lives" is unrelated to our geographic location and is very interests based? If anyone can vote for anything, but most folks don't ever vote for most things, how do you prevent brigading of votes via coordination by groups who see that their group alone can swing what would be a small local vote whatever way they want by virtue of sheer numbers? How do you prevent trolls from going through every vote and just voting no on every "community center paper-and-ink budget" across the entire country?

There are so many questions I have about direct democracy systems! Do you have more information?

[chii]

Stupid things like brexit was put to a vote, but really important things such as age verification and mass surveillance are never put to any vote.

[godwinson__4-8]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QFgcqB8-AxE

[shevy-java]

But Brexit was a vote, by the people. Yes, the pro-leave campaign lied to no ends, but people still made a choice on their own and the majority for leave was quite slim.

This is very different to age sniffing here. Age sniffing is not being queried via public votum - lobbyists push it through without any resistance. It's amazing how this works.

[gigatexal]

But it’s not about critical thinking or governing well it’s about getting re-elected.

So the argument will go to “think of the children” which is a guise for more control and then pretty soon we are living in the dystopian future of 1984 or the UK where the film V for Vendetta took place.

This same kind of thinking gets idiots like Trump elected because people don’t have any sense of the commons and become single issue voters (sic). “Oh just reduce my taxes on my carried interest… reduce my taxes… I’m a xenophobe I hate immigrants let’s not do anything systematic let’s just hard close the border or the world is flat America only exists we don’t need allies or trading partners (JD Vance) … and so on”

[NoPicklez]

Well we teach people the health benefits of physical activity school but many don't continue with it.

[onion2k]

Sorry, this is going to be a rant. :)

Admittedly it's a long time since I was in school, but when I was there the notion of teaching the benefits of physical activity was limited to being told to run about for some 'sport', and absolutely nothing about why that's a good idea. Everyone was expected to do the same thing with no consideration for ability, disability, or motivation. Kids were punished with detentions for refusing to endure painful exercise that they couldn't do as well as their more capable peers.

The very obvious second order effect of poor physical education is fat unmotivated adults who don't exercise. Maybe educators need some systems thinking training too.

[5693802]

I'd add that not only were we not taught about health benefits in PE classes, the punishment for non-participation was not only detention but also potentially failing the entire grade. I ended up dropping out in my first year of high school due to a culmination of similar issues. I loved and still love learning, but my school was not an environment for learning. It was an environment for teaching rigid obedience to authority, and nothing more.

My particular favorite thing to rant about is how, on the first day, I was held in detention for the entire day and made to skip the introduction to my classes because I unknowingly wore the wrong shade of blue for the dress code. Like the middle school in the same district, the dress code required a white, red, or blue polo (FUCK YEAH AMERICA!!!!), but the shade of blue from the middle school uniforms was not allowed, something I was never aware of but instead got arbitrarily punished for along with dozens of others, with my parent being made to buy a new set of uniform shirts after school.

It is no wonder that the US is in a state of decline given how horrid the schooling is. I can't imagine a worse environment for stifling intellectual curiosity than the one I was in.

[philipbjorge]

It’s been 25 years since I was in school and this was my experience. Unsure if it’s changed…

[CalRobert]

Ironically when I was in high school I was fat and hated pe but biked about 20 minutes to school every day. Now in middle age I still bike everywhere and am in better shape than most of my peers..

Turns out I just really really hate running.

[HerbManic]

Same. In my mid 40's and probably in the top 20% of my age group.

Absolutely hate running!

[stymaar]

“Age verification” isn't a problem in itself, the problem is how it's done. They could issue a physical id card with a cryptographic chip and do the age verification in a zero-knowledge fashion and it would be perfectly fine.

The problem is the lack of thinking about the solution and just handwaving “age verification” as a political posture, which is why we end up with half-baked systems.

[ball_of_lint]

I strongly disagree.

You're framing this as some desirable thing that could be good except that a bad implementation erodes privacy. That's wrong at every step. These bills originate from big tech such as Meta that literally profit from collecting as much personal info from you as possible. https://old.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/1rsn1tm/it_a...

