Top
Best
New

Posted by bilsbie 2 days ago

The 'papers, please' era of the internet will decimate your privacy(expression.fire.org)
1138 points | 605 commentspage 6
greatgib 2 days ago|
What scary me a lot, is the amount of people here or in real life that are not concerned about that, and that are like "it is to protect the children, so whatever it is, it worth it. And what else we can do?". And often it goes on with things like "anyway, social media are bad, they ruin people even adult, so good thing". Literally they all look like repeating a carefully crafted propaganda without that much more deep thinking.

Basically, to mean it is brain rot. The problem is that it might concern a big part of the population and that is why we have such laws.

To me, it is exactly what was described in G. Orwell "Animal farm" book. Pigs are now in control and big part of the crowd are "sheeps".

Afterward, we always have hard time to understand how people could have let Nazi, Stasi, or Stalin come in power and do such awful things. But it never came in one day, and with the "i don't care, they probably now better" attitude of the current western country populations, you understand easily how all of that could have happened in a first place.

In the recent, and most recent history, let's not forget what happened to Putin's Russia. Russia was opening and on a very good course for individual freedom and rights, then a ex-KGB officer took control of the power and little by little, year after year, suppressed freedom, privacy, and opposition to reach the point of today where the country is a total nightmare for human rights and liberty.

smallstepforman 2 days ago|
Mate, you have to revise your stance on Russia, more people are imprisoned annually in the UK for speaking than people in Russia in a decade. The UK banned RT while you can access any western propaganda outpost from within Russia.

You’re on Hacker News, this website is known for attracting open minded free thinkers that do not fall under the influence of government financed propaganda. Learn and reassess your thoughts.

u8080 1 day ago|||
>you can access any western propaganda outpost from within Russia

You cannot without VPN. Anyway, this stupid polarizing "my cow is dead, but neighbor's two cows dead so I am happy" approach is just sad and enables more govt tyranny globally.

greatgib 1 day ago|||
For the prison it might be true because opponents in Russia are already dead... Like Navalny and the mission in his underwear.
kulahan 2 days ago||
I can’t think of a better solution to the issue of children being so aggressively harmed by the internet. That doesn’t remove any of the problems associated with this.
999900000999 2 days ago||
Parents taking responsibility for their kids.

I grew up in a neighborhood full of drug dealers. Street sellers, not the classy Walter White kind.

Ironically being on a computer all day kept me out of trouble.

But with these laws in place I guess you might as well start doing stupid ish in real life.

II2II 2 days ago|||
The thing is, those dealers can end up in jail for selling drugs.

More to the point, if a kid walked into a convenience store and the clerk sold them a pack of cigarettes, the clerk wouldn't get off the hook by claiming, "well, the parents are responsible for their kids." I'm also not sure how one would justify holding parents legally liable for crimes they played no role in committing.

I'm not saying that I agree with these laws. They appear to be taking things too far. But that has more to do with there being no clear way to define sites that are only of interest to adults (no gatekeeping needed) and sites that should be restricted to adults.

999900000999 2 days ago||
>I'm also not sure how one would justify holding parents legally liable for crimes they played no role in committing.

This is already a thing.

https://www.bu.edu/articles/2024/charging-parents-for-childs...

Once upon a time they idea that Americans would surrender all of their God Given rights for an illusion of security was considered absurd, but that's where we're at.

kulahan 2 days ago||||
I'm glad computers came in and saved you from your otherwise-inevitable life of cartel involvement, but I don't see what this has to do with the en-masse mental poisoning of children? I'm not even talking about politics yet. Cyber-bullying is insane.

Either way, I genuinely don't believe "let's just hope parents... start doing better?" is a solution.

999900000999 2 days ago|||
Parents do need to do better.

Work on building self confidence.

My family relentlessly called me stupid and lazy to the point where a cyberbully would of been an upgrade.

You can always turn your phone off.

A lot of God awful parents treat their kids like trash and blame everyone else when Timmy doesn't get into Harvard.

Of all the people I've met with rough upbringings not a single one blamed anything outside of bad parenting.

