New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
Except for the fact that enforcing dietary laws for children does not make the government more powerful but spying on citizens does. Bad comparison.
How many regimes with little or no democracy and/or free speech started, at least partly, with spying on citizens, and how many started with refusing to sell kids beer?
What do you think about social media platforms now requiring biometrics to verify age?
No. Fucking. Way.
https://reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1rkt1fn/ageless_linux_a_debianbased_distro_that_is/
Oh that's a good chuckle
great, my 1gb proxy's running ubuntu barely manage and they are adding age verification
@MaxTakeba , I revisit his arguments. Here's what I thought
The government possessess legal authority of parens patriae. But whether the state overstep its boundaries depends entirely on the situation and context.
In this case, the government attempt to prevent account creation by underaged user, citing online grooming and mental illness, is an overreach. This isn't the direct result of account creation on OS level. Underaged children have used computer system for decades.
The true responsibilities lies on the parents and the social media operators. Laws prohibiting child neglect exists. And I do believe purposefully inducing mental illness or trauma is a criminal offense, through algorithmic exposure or not.
Therefore, the state shouldn't bypass parental authority-responsibility and social media accountability, where they're shielded from liability by safe harbor provision. While "user-generated content" is protected; algorithmic conduct, the engineering of how the content is delivered, arranged, transformed shouldn't be protected.
For example, repeating the same song over and over again is widely recognized tool for mental torture or brainwashing. So, when the algorithm deliver the same content over and over again to maximize engagement, it's functioning as psychological tools instead of a neutral platform.
The state's failure to enforce the law, regulate the conduct doesn't justify an overt overreach into virtual machine life cycles
Yeah it's not good enough because apps ignore it, now the law says apps can't ignore it. What's the problem?