But even beyond their tainted origins, you can't implement your way out of something badly formed in the first place. You handwave "zero knowledge" but that doesn't do for your privacy what you're hoping it will. That id card will still have a serial number and CCTV of you purchasing it and you will de facto end up trusting some government binary blob to implement this cryptography correctly without backdoors. Snowden was a decade ago. This will have a backdoor. This will be used for surveillance, tomorrow even if by some miracle not today.

And finally, this makes the internet worse. There will be a section of people who are, for one reason or another, not able to pass this bar. Much of the goodness of the internet comes from being able to interact with anyone on it.

[MaKey]

This assumes good faith, which doesn't match reality. It's about control, not protecting children.

Also age verification is still a problem in itself. Given your idea of a physical card, kids will find a way to use the card of their parents. Even if the card couldn't be misused by others - you give platforms the knowledge of whom is a minor, which means they can be targeted better.

[stymaar]

> This assumes good faith, which doesn't match reality. It's about control, not protecting children.

“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

> Given your idea of a physical card, kids will find a way to use the card of their parents.

Sure there are kids who have access to their parents credit card with the PIN, but how frequent is that? In every system, fraud will exist, but that doesn't mean the system is worthless. “The optimal amount of fraud is non-zero”: https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra...

[ball_of_lint]

I linked it in my direct reply, but - we don't need to guess at why these bills are being introduced or why. We have evidence. It's malice. https://old.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/1rsn1tm/it_a...

[applfanboysbgon]

> “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

This is not an argument, it's just a stupid quip. And I would sooner suggest that you "never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice". Humans are overwhelmingly selfish and more than willing to harm others to serve themselves.

[mdp2021]

> and it would be perfectly fine

Unless a tiny chance exists that some system in the middle is not secure. Then you have the problem of those who orient their acceptance to the "oh well" shrug, and then systemic faults get downplayed by default. (Edit: I re-read and notice 'half-baked systems': seemingly, we agree.)

> as a political posture

Which is the core problem of masses accepting pseudo-heartly and not-brainy unacceptable figures. And again, systemic faults incarnated as administrations get downplayed by default.

[g42gregory]

"Age verification" is designed to attribute your identity to your online presence. As such, it's done just right.

[rdiddly]

Journalists are supposed to be helping the people by doing it.

[bluegatty]

No, we have any number of social constructs around 'age and responsibility' - driving, alcohol, pubs, porn, excessive violence and so much more.

It's bereft to suggest that we wouldn't nominally have those in the digital world.

And, people are concerned about nth order effects, it's a huge point of debate.

Yes - there is a huge slippery slope argument to be made, but it's an argument ... to be made. There are all sorts of ways of doing this.

[dv_dt]

Social media age verification is like none of those - social media is the modern public square and age verification is asking everybody to show their papers before participating in free speech in the public. It will have a chilling effect on free speech and will be a tool for authoritarian control

[simondotau]

A poor analogy.

The public square has never been properly anonymous. If you start saying things which contravene laws or the rights of others, the police have been able to capture you and unmask your identity, if concealed.

[dv_dt]

So the solution for criminals in the public is for everybody to show their papers walking into a public square? It is not, we have requirements for police process like warrants and a process for determining the requirements for urgent conditions of arrest.

[bluegatty]

No, obviously not, and this is a completely glib argument.

Who is suggesting people 'show their papers' to go into a public square?

Literally nobody.

It really demonstrates how bad the analogy is - so much so that it's not even analogy.

The 'social controls' on the 'public square' are limited by a few laws (aka directed violence) but apart from that you can say as you like, kids can as well - it's where parents can be parents.

And - don't have problem with kids in the public square.

We have a very real problem with kids on social media, verifiable, scientific.

Kids are depressed, distracted, they bully each other, they're creeped on, and they're not yet in the business having serious discussions about 'Mein Kampf' - they're kids.