Being a parent ( especially a step parent) is extremely hard.

100 years ago bad parents blamed dime novels.

50 years ago it was rock music.

kulahan 1 day ago||
I am not sure I understand the simultaneous arguments that being a parent is very hard AND that parents should just do better and help isn’t needed AND this problem has been going on for over a hundred years (it hasn’t - this is the first time we’ve ever had a generation actually turn out dumber).

Could you clarify that, and maybe take into account the fact that this is indeed completely unprecedented?

If you have time, I also would love to hear how “parents should do better” fits into a plan where parents DO do better.

999900000999 1 day ago||
Bad parents are always gonna find an excuse. Honest to God when I think of my childhood if people would’ve just left me alone for 30 minutes, I would’ve had a much easier time.

Turns out you don’t need to get into a great college to make a lot of money. If anything, my screwing around all day with video games has probably led to my great 6 figure career.

There’s absolutely no way to implement age gates all over the internet without fundamentally locking it down. Do you want a future where a website that chronicles the history of slave revolts is denied an operating permit?

This is about controlling the free speech of adults, not anything else.

kulahan 1 day ago||
So if it were a genuine approach from an adult simply looking to protect children, what would it be? As I said at the beginning, I don’t think it’s a good solution, just the only one we have.

Again, please incorporate the fact that children are, for the first time EVER, dumber than their predecessor generation. It is a literally unprecedented step backwards. Who cares if kids can access data about slave revolts if they’re simply too stupid and pacified to do anything with the knowledge? Do you think people who spend all day hearing from their “totally-not-LLM” peers online that everything is scary, they are OWED an easier life, and that the true problems are things like social issues - ignore the climate and starving children, will be the ones to rise up and fix a problem?

999900000999 5 hours ago||
The government could start by undoing cuts to food aid programs.

https://frac.org/hunger-poverty-america

>Children: 14.1 million children lived in households that experienced food insecurity, a slight increase from the 13.8 million children reported in 2023.

This is something the government can actually fix without eliminating the first amendment.

Rampant food insecurity in young people probably has more to do with declining test scores than social media.

sdfsdfsd3443f 1 day ago|||
We need to calibrate the incentives. Parents can be held accountable for neglect and abuse. Giving your kids phones and letting them use it without supervision is abuse. Enforce it. Denormalize this bullshit.

I have knives in my kitchen. Do I give it to them and let them run around the neighborhood? I could but there are consequences and I would be held accountable for it.

Social media = knives or as some other commenter pointed out, similar to letting your kids play in traffic.

kulahan 1 day ago||
The mere existence of something dangerous is an irrelevant comparison unfortunately. We didn’t invent knives and then immediately see an entire generation get dumber.

You’ll have the burden of needing to explain how any innocuous comparison you make still holds when we’ve never seen that kind of reversal in all of the time we’ve been watching as a society.

kelseyfrog 2 days ago|||
So what happens when parents don't?

Too bad?

iamnothere 2 days ago||
What happens when parents don’t lock the liquor cabinet? When they smoke in front of their kids? When they leave porn laying on the table?

Too bad!

Jtarii 2 days ago|||
>What happens when parents don’t lock the liquor cabinet? When they smoke in front of their kids? When they leave porn laying on the table?

The state can't control those things, it can control putting an age restriction on certain websites. Unless you are advocating for the complete abolition of all age restrictions throughout society.

kelseyfrog 2 days ago||||
How is it more like leaving a liquor cabinet open than not buckling them up with seatbelts?

I'm glad we're discussing parental liability. It seems no one else is advocating for "social media access is criminal neglect," so I appreciate the novelty.

iamnothere 1 day ago||
I would love to have this be the argument. Parents would typically agree that giving your kids heroin, for instance, should result in prison time. Yet I doubt they would argue the same for social media! Perhaps there should be discussions about what neglect looks like with regards to internet access and whether or not we need societal boundaries around this, enforced via punishing parents, rather than punishing everyone.
kelseyfrog 1 day ago||
Giving children access to social media should have the same parental neglect charges as giving them heroin.

