Comment by Dylan16807
1 day ago
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.
> 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?
The issue at hand of figuring out ages would not take much labor no matter how you did it.
It seems worth thinking past step one if you intend to do something. Even if you had some reliable way to know someone's age, what are you going to do with it in the context of information availability? The proposal is building a privacy-invasive age-leaking system (do you actually want adversarial/malicious services knowing when someone is a vulnerable kid?). There is no point in doing that if the "good thing" it's supposed to enable is actually a hopeless omnishambles.
Meanwhile we don't have any sound technical means of verifying age over the internet. The "use government ID" approaches are among the least effective because you have no good way to tell if the person behind the screen is the person on the ID.
So you could say the same for original echnical solution. > make a good easy to use technical solution instead
> So you could say the same for original echnical solution.
...yes, that was my point. My whole argument was that it wasn't a tradeoff between "unworkable technical solution" and "make parents spend time they don't have".