Everything in kids lives is introduced in an 'age appropriate' fashion - literally everything.

Given the toxicity of social media, it's a 'primary concern' for one of those gated things.

This is not even an argument - the only argument is 'the slippery slope'.

[dv_dt]

The science for age bans on social media is weak at best. There were pretty much terrible studies done during Covid and did not attribute all sorts of uncertainty going on at the same time.

If the point were to improve on the mental health of kids there are countless underfunded public programs. Especially in the US, social support programs like food, healthcare basic and mental, actual physical public spaces for kids, arts in curriculum, etc.

[simondotau]

If that’s how you interpreted my post, I can only hypothesis that you didn’t read it. I can’t think of another explanation.

I actually like the traditional public square model: you have anonymity most of the time, but it’s not some absolute shield you can abuse to be an obnoxious prick. The police can intervene, but the intervention happens in the public square too.

[hparadiz]

People publish entire books anonymously.

[simondotau]

Yes, and plenty of people have spoken in the public square anonymously too, because no attempt is made to unmask when the speech isn’t accused of breaching law.

Publishing a book anonymously in the public square still means someone has to physically manufacture it, distribute it and convince you to read it. All these steps are subject to interdiction by the police.

[pavlov]

Was there ever a public square where children could participate anonymously among adults? (I’m imagining three Dickensian urchins in a trench coat giving a speech in Hyde Park.)

[bluegatty]

Your local library has age and ID requirements.

Your local 'town square' has 'some rules'.

Parents are entirely able to overcome any of this if they so choose - including feeding their kids alcohol, guns etc. - and so the freedom does materially exist.

Social Media isn't a place for free expression - it's mostly toxic - like exposing your children to the most vile, inauthentic people.

The more genteel places, frankly, won't have much in the way of age restrictions.

Entire nations are banning social media for kids because it's just not healthy - the teachers want it, the parents want it, the data seems to support it.

I think you're right to be (very concerned) but this is a necessary discussion. As a teacher.

[Telaneo]

> Your local library has age and ID requirements.

It literally doesn't (at least not if I don't intend to borrow a book and take it home; if I stay there and read, I can do so without any ID. I only need ID to get a library card, and I don't need that to enter and read a book).

[bluegatty]

It literally does - and you just admitted it.

The point is that 'even the local library' enacts rules and social conventions - not that they're exhaustively and acutely enforced in all corners.

No 4chan section in the library?

You might wonder why it doesn't have vast array of avant guard adult content, porn or art with really aggressive themes and people calling each other the n-word?

In society we have 'age related' conventions all over the place ... including your Library.

This is the absolute worst of HN, where people dissolve into Reddit-like discussions of bad meatphors and totally out of context hair splitting.

I just can't believe anyone here has any relationship with the reality of children, teaching or parenting whatsoever. It's the same argument made by the 'drugs should be legal and accessible' crowd - completely oblivious to the instantaneous massive health epidemic we'd have with opioids and fentanyl, or the 'anti vaxer' crowd - narrow ideological arguments about expression disconnected from any kind of reality or nuance.

There's a variation of social media that will be fine for the kids, they can be exposed to more into their late teens. Parents that want to opt out, will de facto be allowed to - and there is always a slippery slope with every law.

[dv_dt]

My local librarian did not restrict my books to the kids section when I was a kid. Also librarians have fought civil legal battles to keep reading activities anonymous. Libraries are unlike the restrictions and risks of the proposed legislation being discussed for social media

[bluegatty]

?

--> Your local library fought for your right to read literature of some kind.

---> They did not fight for your right to gang up on others and call them the n-word, to spread lies and slander about people, to harass children and expose them to creeps and pedophiles, to inundate children with hyper-targeted advertising, or 'Andrew Tate 'how to beat women' seminars'.

Nobody is pushing for a ban on social media so that the kids will be stopped from reading 'Judy Bloom' stories about a girl's 'first period'.

It's disingenuous to suggest that this has anything to do with the causes your librarians stand for.

Literally the opposite - your librarians are creating essentially 'safe spaces' for kids so they can read and be civil.

[Nursie]

Social media as it has become now is a shitshow where a minority of angry and/or disingenuous posters dominate discourse.

Twitter (X) was never the public square, and now it's little more than a playground for propagandists. The rest of us do well to ignore it, and it seems that even the 'legacy' media are starting to realise the days of breathlessly reporting on tweet-storms weren't great for anyone.

[hparadiz]

In a recent survey of under sixteen year olds in a place where an under sixteen social media ban exists asked how many of them used social media found that 80% were still using it. Do you actually need a login to consume social media? The answer to that is no. You can doom scroll all you want on sites like Reddit with no account whatsoever.

[miohtama]

Most people just want to blame someone else of their problems

[palata]

> If we taught systems thinking in schools things like internet age verification would never get past being an idea on the back of a napkin.

What about climate change and the current mass extinction?

[beezlewax]

Yes those might be slightly more iimportant.

[HerbManic]

And those that are keen to make some noise about it are labelled as being conspiracy minded or against the safety of children.

It causes a situation where because of the potential backlash, even if they are right, few people will come to the defense for fear of being ostracized as well.

[delusional]

I know systems thinking, and am in favor of a version of these types of legislation. Give me your best argument from systems thinking, and I'll give you a thoughtful reply.

[jchanimal]

The only reasonable solution shape I've seen is the one that trusts the parents to set an operating system setting that says whether or not the user is allowed to access adult content. And so it doesn't actually verify age, it just verifies parental intent.

[HerbManic]

The argument usually is that it is a slippery slope. Something that is introduced in the name of virtue ends up being co-opted into a system of control as those in power and peoples attitudes change with subsequent layers of normalization.

[microgpt]

Almost anything can be a slippery slope to almost anything. We'd never get anything done.

[yamillove]

Systems thinking?

Dude, more that 2 thirds of black kids can barely read [1]

[1] https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/nation/groups/?gra...

[jrflowers]

That page says most kids can barely read. Are you a kid?

[stavros]

> Across student groups, average fourth-grade reading scores in 2022 were lower for the following student groups:

> [..] > male and female students;

So reading scores were lower for everyone? Why single out groups?

[ElProlactin]

> If we taught systems thinking in schools things like internet age verification would never get past being an idea on the back of a napkin.

But why would we do that?

If we taught people how to think, they wouldn't sit their toddlers down in front an iPad for 8+ hours a day to entertain (read: keep them occupied and quiet) them with YouTube videos, sign them up for a Facebook account before they could wipe their own butts, etc.

The sad irony of this age verification thing is that if we had a decent society and parents with common sense, age verification wouldn't even be a topic.

[dozerly]

Parents with common sense comes from teaching children common sense. You have to fix the child education issue first, a lot of adults are too far gone to educate at this point.

[Synthetic7346]

How can you fix the child education problem without fixing the parent education? School is but a few hours a day, and kids spend more time with parents and learn from them. I was lucky that my parents liked to read and encouraged me to read, but my friends didn't have the same exposure that I did and never liked to read books.

[pfannkuchen]

What? School is basically the same hours as a full time job. How is it but a few hours a day? Did you time travel from the 1800s?

[samplifier]

Indeed, and then after school care because both parents are still working until 6 pm, quietly eat dinner, watch cocomelon, and then to bed. Horror.

[johnny22]

I don't get why you would start there. Their parents probably didn't have youtube or ipads and they and/or their parents are the ones pushing it.

[lyu07282]

Uhh imagine you know about countries other than the US that implement age verification. Like the UK, Brazil, Australia, France, Spain, Italy and dozens of other countries with vastly different educational systems. Then perhaps you could begin to understand the magnitude of your own ignorance of actual power and political ideology. Instead of embarrassingly trying to reason yourself a political education from first principle.

Uh dumb law I don't like. Cause people dumb. If people not dumb, no dumb law. Uhh I am very smart. "Systems thinking" oh fucking hell stfu