undefined

points

[-]

Well, age verification is the "we have to do something about this nebulous problem even if the best thing we can think of actually makes everything worse for everyone but it makes us feel better" fallacy, which is equally ridiculous.

by cromka8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

No, it's not the same. There are anonymous solutions that solve this problem that are perfectly acceptable. Not perfect for prevention, but a good compromise nonetheless. Like cig/alcohol underage consumption prevention.

by EmbarrassedHelp5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

There is no such thing as anonymous age verification in practice.

by akersten8 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

I think we totally disagree on the degree of how much this is actually a problem compared to how much we're willing to invest in it. Those anonymous solutions are fairly idealistic and Nirvana-esque themselves, I don't think they'd see wide adoption. Beyond that I'm firmly in the camp that age verification for the kids is a complete smokescreen for the actual intent of these efforts, which is more surveillance, so on principal I'm opposed to any movement in this direction and doubt we'll find common ground.

by cromka8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Yeah, sure, no matter the studies, no matter the developmental indices, ni matter the WHO, no matter the psychologists. Let's also talk about climate change and how it's up for debate?

We don't disagree on whether it is actually a problem, you just have your opinion about facts.

by akersten7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

We are arguing different things. I have never stated "psychological effects of the Internet aren't real and therefore this discussion is moot." My argument is "psychological effects or not (and personally I think they are overplayed), the privacy tradeoff of trying to fix them is not worth it (and I doubt any vague gestures in the direction of age assurance would help)." You are focusing on the first parenthetical but the important part is outside it.

We also have no way to actually measure this even if we wanted to do an experiment. So comparing this very soft science to climate change is a bit out of pocket.

by cromka7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> We also have no way to actually measure this even if we wanted to do an experiment.

Sorry, WHAT? No way to measure it? My god, are we talking about the same thing? Are you sure you haven't missed past 12-24 months of increased reporting on the matter from several different angles, from cognitive skills, anxiety, sexual drive, and so on?

EOT for me.

by armchairhacker7 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

I'm saying that, in today's culture, age-gating the internet is likely to be much less effective than age-gating alcohol or tobacco. Most kids spend an appalling amount of time on social media (think, 5 hours/day*); most kids didn't spend this much time or invest this much of their lives into drugs.

* according to this survey from over 2 years ago: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2024/04/teen-social-use-mental-h...

by a4564637 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

not saying that I support age verification in any form, but you seen the vape sales?

by armchairhacker7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I like to believe that, even with the amount of kids vaping, there aren't nearly as many as kids on social media.

To give perspective: in my high school, there were a few kids who vaped in bathrooms, but the majority (including me) did not; we were told many times that it was unhealthy, and anyone caught vaping would be suspended. Everyone I know (including me) had social media, we were not told it was unhealthy (only to not use it too much, not give out PII, avoid bullying, etc.), and it wasn't even policed in some classrooms.

by hamdingers7 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

For the smoking analogy to fit, you'd have to have parents giving their children packs of cigarettes to play with and then being mad at Marlboro they figured out how to smoke them.