The current strategy of yelling "parent's should parent" does nothing to influence any sort of result. It's simply ineffective and makes people who say it look like slogan slingers rather than cooperating in any meaningful change.

intended 1 day ago||
> Giving children access to social media should have the same parental neglect charges as giving them heroin.

This is probably the most interesting angle of discussion I’ve seen in the past few days on this topic.

kulahan 1 day ago|||
An insane overreaction?
sdfsdfsd3443f 1 day ago|||
We are in the 80s smoking phase. It's still all OK and it's normalized. We're seeing the first blips of trouble on the horizon.

In, say, about a decade this tech bullshit will be regarded as the relentless toxic insanity that it was and we'll be better for it. Social tech CEOs will be lucky to evade prison if I had my way.

kulahan 2 days ago|||
You need an ID to access cigarettes and liquor and porn (from a physical store)...
pibaker 2 days ago||
My parents always kept a few bottles of wine in a cabinet in the living room. If 8 year old me wanted wine, I could have drunk a whole bottle while they were away and there was no way they could have stopped me. Yet I didn't drink my parents' wine, nor did I grow up alcoholic.
sdfsdfsd3443f 1 day ago|||
You could and when you would end up in the hospital your parents would have gotten a visit by people with sticks.

You can let your kid play in traffic. You can let your kid run around with knives. Sure, but when shit hits the fan you'll be luck to pay a hefty fine and lose all social credibility you had. In the worst case you're looking at jail time. Those sort of incentives will tend to smooth these issues out.

kelseyfrog 1 day ago|||
Kudos for resisting alcohol as an eight year old. How does that apply to all the kiddos whose lives are impacted by social media? Kind of a "them problem"?
JoshTriplett 1 day ago||
Yes, it is. Kids get screwed up in all kinds of ways that we do nothing about. We could eliminate a lot of harm by prohibiting religious indoctrination, for instance, but that's unlikely to happen.
kulahan 1 day ago||
There is no hard data showing that religion (which one? all of them? from learning the Tao to following the dude who said "Love thy Neighbor"?) is somehow harmful, but we have direct evidence showing this is harming children. What is with people ignoring data and facts because they're scared of something largely innocuous? We get it - you were bored when your parents made you sit in a pew for an hour a week.
Gigachad 2 days ago|||
It’s not just kids. Adults are having their brains fried on AI generated political videos online right now. The state of the internet is an absolute disaster.
HoldOnAMinute 2 days ago||
An enormous portion of the world is effectively addicted to a drug.

Solution: Maximize the distance between yourself and the people

Gigachad 2 days ago||
Rather than becoming a social outcast I’d rather support any proposed laws that take down the social media companies.
derwiki 2 days ago|||
You can definitely drop social media and not become a social outcast. Group threads on Signal are great!
sdfsdfsd3443f 1 day ago||
I think he questioned the wisdom of isolating yourself from "people" in general.

On a related note I would like to add that social activity of any online kind is completely useless and can be get rid of immediately and without any adverse side effects whatsoever.

I'm pretty convinced the next generations will view being online as cheap and stupid. Offline is where the real value is.

cindyllm 2 days ago|||
[dead]
liveoneggs 2 days ago||
Most people want to operate within the boundaries of their society.

A simple G/PG/PG-13/R header for websites would solve 97% of actual issues anyone could care to present. (violence, porn, etc)

Forcing people to identify themselves will not solve skinner boxes, gambling-for-children, focus-degrading slop, etc.

Bluey-themed slot machines are still harmful.

kulahan 1 day ago||
Do… you think kids are accidentally finding porn, thinking it’s for them, and partaking? Why would any teen see a “mature” rating on a website and go elsewhere? This is the kind of response I expect a literal alien from another planet to make.

As an aside, why would a mature rating on a bluey themed gambling machine change anything? I may have a unique perspective on this because I worked at blockbuster for a decade but I PROMISE you parents largely do not care. If you want to solve the problem, hoping parents solve it isn’t… actually a solution of any kind.

nottorp 1 day ago||
Just a minor nitpick: "decimate" means killing one out of then.

