Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

80% Positive

Analyzed from 1908 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#internet#children#age#government#should#data#access#kids#adult#laws

Discussion (43 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

asdff38 minutes ago
What is the final defense? I suppose we create underground relay networks of radio networks within cities that allow for computers to connect directly to eachother, and from there we seed all our pirated content and discuss whatever the hell we'd like.

Maybe we'd have to contend with low bandwidth when we connect outside our own city network, using larger wavelength radio to bounce off the ionosphere across the planet.

As for the FCC, I don't really care. I will set up nodes on top of abandoned buildings. I will set up nodes in front of the local FCC field office. I will set up nodes in the middle of the forest. I will set up nodes on buoys out at sea. They may capture me or worse, so be it. I will not be around forever anyhow.

I pray there are still actual hackers out there on hacker news who might consider this idea and help further the technical side. This is a little out of my wheelhouse. I just can't accept this inevitable incoming future where all our communications will be IDed and censored. That is the end game for them. We can't allow for that to happen. This might be the biggest battle yet, bigger than all the other wars where power used us like pawns against the pawns of some other power, because for once in the history of civilization, we'd be fighting for our own right and not some elite group's right. I hope I am not alone in this line of thinking.

raincole21 minutes ago
The final defense is always to change the government (one way or another). When we need to resort to technical mean we have lost.
jm416 minutes ago
You would be breaking numerous laws, your transmitters would be removed quickly, you would be out thousands of dollars in equipment, and no one would be on your network anyway. You would almost certainly go to jail if you tried this.
memoriesofsmell19 minutes ago
Trusted IPSec tunnels to form your own trusted internet of peers/friends within the internet. It's all just 'a LAN' then. I dunno how well that scales, but it's a lot easier than trying to sort out radio shenanigans (which in my experience are actually regularly enforced by FCC/your local equivalents).
orbital-decayabout 3 hours ago
To add to the list: KYC/AML-like regulations and practices (not necessarily financial) that shift the responsibility down the chain, outside the accountability zone, and result in preventive overly broad risk avoidance, self-censorship, and manipulation of your Overton window. See for example DMCA vs YouTube practices vs what actual channels choose to do to dodge both. Or algospeak. Or the PayPal situation which is mentioned in the article.

But it's all talk. Political pressure is like gas pressure. Gas expands to fill the available volume. What do you actually do to push back, besides talking about it on the web? This defines the available volume, if you don't do anything it's infinite.

econ6 minutes ago
Create a government from scratch.

Version control the laws.

Compare the laws with all other countries.

Hoard data.

Write code to replace government employees and to make laws easy to implement. (If done well consider selling a product or service)

Make everything modular so that the establishment can steal it.

Get people involved. Doesn't matter if you need to write a sim and convince them it is a game.

Pretend the whole exercise is writing code so that you can imagine you are perfect for the job.

I learn that people from all political angles like the idea of voluntary taxes (but no one believes it can work)

If the whole thing can run on donations and volunteers with a few "state" owned companies a hot swap becomes inevitable.

nodrog3000about 1 hour ago
Simple solution, Use your router to block whatever you need to, control your kids devices, the internet stays free and open.

What are we talking about?

There are no laws that will turn out well.

petermcneeley18 minutes ago
You know what we are talking about. It was written in the book.
big85about 2 hours ago
<meta name="RATING" content="RTA-5042-1996-1400-1577-RTA" />

I wonder why the rating code is so complex. Pornhub.com has this code enabled, but it also uses a simpler <meta name="rating" content="adult">. 4chan also uses the latter.

