Top
Best
New

Posted by smartmic 1 day ago

Do Not Turn Child Protection into Internet Access Control(news.dyne.org)
797 points | 417 commentspage 6
funnybookbinder 17 hours ago|
ban porn altogether
bfivyvysj 22 hours ago||
Too late

- Australia

cat-turner 22 hours ago||
parents need to do their job and raise their children, and moderate their content.
mamami 21 hours ago||
Because of course it's so easy. You obviously have never visited a site your parents would have disapproved of
Nasrudith 13 hours ago||
You should never have had sex if you wanted to avoid doing anything hard.
Ylpertnodi 22 hours ago||
Whose great-grandparents are you going to blame?
TomGarden 21 hours ago||
For many it's not about the children. For many it is.

I haven't made my mind up on this topic, but Jesus, the comments here strawmanning everyone who supports this kind of thing as disingenuous or worse... Wow.

I'm not sure how we make any corner of the internet usable within the next few years without verification given all the misinfo, bots & AI slop anyway.

windowliker 22 hours ago||
Arguments about erosion of privacy miss the point: that is exactly what they want.
borissk 23 hours ago||
The big tech is going to be one of the big winners from Internet Access Control. This will give them a more reliable way to link a user account to an actual human being - a link that can be monetized in a variety of ways. All kind of political regimes can use such regulations to enhance their control of the population. And the loosers are going to be the Internet users and small companies.

The unfortunate true is IAC is coming to most countries in the world, no matter how much the Hacker News audience hates it...

pstuart 21 hours ago||
The moment "think of the children!" enters the chat is when suspicions should be heightened.
delusional 14 hours ago||
> They come from recommendation systems, dark patterns, addictive metrics, and business models that reward amplification without responsibility.

That rings extremely true to me, the issue you run into is that liberals and conservatives don't believe the government has any role in the commercial relationship between adults. This means any limits you want to impose on the "free market" has to be directed at protecting children, since those are the only people you're allowed to protect.

We already have many laws to safeguard children, the problems being that children have been taught to self declare as adults, and parents can't stop that without some help from the technology.

SilverElfin 23 hours ago|
I read in some other discussions that this is about social media companies being able to increase their profits and nothing else. But the social media companies lobbying for these laws are shamelessly making it look like some kind of protect the children thing. It is all pushing more ads annd getting more users.

The way it works: today, social media companies cannot advertise to children under 13 under COPPA. So these companies have to do their best to guess the user’s age, and if it is possibly a child, they can’t advertise and have to lose those profits even though MAYBE the user is an adult. Now they can shift the legal compliance costs and liability to the operating system provider or phone manufacturer and not be responsible for the user’s identity. And then they can advertise much more at that point, without being conservative. This also lets them have a different experience for minors that doesn’t advertise to them, but targets them carefully to keep them as users until they are older, so they start to become a source of advertising profits later.

It’s well known that Meta is behind a lot of funding for nonprofits pushing these laws under a “protect the children” thing. But now even Pinterest’s CEO is shamelessly saying parents don’t have a responsibility to manage their own kids, and is supporting all of this. See https://www.gadgetreview.com/reddit-user-uncovers-who-is-beh... and https://time.com/article/2026/03/19/pinterest-ceo-government...

Evangelist/theocratic conservatives welcome these laws because they view it as enabling and validating age-based restrictions for other things. For example, Project 2025 called for a ban on porn. And separately, the Heritage Foundation pushed age-verification for porn websites, and has openly admitted it is a defacto porn ban. That should have been ruled unconstitutional on free speech grounds, but the current SCOTUS upheld it unfortunately. They’ll next use age-based verification for all sorts of content - maybe for LGBTQ stuff, maybe for something else.

In the end, everyone else will lose. If you have to prove your identity to anyone, there is a high chance this information can be accessed and surveilled by the government. There is a high chance at some point, no matter what they claim, your identity data will be hacked and sold. And of course if you can be identified online, then anything you say or do can be traced back to you, and that can be used against you by the government. Suddenly, being a protester in these chaotic times will become a lot more risky.

jart 9 hours ago|
Protesting only means something if you're taking on risks.

The same could be said about enterprise, investment, war, etc.

It's the people who won't take risks that schemers try to exclude.

This is the real reason why no one will ever remember your name kid.

More comments...