Online threats to children are real, but the headlong pursuit of age verification that we’re seeing around the world is unacceptable in its approach and far too broad in scope — and we simply can’t afford to get this wrong.
To be clear, parents’ concerns are valid and sincere. Few people would argue that kids should have unfettered access to adult material, to self-harm how-tos, to social media platforms that manipulate them and expose them to abuse.
But it’s the very depth of those worries that is being cynically exploited. Age verification as is currently being proposed in country after country would mean the death of anonymity online.
And we know exactly who stands to gain: The same tech giants who built the privacy nightmare that the internet is today.
When done correctly, and someone’s ID remains anonymous from the general public if they wish so, then I’d also be fine with that. Way too many trolls and other forms of bad actors on the Web who intentionally or unintentionally use ad hominems or other toxic communication, it’s so hopelessly divisive and draining.
I recently saw a documentary about looksmaxxing. The forums these kids peruse echo the deepest pits of hell; insisting on suicide and all the forms of psychological bullying one cannot even imagine.
Whether it’s the best solution I don’t know, it’s probably not. But from my point of view, taking away the anonymity from the authorities would significantly lower the amount of depravity on the Web. The crux in this whole matter is of course that the authorities are virtuous, fair, just. If they are not, which all too often is the case, then removing anonymity can be an equally dangerous thing as well.
Obviously everything boils down to education, which needs a complete overhaul. But that’s something that will take decades if not a century to turn humanity into a predominantly virtuous species.
How exactly would id verification help against that. Do you want “toxic speech” to become a crime and punished by a court of law?
Bullying and disinformation, absolutely.
From the paper What Deters Crime? Comparing the Effectiveness of Legal, Social, and Internal Sanctions Across Countries, citing a meta-analysis:
The paper concludes as follows:
As I said, is it the best solution? Science hasn’t a clear answer either. What does seem to be agreed upon is that:
My hypothesis is that complete anonymity, so a low probability of getting caught, increases toxic behavior because people suffer no bad consequences whatsoever and therefore never learn. Ever hung around a spoiled kid? They’re the worst. The same happens online. Naturally, proper journalists and whistleblowers are a different thing, absolute anonymity is crucial for them. But how to square both these realities remains to be discovered.
This argument is one degree of separation away from a “nothing to hide” fallacy. And as you accurately pointed out, it’s founded on a very unrealistic assurance of an entirely virtuous power.
Free speech is important. This fact can not be overstated. Surveillance backed by the threat of persecution chills not just “bad speech”, but any speech deemed undesirable by groups or individuals in power. This is a fundamental concept to understand when forming theories and opinions that also directly relate to subjects like democracy and authoritarianism. To miss this crucial fact is to formulate a skewed premise that favors the primary mechanism by which free speech, and by extension the many rights and liberties which require free speech, are historically suppressed.
The notion that democratic systems and values are compatible with a surveillance state is flawed. The two systems operate in directly contradictory ways. Surveillance states historically always tend toward forms of authoritarianism. 1984 was a work of fiction, but it was a warning driven and informed by very real demonstrated dangers inherent in the enabling and acceptance of a surveillance state. The validity of its message is shown clearly and repeatedly in real world examples of population surveillance in practice.
Trading liberties, including and especially privacy, for some concept of order, is a dangerous approach which ignores and contradicts historical evidence. To ignore this is to embark on the path to Oceania.
I know, and I am vehemently in opposition to the nothing to hide argument. In fact, the reason I recently distrohopped to Artix was because some Arch package maintainer casually uttered the following on the developer adding the birth date field: “I appreciate the work ahead of time, and the law is the law.” Which is either remarkably naive, ignorant of history, or malicious. Homosexuality is still a crime by some law somewhere. So, yeah, utter nonsense.
That being said, if the majority of the Web just becomes a place for advertising, gambling, and predominantly fruitless discord due to rampant disinformation, misinformation, trolling, bullying, et cetera, then I think removing anonymity in some way, e.g., for some websites or specific services, could be a solution. Because if the Web goes where it’s going now, a cesspool of humanity’s worst impulses, I wouldn’t see a reason to keep using it and therefore wouldn’t care whether there’s badly implemented ID verification anyway. Obviously I’d prefer none of this is necessary, that people behave virtuously. But, they don’t, so… I also think there’s too many laws, and that laws mainly apply to the poor and the working class, and the rich—the perpetuators of most of the world’s problems—mostly get off scot-free.