omoikaneabout 1 hour ago
I can't find any information on https://rtalabel.org/ to explain why that specific string, but I appreciate that the string being unique made it easy to find the official website, compared to something generic like "adult".
Benderabout 2 hours ago
I think it should be fairly simple client code to look for either of them.
mentalgearabout 2 hours ago
> Pass laws requiring companies that use third party age or ID verification to take full legal culpability for that data. If any of the data is leaked they must pay each party $1 million dollars regardless of how or why the data was leaked. 300 identities leaked or sold? That will be 300 million dollars not counting criminal penalties. Should this lead to bankruptcy then it is working as intended as they are clearly not qualified to be guardians of this data much less the guardians of your children.
Benderabout 2 hours ago
Too much? I suppose the solution would be to not collect the data in the first place and instead use RTA headers and client checks for said header assuming legislators come to their senses and start caring about kids.
lmzabout 1 hour ago
Of course for this to work the client has to check it and know the device's user is underage. Any devices or software that either do not check or lie about the user's age will be illegal. Since you can write software that does so too, unsigned software that does network access will be made impossible.
downrightmike10 minutes ago
Discord used a 3rd party and they were supposed to delete IDs they were sent, but they didn't do that and it got leaked
bethekidyouwantabout 2 hours ago
Oh no not my LLC that keeps zero dollars on the books.
edoceoabout 1 hour ago
There has got to be a way to assert that a user is human, and over some age, without having to identify which specific human that is.
big854 minutes ago
I suspect something like this is on the way, in the long term. Every site has some Cloudflare captcha or the like to guard against the AI scraper bots. Eventually, we may need some kind of token which is only issued to real humans.
vegetablepotpieabout 1 hour ago
There were proposals to do this, using encrypted containers of data that would let users authorize apps to use just the data they needed, but the idea got tied to Web3, which got some intense public blowback between the Crypto and NFT hype cycles.

https://www.w3.org/2023/Talks/0727-wearedevelopers-tbl/solid...

Now we’re onto AI, so we have suboptimal age verification, with implementations in law written by politicians

nodrog3000about 1 hour ago
This is an impossible task. If a certain business wants to make human id required, let them. It should not be enforced by government.

You have full control over your router and kid's devices so start there. Not anyone else's responsibility.

Benderabout 1 hour ago
Confirmation someone is human is harder. Over some age could be accomplished with time should most of the devices and browsers children have access to were to check for RTA/adult headers and activate parental controls. It would not be solved over night thus not perfect but perfect is the enemy of good.

At the moment what we have is no good in my opinion. What we have at the moment will put the identification information of both children and adults at risk. Children can not even consent to sharing this data thus the only people that could protect them are their parents.

teddyhabout 1 hour ago
20 years before that, there was “The Digital Imprimatur”: <https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/>
m12kabout 1 hour ago
I feel genuinely conflicted: On the one hand I get the "authoritarian overreach heebie-jeebies", that I think a lot of people on HN probably share. On the other hand I'd also really like the West to harden its election processes from election interference by its adversaries (e.g. Russia) - and shoring up dysinfo on e.g. Facebook by requiring users to prove their identity with a government ID is one of the only ways to truly effectively combat this at its source (fact-checking just can't keep up with a firehose of dysinformation). Ideally I'd want "real id requirements" to be limited " partake in public discourse" (mainly Facebook and Twitter). But the slippery slop argument just feels pretty strong here too - once a mechanism like this is in place, its use will only ever expand, and it's much easier for a new government to commit overreach if it's already there and just needs expanding. And of course all this "think of the children" nonsense needs to stop.
zapataband1about 2 hours ago
Taylor Lorenz has been sounding the alarm. Peter Thiel and all his pets have been pushing the same narrative https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0RRxR4LvK4&t=661s
miiiiiikeabout 2 hours ago
I've never really liked Taylor Lorenz's writing, but after following her work in 2025/2026, I have to admit that she is our girl on this one.
keernanabout 2 hours ago
There is no need for id. IMO granting children access to the internet is no different than handing a child a loaded gun with no safety. Both should be treated the same way. Make it illegal for parents or any adult to:

- purchase an internet capable device for anyone under the age of 18 (or whatever age is deemed appropriate to allow unfettered access without any ID)

- allow anyone under the age of 18 (or ##) to operate a device connected to the internet

That removes the government's attempted false flag operations to use "children's access to the internet" as the excuse to obtain the right to monitor every second of your online activity for the rest of your life.

And simultaneously likely saves our children's brains.

Edit: Hyperbole is an easy accusation. But the concept is straight forward:

If the internet is so dangerous as to require everyone to have government issued ID to get online, then change the law preventing smartphones and other internet mobile devices to be possessed by children. That's easy to do.

