Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for privacy. But between setting up the birthdate when creating my children’s local account on their computers, and having to send a copy of their ID to every platform under the sun, I’d easily chose the former.
I’d even agree to a simple protocol (HTTP X-Over-18 / X-Over-21 headers?) to that.
Thats not what the current OS-level age gating is though. Its literally pick what age the account user is on account creation. You could set yourself to be 120 and that would be valid.
“current” is not what the lawmakers are thinking of though.
Nice to see lots of downvotes for stating factually correct statements while the parent post is literally all conjecture based on “well they would do that wouldnt they?” but is upvoted.
If they were planning on doing ID verification for this why would they take this half step? It doesnt make it easier for them down the road, if anything it makes it harder as there’s the ability to say “but we already have that”. If the plan was to mandate face ID why wouldnt they just go straight for that like the UK and Australia have for porn?
It seems obvious to me that, invasive as it is - an OS-level “are you 18 yes/no” check at installation would not satisfy the “protect the children” crowd at all, nevermind too that immediately when/if it goes into action - every single user would suddenly have their OS downgraded to the kiddy-level unless they declare their age.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog
And there are several states that do have the age thing for porn here in the US, the biggest of which is Texas.
So exactly the same argument, while referencing an experiment where the frogs did jump out of the boiling water unless they were lobotomised. Very convincing.
C’mon, don’t be that dense, it’s is a metaphor explaining that people are more likely to accept change if done gradually as opposed to all at once.
Look around. Think of the average person, half of the people are below that person’s intelligence and a good number of them vote.
I don’t think it’s “dense” to point out that your metaphor depends on a common misunderstanding of an experiment. An experiment where the true result actually is an argument against your point.
The only misunderstanding is that it is only a metaphor and not actually biologically correct for frogs in the literal sense. It is absolutely applicable in human behavior, observable, and easily replicated. Is coffee or alcohol an actual acquired taste or is it people gradually adapting to change?
https://behaviorfacts.com/boiling-frog-theory/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mindfulness-for-wellbeing/202201/whats-the-best-way-to-change
I know its a metaphor, but you can come up with any metaphor you want its still just speculation based on nothing. It’s precicily the same argument that conservatives made about gay marriage: this is just the thin end of the wedge, it starts with allowing people to marry people of the same sex and then they’ll move on to incest and bestiality.
Its a crap argument, if you want to oppose something show how this wither makes things worse or how it makes worse things easier to happen in the future. A good example would be the freedom restricting legislation brought in after 9/11. Despite assurances at the time that it would just be used against “terrorists” there was nothing in it to garuntee that, at you could make the argument that the legislation with no further changes could be used to do harm. Lo and behold it was.
Just pointing at something and saying “slipperly slope” or “boiling the frog” is not an argument against something unless you can show how it makes the next step easier, and I havent seen any actually thought through argument how this does make mandatory identification easier.
No, I don’t believe you’re actually this stupid, sealion
This is perfectly reasonable, but my feeling is that the real world isn’t reasonable in this way.
Consider all the infractions of liberty that have been approved in the name of combating “terrorism.” The no-fly lists. The universal warrant-less searches. All domestic communications recorded and archived for who-knows how long. The pervasive surveillance. The huge extension of CBP power to do things like raid Greyhound busses that aren’t even crossing borders.
None of these steps were prevented with the argument “But we’re already doing something about that issue.” That argument never even came up, to any noteworthy degree, in the public discourse.
Look at it this way: All sorts of websites that aren’t for kids already have banners requiring the visitor to affirm that they’re legal adults. So, we’re there: “We already have that.” But no one is seriously making that argument. Because, of course, those banners do next to nothing: Visitors can just lie. So it will probably be for OS level age verification. Thus, in creating a system that doesn’t work, the excuse for extending the system, to exert more control in the future, is built in from the start.
People who are interested in asserting more control over others are never content with the amount of control they have. They always want more. It is the gaining of more control that motivates them.
I actually used this same example further up. Yes the GWOT made some terrible legislation that has done real damage, but it wasnt a slippery slope. They didnt make laws a little bit invasive but generally ok before slowly nudging it further until it got to the point where it was able to be used for ill. They went in hard and fast with abusable legislation which could be criticised for what it actually was, not what it would lead to in further legislation down the line (and it was criticised at the time).
I disagree.
There was a certain (large) amount of government surveillance and eavesdropping going on before the GWOT, which was used as an excuse to massively expand it. There was already inspection and security and traveler record-keeping at airports before the GWOT, which was used as an excuse to expand those. CBP had long had the legislative authority to do all kinds of nastiness within 100 miles of a border before the GWOT, which was used as an excuse to step their activities up, to legal limits and beyond.
In every case, an initial claim of urgent, exceptional authority was used to create both the physical infrastructure and the cultural permission required to make later, expanded claims of urgent, exceptional authority much easier to implement when an excuse presented itself. That is the slippery slope, we really slid way down it, it’s a real phenomenon. It doesn’t have to be smooth or gradual, it can happen in jerks and waves. It doesn’t have to come as a result of a plot, a plan, a deliberate conspiracy, it can be an accretion of individually opportunistic acts.
mlem is not showing me votes. so dunno what you are talking abt.
my point is that we have laws already that are perfectly appropriate to the “concern” stated, “child safety.”
any new laws will only give more access to important data to corporations who are known to do bad things with it.
that does not make it worth it. my opinion would change if there was a legit large inrush of charges using exiting laws that then did nothing to help, then one could argue we need more law. but thats just not the case today.
You are a sealion. “Factually correct” but still acting like a shitbird
Funny huh
“You gave us that previous bit of private information what’s a little bit more. You can trust us”