Comment by tapoxi
9 days ago
I really don't understand why it wasn't just a requirement for Apple and Google to include a client side filter. Parent sets up the phone and it's enabled by default. Much simpler option for everyone involved.
9 days ago
I really don't understand why it wasn't just a requirement for Apple and Google to include a client side filter. Parent sets up the phone and it's enabled by default. Much simpler option for everyone involved.
It's because this law isn't about protecting children, but about control of the Internet. They want online activity tied to real identity as a power grab.
Yea, it's all about a permanent Digital ID and the end of any independent forums. It's the first essential steps before you get to great firewalls and social credit scores.
Remember, Tennessee, Mississippi and Texas already have similar laws in place in the US, so even a nation with better speech and gun laws is still not immune from the slow descent into technocracy.
At least in the US the Supreme Court ruled that these sorts of laws are only kosher because they target porn, which is afforded a lower degree of legal protection (albeit not no protection at all). Trying to restrict access to protected political speech or the like the way the UK and Australia did would likely be a very different court case.
13 replies →
One possibly significant difference is that the cultural attitudes in the US tend to lean more rebellious and distrustful of the government, and "it's legal if you don't get caught" is a somewhat popular sentiment.
> Remember, Tennessee, Mississippi and Texas already have similar laws in place in the US
Interesting, since when? I'm curious about how it's turned out in practise. For web services I mean. An for anyone hosting a message board or comment section.
2 replies →
> Remember, Tennessee, Mississippi and Texas already have similar laws in place in the US, so even a nation with better speech and gun laws is still not immune from the slow descent into technocracy.
I’m not sure what gun laws have to do with anything but guns are not unreasonably difficult to legally purchase in the UK or EU if you have a specific need for one. It’s a tool and treated as such
I've been warning people in the USA about this for well over a decade. Laws like the states passing porn laws are the foot in the door to expand it to -any- internet activity. Freedom is had to take in a coupe, it's a a lot easier to nip at it around the edges until the structure cracks. Strange how people here in the states value the 2nd amendment so much (including me, I'm a proud gun owner) but they will ignore the 1st, 3rd, 4th .... This is particularly true here in Texas.
>It's because this law isn't about protecting children, but about control of the Internet.
Also in an overpopulated world it's not a given that children should be protected if it comes at the expense of basic freedoms. We need to move away from this narrative that "think of the children" is a persuasive argument. Little Timmy needs to avoid danger or the ghost of Darwin will work his magic.
Probably based on long term concerns that escalating inequality will lead to widespread unrest and violence. Which it will, if unaddressed.
Interesting that decades of government leaves half the country to rot, and their solution is to try to stop that half from rioting about it, rather than - perhaps - making society fairer?
Because the people who wrote this bill don't care about children. They care about giving the government the power to regulate everything.
Adding a browser header field would be sufficient, could be easily integrated into the OS and browser, and would let developers handle this issue in a few hours worth of effort.
ID verification is such an invasive measure and prone to the exact same failures as the simplest solutions.
While I'd agree, the issue with that solution is that validating against government issued identity solutions aren't always free. I don't know if this is the case with the UK digital ID, but the Danish version certainly isn't free to query. The Danish one has, to my knowledge, a solution that would allow you to do an age for a person, without getting any other information, so yes, the browser could do that, but there cryptographic bits ensure that now body messed with the header data is still missing. And again, who's suppose to pay for the API calls if the browser does it, Mozilla, Google, Microsoft... Ladybird?
I like this solution, integrated with whatever existing parental controls are in the OS.
That would empower parents to keep their kids from accidentally or casually accessing porn. Of course, an intelligent and determined teenager will probably find a way around it, which is also good; then they've learned a bit about computers.
I'm going to bet most kids will get around it by registering accounts with the IDs that they've taken pictures of, which belong to adults, then sharing the accounts widely.
Grandma isn't likely to have an account on one of these sites (unless one of your cousins beat you to it).
Because reinforcing a natural monopoly is bad? The law is specifically written to allow a range of different business models etc.
Also, because desktops/different browsers are a thing?
> Also, because desktops/different browsers are a thing?
I mean, i'd think primarily this. They may hold a significant marketshare, but they dont hold all of it.
> it wasn't just a requirement for Apple and Google to include a client side filter
I am old enough to remember when Apple proposed client side filtering and everyone absolutely lost their shit.
That was client side content scanning, unless there’s another incident you’re referring to.