this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2024
-38 points (16.1% liked)

Conservative

363 readers
102 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

  1. Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.

  2. We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.

  3. Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
 

I agree with this.

all 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 16 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Should this not be up to the parents to decide? Don't parents have a right to decide how they raise their children?

[–] breadsmasher 12 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Why are republicans telling others how to raise their children? Why are republicans trying to make a Big Government State that controls the lives of citizens?

Why do republicans hate freedom?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

Why are republicans telling others how to raise their children?

They’re not. This bill still allows parents to create social media accounts for their kids.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

The law prevents children under 14 from creating accounts & children 14&15 from creating accounts without their parents consent. Parents can create accounts and give access to their children. The parents can still decide.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 months ago

Fuck off with this crap. This is a parental decision.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 months ago (3 children)

https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/25/24087979/florida-desantis-social-media-age-verification-parental-consent-law

[It] does require websites to give users the option of “anonymous age verification,” which is defined as verification by a third party that cannot retain identifying information after the task is complete.

Its not anonymous if you have to give up anonymity to complete the process.

Also seems ripe to use as a poor tax. How many Lemmy instances could survive a 10-50k fine per offense? The NetChoice gang can afford to fight, and if they lose, implement this.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing for children on social media. This is just not the way. If the authors of this bill actually gave a shit, they would be fighting for living wages and less work so families can actually spend time together.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It’s anonymous from the perspective of the website.

You have a trusted third party check the ID, so you don’t have to hold that ID data.

It’s kind like Stripe for credit card processing. You can integrate Stripe into your website and they handle all the credit card details in a way your server never has to see those credit card details.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

I understand the protocol. If I have to reveal my identity at any point during a transaction to any party, it is not anonymous. It may maintain some privacy between me and the content owner, but my activities are no longer anonymous.

"I need privacy, not because my actions are questionable, but because your judgement and intentions are."

This goes for corporate and state level actors. I don't trust Daddy Government or the age verifier to have my best interest in mind when they can start building a profile on the content I consume they deem not suitable for minors.

There may be a specific flavour of a zero knowledge proofs that works to maintain anonymity. Like, I'd rather pay with monero, and I do so when I can, than stripe for this very reason. My payment activity is decoupled from my real identity used to purchase the monero from a KYC institution.

That is not what this bill is proposing, so its not anonymous.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I read about the fine more and if I read it correctly, it is really strange. The youth would be able to sue to get the money.

That means people could create fake accounts and bombard the sites with lawsuits.

I'm not a fan of that. I'll have to find a better source and verify that I read that correctly.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago

Same conclusion in my research. All these bullshit bills are erosions of privacy and/or a poor tax. CISPA, SOPA, PIPA, CASE, KOSA, etc...