Put the burden on parents where it belongs to monitor their children in their own homes just as they do as gun owners (required to use gun lockers etc). If you are ok with your 10 year old being in his/her room online without you monitoring, then imo that's probably child abuser, but hey, go for it.

Aurornisabout 2 hours ago
> IMO granting children access to the internet is no different than handing a child a loaded gun with no safety.

The hyperbole is getting a little out of control.

> - allow anyone under the age of 18 (or ##) to operate a device connected to the internet

I don't understand how anyone can think that keeping kids entirely away from internet-connected devices through age 17 is possible or a good idea. These aren't serious comments or suggestions.

AngryDataabout 1 hour ago
To be fair with the way politicians are treating the internet and social media, it is the equivalent of giving them a loaded gun. Because otherwise how can they justify these laws? Politicians are the ones claiming kids are being irrevocably harmed by the internet.
lobfabout 1 hour ago
Not only that but like, if your child touches the screen in your car have you committed a crime? Using a smart fridge is verboten- speaking to the house's Alexa? Straight to jail.
invalidSyntaxabout 1 hour ago
If one existed, it will probably be like: children under 18 using the internet without parent permission, but then that doesn't do much. They are not guns which you might not ever use. Many people use it daily.
Benderabout 1 hour ago
If a web client (fridge, infotainment system, alexa, etc...) can access the internet then it must be updated to look for RTA/adult headers and prompt for an admin password for parental controls to approve access to the site.
keernanabout 1 hour ago
The concept is straight forward:

1. Eliminate all the false flag attempts by governments and their supporters to use "danger to children" to require government ID for every adult to get online.

2. If the internet is so dangerous as to require ID to get online, then change the law preventing smartphones and other internet mobile devices to be possessed by children. That's easy to do. Put the burden on parents where it belongs to monitor their children in their own homes just as they do as gun owners.

mchermabout 1 hour ago
So apparently you believe that a 17-year-old should not be allowed to (a) order a pizza; (b) drive a car; (c) adjust the thermostat, unless they live in a sort of pre-internet Amish society which is probably based on the level of technology that was widely available when you were a child.
Benderabout 1 hour ago
I do not believe we should even try to restrict teens. Rather kids that would be 13 or younger by 2032 thus current teens not affected and kids that grow into teens that are still under parental controls could prove to their parents they are responsible enough to access adult content thus keeping parenting in the family and away from politicians.
keernanabout 1 hour ago
If the internet is so dangerous that it requires every adult to obtain a government ID to get online, then yes, a 10 year old (or 17 yo if that's the age you want to use) is going to have to wait just like he/she has to wait to drive a car or buy liquor or cigarettes or pot.

Don't blame me. Blame the people pushing for a government ID that YOU must have before you can order your pizza.

nonethewiserabout 2 hours ago
Porn companies should be held liable for distributing porn to minors. Its already illegal.

Denial about requiring basic KYC is causing all sorts of perverse solutions. Accept the requirement so we can have a sensible technical solution.

AngryDataabout 1 hour ago
Oh no, children seeing naked people and sex! How horrible!

Now lets bring them all to the family friendly farm where they can watch a horse with a monster dong screw his way through a herd of mares.

Vates25 minutes ago
This is a really weird thing to comment
BobbyTables237 minutes ago
Travel not even needed.

Lovebugs are visible and land on their arm.

Try explaining WHY the bugs are connected…

ikrenjiabout 2 hours ago
don't be so naive. if the billionaires want this, it can't be good for you. it really is that simple
crummy1 minute ago
Billionaires also want vaccines, sometimes do they have our best interests in mind. They can’t extract wealth from the poor masses if we’re sick!
Vates13 minutes ago
The billionaires don't want it though, that's why most of the big tech CEOs are against it. Perhaps we should listen to Elon Musk though, after all, he "brought free speech back to Twitter." That is, as long as we ignore the adjustments to the algorithm that boost his personal flavour of politics. At least he isn't banning anyone, bots included.
zapataband1about 2 hours ago
and parents should actually parent their kids. Their kids do not need phones at such a young age and their parents should be in control of their own kid's phone.
Advertisement