1630
Spotify fans threaten to return to piracy as music streamer introduces new face-scanning age checks in the UK (www.techradar.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
419 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 79 points 1 year ago (15 children)

Or you know you could punish parents for not parenting. Like if kids are watching porn and caught and if it's actually against some law then go after the parents.

It's not hard to teach parents how to implement a filtering DNS. But no, countries think they need to be the nanny.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 126 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    "Protecting children" is just the pretext under which governments can sell increased surveillance. The fact that there are more effective ways they could act to protect children, yet governments everywhere continue to push for ID checks and monitoring online activity, shows that the aim isn't what they say it is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Protect from what? I mean seriously. Most of us (guys at least) probably saw porn way before we were old enough and most of us probably didn't end up as rapists or pedophiles. It's not a good thing by any means, but it really feels like we're trying harder to keep sexual material from entering their brains than we are trying to keep them fed, clothed, educated, housed, healthy, loved, and physically safe. Of all the things I mentioned the last seven have a monumentally greater affect on their success and well-being as an adult.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 33 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    That's just the pretext they give to justify it. The real reason is surveillance. Now they have a way to confidently tie your accounts to your individual identity. And most of these solutions use third parties which will then sell that data as well, so now anyone can tie your account to you without you ever knowing.

    Even if the government is barred from surveilling citizens in these ways, third parties aren't, and the government can just buy that information, no warrant needed anymore.

    And these laws never stop at porn, it's drugs, LGBTQ information, etc. and they can always easily add additional things later with little fanfare.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    This is it. Theyve been going after encrypted messaging apps for a long time, ig they realized theyre not getting anywhere and figured to just hit it head on.

    The internet has always circumvented this kind of shit, just look at TPB. The ones who are getting really beaten up by this is the older generations and the ones lacking technical know-how.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Yep. “The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.”

    LOL, wrong on that last point! Gen X and Millennials are generally hot shit on tech. It's the young folks who don't have a clue if something doesn't "just work". Present company excluded of course. :)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    As a parent, that's my take as well. If my kids break a law, I should be the one to fix it. Don't do my parenting for me...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I feel like I'm standing between two really stupid positions here.

    On the one hand, just let parents teach their kids is basically a state's rights argument. A lot of parents won't teach their kids, so... do we care? Does this matter? We should probably mount a stronger effort then.

    On the other hand, we don't need the government to get involved to stop 9 year olds from seeing titties—we just don't! Websites the world over have implemented 2-factor-authentication more or less by themselves (and probably because they want to spy on you). And, no one says the word r----- anymore because if you ever do, a bunch of anti-bullying PSAs will be really annoying about it in your replies.

    Not every social problem needs to be solved by swinging around Thor's hammer. We do have other means.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    is basically a state’s rights argument

    No, it's a privacy and individual rights argument. I don't want local governments enforcing it any more than I want national arguments enforcing it.

    Kids seeing stuff they shouldn't isn't itself a problem, but it can lead to problems. For example, kids learning to make bombs itself isn't an issue, kids making bombs to hurt others is the issue. Hold parents legally accountable for the latter, not the former.

    The furthest I'd be willing to go on this is requiring a payment method (which itself requires sufficient age) to be entered before accessing anything "adult oriented," and even then I'm not completely sold. But this way the burden of verifying age is restricted to things consumers already need to trust, and parents would need to give or allow their kid access to a payment method.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I think you misunderstand. I'm not saying I'm in favor of this law.

    By state's rights, I'm referring to the way republicans pretend they want the freedom of choice where they are actually just looking for excuses to keep doing what they're doing. In this way, letting parents choose is functionally identical: parents won't choose, so it is equivalent to doing nothing.

    There has to be a cultural shift for anything to change.

    Kids seeing stuff they shouldn't isn't itself a problem,

    If I'm being perfectly honest, I do not give a shit if 9-year-olds can see titties. Like, my other argument against this government overreach is that I don't know what problem it's supposedly solving that can't just be solved with better sex-ed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    They could just offer a child protection browser where parents could set to child mode and require adult material offering sites to check if user has something like “attention not 18 year old user” in the headers.

    Would be way cheaper, I think.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent