Which goes back to what I wrote earlier in this thread:
Does it matter to the platform company who is legally responsible for the age bracket signal they receive? I guess not, as long as it’s not them.
They work for making themselves more money, and blocking any laws/regulation that cost them money. Always have, always will.
But surely you’re aware this isn’t how argumentation works. You should attempt to establish a sound argument to convince others of your position. Adding to the cacophony of “this is bad!” without explaining why is unproductive.
My argument is simple: there isn’t much to lean on in the belief that age gating will lead to mass surveillance.
In the vast majority of jurisdictions, one not need provide government ID to visit a pornographic website. Somehow we’ve been gating those sites for decades now and yet we haven’t found the burning desire to implement widespread digital ID to verify. I don’t see why this would be different.
Since you’re okay with age verification, perhaps you’ll be okay with me asking you to share your age. It might help me understand your views which I find puzzling.
Just say you didn’t read or understand his post next time.
I don’t think it is going to stop at age signals, see the example with steam and ofcom.
The conspiracy part of me thinks that this is just a slow boil for digital IDs.
Oh look at how poorly we handled ID verification, you know what would be easier and more secure than submitting photo IDs and face scans, just apply for and use your digital id to login online.
Sure! This will be a fun exercise in displaying the irrelevant threat posed to me personally by disclosing such information:
According to California legislation, I am older than 18 years of age. Thus, I fit into the most permissible age bin and can access whatever I please. Doesn’t seem to leave you much to infer about me, does it?
Of course, I read it and the other replies in this thread. But as I keep repeating, I don’t see any strong “glue” to merit including these tangential issues in a broader conspiracy in service of a digital ID.
Yes, it is true generally that:
But there’s nothing in the bill, nor in the multitude of disparate events referenced in this thread, that leads to a strong argument that os age gating will eventually produce a system of digital ID.
Don’t research e-government or anything, by the way! It’ll terrify you.
I figured you would go with the bracket. But not all the laws require merely a bracket.
Is it your view that these laws requiring age brackets are okay and no big deal, but that requiring actual age is an issue?
If not, then I repeat my question.
Sadly most of the left will cheer a Orwellian takeover up to the point they’re put in their Matrix pod and harvested for energy.
My turn:
Is it your view that children should have unfettered access to, for example, apps to create pornographic images of each other? Or do you feel there are sufficient tools in place to help parents prevent such activity?
Because that is how I would charitably describe the intended purpose of this legislation. Whether it is plainly stated or not (I believe that is plain per the California bill).
Everyone else in this thread seems to be relying on an unspoken, unstated purpose to the legislation. But in my view demand for such Orwellian government vastly exceeds the supply (in the West, anyway).
I couldn’t help but notice that you didn’t want to provide your age. Are you of the opinion that providing such information to strangers online is an invasion of your privacy?
But if you insist, if you think it helps you formulate a counter argument, I’ll answer like this, since my assumption is that age, like any other PII should be protected by a competently designed operating system:
I’m old enough to have a non-trivial answer to the question “Where were you on 9/11?”, the trivial answer being “school”.
Old enough to know better?
So, given you repeatedly not providing your age when asked, is it fair to assume you think providing that information to strangers on the internet is invasive?
Which legislation is mandating the provision of age to strangers on the internet? In any event this thought experiment is inappropriate since you’re not rendering any services or providing a product in the form of an app or otherwise that I may desire sufficiently to provide age, accept end user license agreements, etc. etc.
We can get to whether there is one currently or not, but first I’d like to know that if there is/would be a law requiring you to provide your age, if you declining to provide your age in this conversation is indicative of your view that such a law would be invasive and would violate your privacy.
See above
Okay, at this point with you going back and forth and declining to answer and counter-asking, I am going to assume that you think it’s invasive to require people to provide their age (not their birthdate) to strangers online. You’re okay with age brackets, but you think an age is invasive. You can of course correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the evidence is pretty clear that my conclusion is correct.
The conclusion is irrelevant to the argument at hand, which is whether or not the legislation is softening us up for digital ID.
If a chronic alcoholic tells you not start a drinking habit, do you discard his advice since he does not follow it himself? Or, would a better litmus test be to actually evaluate the advice on its own terms, independent of who gives it?
I argue that you have become focused on me and what I believe, rather than the topic of discussion. I further argue that I am of no consequence to this discussion, as I do not live in the States nor am I responsible for this legislation. It is entirely possible that I also disagree with the legislation and am simply playing Devil’s advocate.
My reasons for not sharing my age with random members of this forum may be (and are) completely different from the reasons I may or not decide to download an age-gated application in some theoretical future.
Now, if Wendell wants to know my age as a condition of my remaining a member of this forum, I would be happy to do so.
TL:DR Some folks will end up in camps wondering how they got there. Other folks will end up in camps knowing exactly how they got there. But neither will avoid the outcome, since both sides spent more time and energy arguing amongst themselves rather than fighting a real enemy.
edited for spelling
There it is, Godwin’s law!