upvote
Unfortunately I don’t think it has the public’s attention, it’s still very niche. Nowhere near enough to change anything yet.
reply
At least it's a start.
reply
Most folks already know the internet is not a safe place to express political thought. The powerlessness the public feels is obvious.
reply
I like your spirit :)
reply
It won't be an issue until mainstream media makes it one. Since the media is owned by right wing billionaires, that media will reflect the biases and interests of those billionaires - many of which own internet platforms that would benefit from knowing the exact identity of every single user.
reply
>I’m glad this is finally becoming the cause célèbre du jour.

It really isn't, though. Don't mistake the internet for reality. The majority of people in the US and Europe support laws like these, and most of the rest don't care.

Even on Hacker News the consensus is mostly in favor of anything from age restriction to making all social media illegal.

reply
>The majority of people in the US and Europe support laws like these

okay then, show us a poll where the majority answers "yes" to an unambiguous question like "are you in favor of having to provide your ID or scan your face to access the Internet?"

"The majority of people in the US and Europe" support laws against drugs, for example, but would likely object to having their cavities searched three times a day.

reply
> Even on Hacker News the consensus is mostly in favor of anything from age restriction to making all social media illegal.

That doesn't sound right. Put up a poll. I'd put money on 90%+ choosing some flavor privacy/anonymity on the internet.

reply
The main issue is that they are very careful not to frame it like that. In broader contexts, it's always framed as something like "do you favor limiting children's access to social media" without a word on what it would cost to actually institute such a ban.
reply
It's about as meaningful a framing as asking if you favor world peace and ending world hunger.
reply
You can end all wars and eliminate hunger if you point the Death Star at us and kill all life on earth. If someone objects to the collateral damage, remind him that when you said "world peace and no hunger at all costs," you meant all costs.
reply
Relevant British comedy clip (Yes, [Prime] Minister) on such polls:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ahgjEjJkZks

reply
Yeah, and we’re starting to inoculate people against that kind of rhetoric. It’s a process.
reply
Not really, if anything we are seeing what a good idea taking kids off social media is and how crazy we allowed this to all happen for so long.
reply
> if anything we are seeing what a good idea taking kids off social media is and how crazy we allowed this to all happen for so long

We're not seeing anything of the sort, and couldn't possibly for some time yet.

What we are seeing, as evinced by the article, is how ineffective these laws are at actually keeping kids off social media, and how effective the mass collection of identity data is at creating an environment for scammers, hackers, data brokers and the means for widespread political oppression.

reply
You don't necessarily have to be in favor of any measures which reduce adult privacy to be in favor of that. Logically speaking, the liability for minors accessing age-gated products and services is the person who provides those products and services to the minor. In the case of the internet, that person is the parent, not the ISP or the website. It is the parent who contracts with the provider and then forwards the product to the unauthorized user, the child. A parent who purchases, say, access to porn and then provides that access to their child is no different than a parent who buys booze and provides access to it to their child.
reply
Exactly. You frame these things in the general case and HN is against it because obviously it's evil.

You frame it as "we've come up with a composite score (social credit) that lets us more efficiently enforce [stuff HN likes but the population likes way less]" and it's mostly all cheering and the one guy with principals is downvoted and flagged.

reply
> I'd put money on 90%+ choosing some flavor privacy/anonymity on the internet.

I can only say what I've observed from numerous threads - people's advocacy for privacy on the internet here does not extend so social media.

But OK this could be fun let's put my keyboard where my mouth is: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48680434

reply
Talk to people in person and you’ll get a different view (at least among those under 50), especially if you ask about the negatives.

Social media is full of astroturfing.

reply
Don't mistake cynicism for knowledge.
reply