Try "devastate" maybe.

dredmorbius 1 day ago||
s/then/ten/
nottorp 15 hours ago||
I blame the idiotic iOS spell checker.

I swear it was better 5 years ago...

zuzululu 1 day ago||
doesnt' impact the author's original meaning.
NoImmatureAdHom 1 day ago||
You're on HN. You likely have lots of extra money.

Donate to FIRE: https://www.fire.org/donate

Donate to the EFF: https://supporters.eff.org/donate

Any others?

dredmorbius 1 day ago|
ACLU: <https://www.aclu.org/>

EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center): https://www.epic.org/

Further lists:

Data privacy advocates and associations <https://privacybee.com/data-privacy-advocates-and-associatio...>

Privacy Focused Organizations You Should Know About <https://identityreview.com/18-privacy-organizations-you-shou...>

Privacy & Information Law Research Guide <https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=468955&p=3962183> (oriented more at research but some overlap)

zhusjsjskkais 1 day ago||
Privacy or accountability, pick one. Everyone holds your identity or pointers to it. They - pinky promise - won’t weaponize it until it becomes advantageous or ordered by the government.

In the end someone has to be held accountable. Society does not work without accountability and never has. We were living in temporary illusory world made by nerds. Now the rest joins in.

zftnb666 1 day ago||
Soon you'll need a passport to read a Wikipedia article
SidewaysView 1 day ago|
> Soon you'll need a passport to read a Wikipedia article

Hopefully you'll need a passport to edit a Wikipedia article, since they can't be bothered doing anything about all the neckbeards writing them.

ares623 2 days ago||
The internet will just stop being the "cool place". Young people will need to find some other avenue or medium to congregate away from their nannies' watchful eyes. That has been the one constant across the multiple technological revolutions we've had in the last few decades, younger generations looking for a place to call their own. Meta, etc. obviously know this, hence the "metaverse" and AI slop. But what they refuse to believe is that it can't be manufactured and forced top-down, it needs to be bottom-up.
agentultra 2 days ago||
> * whether you’re protected from hackers or data breaches*

Not a matter of if, but when, a breach happens.

dzink 1 day ago||
The goal should be to not repeat Star Wars - new technology that gives power and advantages is always adopted by companies first, then governments, and then it’s used to subjugate people. In Star Wars you have the trade federation abusing little planets. Little planet leaders go to government for help and vote a more “strong” approach to government that will “fight for the little guy”. An authoritarian leader steps in and uses the new technology to subjugate galaxies. In Foundation that leader can also clone himself, leading to 1000 years of fascism. Today prize camels and horses are being cloned in the middle east. Fiction is a guidebook sometimes.
dredmorbius 1 day ago|
It's not that the Internet is repeating Star Wars. It's that Star Wars was a fictitious allegory of what power and capabilities provide, and should serve as a warning of what might happen ... or is happening. (I'd hesitate to call The Force a technology per se, though there are other technologies portrayed in the series ... little of which I've watched since Ep. 4-6.)

Technology is a force multiplier, genenerally, and new technologies, after an initial period of disruption, tend to either be adopted by existing power elites, or form new power elites, often a combination of both. I've only come to realise this myself relatively late in the game.

It's instructive to revisit much of the early writing of the Internet. Much of that was strongly hagiographic and deludedly optimistic, but there were exceptions. Andrew J. Shapiro's The Control Revolution (1999) got far more right than wrong.

<https://www.worldcat.org/title/41076267>

<https://archive.org/details/controlrevolutio0000shap>

<http://libgen.vg/book/index.php?md5=9CCE57E117DD4213F395FE07...>

ben_w 1 day ago|
"X will decimate your privacy" [please accept the following tracking cookies, including for 3rd party ad analytics from a company whose CEO has called its users "dumb fucks" for trusting him with their data]

Don't get me wrong, just because it's a hypocritical headline doesn't mean it's incorrect. Just still rankles to see it, is all.

More comments...