Ugh, it’s all so complex. I don’t have the answer. Do you? Is what I’m saying as utterly nonsensical as what that Arch maintainer said? If so, I’d be glad to adjust my position provided civilized and proper reasoning—not that you didn’t before, @Disillusionist@piefed.world, but many do not.
I don’t profess to have “the answer”, and you’re right that it’s complicated. You’re also right that the state of things is bad and getting worse.
I hear anti-privacy arguments as pivoting the call for transparency away from the companies providing the harmful, toxic, and exploitative services onto end-users. This effectively bypasses the discussion about corporate accountability, in effect enabling corporate abusers to largely reframe the problems they enable or facilitate as problems of the public at large. This means discussion and efforts become focused on how to apply regulation to the public rather than corporate providers.
It’s a win-win for Big Tech, since they avoid serious talks about culpability for the harms they create, while simultaneously benefitting from the greater degree of data extraction made possible by the increased surveillance directed at consumers.
One recent article at It’s Foss is about age verification and similar measures, and touched on a lot of this. Here are a couple quotes I found relevant:
This is pretty much exactly my sentiment. If we’re honestly looking for “answers” to these problems, we need to be willing to see them for what they are and where they actually lie. I’d say that goes for basically all kinds of problem solving, and I think that kind of common sense troubleshooting mindset is as necessary in this situation as any other. Just doing something to fix a problem rather than what’s actually appropriate is often a recipe for more problems.
Hey, guess what you need to buy an internet connection in the first place! Wanting more ID verification is only fascism.
[Edit: meant to post this reply to your comment below]
Exactly this + all the trolls promoting fascism with great success.
Also, congrats on going against the groupthink on lemmy. The pro anonymity crowd here is especially toxic, which only further proves our point.
People are understandably heated over this subject. That often results in heated reactions. It doesn’t invalidate their points, however, and to claim that it instead proves your point that surveillance is necessary could evidence a bias on your part when it comes to engaging with this very divisive topic.
I didn’t claim it invalidates their points. I’m saying that the same points can be made in a civilized way and the very toxicity of online discussions is direct result of online anonymity. And yes, I understand why assholes and children react emotionally when we suggest that they should reveal their identity. That doesn’t mean their behavior is justified.
I actually think it can be commendable to speak out in a situation you view as hostile. I also don’t condone the personal attacks some people might throw at those who voice opinions they don’t agree with.
I would also have to say that I would assume that you get that it’s not guaranteed people are going to be entirely civil when you essentially tell them that you think that the rights they believe in should be done away with.
And you kind of just did exactly what you said you didn’t, using these interactions as a validation of your claims against those of the people you disagree with.
Having said that, it’s often better to take the high road when we can. It’s possible that not everyone who disagrees with you (or me) is an asshole.
You mean I claimed it invalidates their points? I really don’t see how. Again, the points about usefulness of anonymity (which few people actually made) are not invalidated by the toxicity. People say “we need anonymity because X” (I don’t think any real argument was made here so I don’t even know what X is) and I say “the toxicity and misinformation outweigh the benefits of X”. The arguments for X are still valid and if someone can give examples of X that outweigh the negative results of anonymity I will change my mind. So far all I’ve seen is “it’s a slippery slope” and “you’re a fascist”.
Toxic for freedom!
It’s just remarkably disappointing that so many of said cohort is all for freedom or libertarian, but they simultaneously downvote comments into being hidden and offer no counter-arguments. The irony.
But I sigh at discourse online in general, on all sides, for it’s riddled with fallacies. Or even downvotes and upvotes, they mean little to nothing. I know because as an admin I realize there’s tons of people who use multiple accounts, not two or three, but tens of accounts, to skew the votes in their favor.
I have downvotes disables on my instance so I really don’t care about them. I know groupthink is strong on lemmy. Usually I just ignore it but when I’m bored I like to poke people a little bit. Some people are actually interested in discussing things, most just follow the masses. It’s disappointing but that’s internet for you.