California Just Passed a Law that Will Destroy the Internet

[whm1974]

Just watch this on YouTube from Rebecca Watson:

Basically this Law if signed into law will require all Websites to have Age Versification to you know PROTECT THE CHILDREN!!! This includes those Sites which wouldn't normally need to do this.

 

Parents should be supervising what their children are doing on the Internet. No Law can replace proper Parenting. Watson rightfully points out that this just gives Data Mining Companies more access to Users Data they wouldn't otherwise have.

 

Now if the Governor of California signs this Bill, how fast will the Federal Courts declare this Unconstitutional? Nevermind this Law will impossible to enforced to begin with. 

[Dedayog]

41 minutes ago, whm1974 said:

Just watch this on YouTube from Rebecca Watson:

Basically this Law if signed into law will require all Websites to have Age Versification to you know PROTECT THE CHILDREN!!! This includes those Sites which wouldn't normally need to do this.

 

Parents should be supervising what their children are doing on the Internet. No Law can replace proper Parenting. Watson rightfully points out that this just gives Data Mining Companies more access to Users Data they wouldn't otherwise have.

 

Now if the Governor of California signs this Bill, how fast will the Federal Courts declare this Unconstitutional? Nevermind this Law will impossible to enforced to begin with. 

There are 2 issues in your post. 1 is parenting, 2 is this law.

 

You're not a parent.

 

Did you ever go anywhere your parents told you not to go when you were young?

 

You also realize that pornhub doesn't have age verification, right?

 

Basically, real life issues are not relevant online.  Ie.  a 12 year old can't walk into a strip club, but can access porn easily online, even the most depraved and fucked up shit out there.  Can parents stop that?  They could if they were knowledgeable, but technology changes and evolves so fast that even good parents can't keep up with all the new ways kids can do shit.

 

There are literally dozens of new apps daily that are purpose built for kids to bypass shit.

 

Raise a child, then come back and talk.

 

Edit:  3.  Who the fuck is Rebecca Watson?  4.  You can't destroy the internet, stop being a drama queen.

[lewdicrous]

40 minutes ago, whm1974 said:

Parents should be supervising what their children are doing on the Internet. No Law can replace proper Parenting.

Easier said than done.

[ThousandBlade]

Yes, what a wonderful idea.

 

Let's just force people to give up their personal information because some people don't feel like being a decent parent.

 

 

[SansVarnic]

-= Moved to GD =-

Topic doesn't meet requirements for Tech News.

 

Op your title is sensationalist, consider changing it to be in line with the subject of your topic.

 

Also this topic is border line political.

[Poinkachu]

Oh, Cali.
I thought the whole world somehow manage to be agreement and want to implement this, you know...., instead of trying to punch and stab each other.

 

Pretty much just curious how Cali gonna implement it, filter all the IP addresses/MAC addresses originating from just Cali to go through an age verification page maybe? Which most likely will be bypassed within a day or two.

 

But yeah, just like Life. The internet will find ways.

[BuckGup]

Since China implemented the Great firewall no one has ever gotten through!!! 

 

 

/s

[starsmine]

1 hour ago, whm1974 said:

Basically this Law if signed into law 

So... Not passed.
So California didnt pass a law.
Your title is false on its face.

Dude. Im all for talking about the policy but dude. Don't set the tone like that because I now have no faith in the conversation being made in good faith.

[SimplyChunk]

"The place that gave birth to counter culture and then morphed into a nanny state" i think is the relevant GTA quote here

[whm1974]

3 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

-= Moved to GD =-

Topic doesn't meet requirements for Tech News.

 

Op your title is sensationalist, consider changing it to be in line with the subject of your topic.

 

Also this topic is border line political.

 

2 hours ago, starsmine said:

So... Not passed.
So California didnt pass a law.
Your title is false on its face.

Dude. Im all for talking about the policy but dude. Don't set the tone like that because I now have no faith in the conversation being made in good faith.

Sorry guys that was just the title of Video. And yes I'm aware how hard it is for parents to supervise their kids, especially during the Preteen and Teen years. At least offer the offspring guidance and be good role models.

 

The only reason I put this in tech news is due to another State passing a Bill to control the Internet. Any old enough kid can simply lye about their actually age. I had people tell before they caught their kids, nieces, nephews pretending to young adults in some adult chat room before, sexting. at 9 and ten years old, including girls.

 

Good grief, not even sure I knew what sex was at that age.

[Imbadatnames]

Tbh I don’t see why age verification couldn’t be encrypted and stored onto a passkey which allows access into those sites or not. Passkey would be unique to a user account for example a Microsoft, Apple or Google account depending on the OS and age verification would be carried out through that protocol after providing evidence. 

[Ultraforce]

Here's the actual bill if anyone wants to consume content from the original source rather then an editorial about it.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2273

[whm1974]

26 minutes ago, Imbadatnames said:

Tbh I don’t see why age verification couldn’t be encrypted and stored onto a passkey which allows access into those sites or not. Passkey would be unique to a user account for example a Microsoft, Apple or Google account depending on the OS and age verification would be carried out through that protocol after providing evidence. 

What about Websites that don't collect User Data at all other then a Email Address, and of course require a User name and Password? Come to think of it most sites don't even do that.

[SansVarnic]

Age verification doesn't need to be stored. Once you verify the account or access, it can just be marked as "passed" and information that was used to verify can be purged after completing the verification. Storing the information just opens the doors for identity thieves and added cost to sites or site hosts to store such. 

 

Besides I dare California to come after me and my site for not implementing something not hosted in their state.... just saying. What a joke. This bill has zero reach and zero basis for worldwide enforcement. California again imposing themselves on others. We are talking about a state not a country.

[Arika]

California is starting to get a big head, they pass all these nice privacy laws and now they think they have built up enough good will to pass weird shit like this and people will be happy about it. 

 

Also I don't see how this "destroys" the internet. Any website that has asked me for my age where I don't have an actual account, I don't think I've ever given my real date of birth.

 

Just like the cookie thing the eu forced everyone to do, someone will make a browser extention that throws a date at the website without you ever seeing the popup

[whm1974]

34 minutes ago, Arika S said:

California is starting to get a big head, they pass all these nice privacy laws and now they think they have built up enough good will to pass weird shit like this and people will be happy about it. 

 

Also I don't see how this "destroys" the internet. Any website that has asked me for my age where I don't have an actual account, I don't think I've ever given my real date of birth.

 

Just like the cookie thing the eu forced everyone to do, someone will make a browser extention that throws a date at the website without you ever seeing the popup

What is this about YouTube Videos having clickbait titles on serious subjects? I see greedy Companies that sell User Data to Data Mining Corps and Targeted Ads more of a threat then some US State passing silly laws about the Internet that can't not be Enforced. But that is a different subject entirely.

[CommanderAlex]

1 hour ago, NastyFlytrap said:

Y'all north american people need to understand that helicopter parenting and the traditional soccer mom shit are extremely harmful of the development of a kid.

You should tell that to my mother!!!

[SansVarnic]

On 9/14/2022 at 6:56 PM, NastyFlytrap said:

While i agree that this is really bad, are you suggesting that parents *should* invade the privacy of their kids and spy on them? Because IMO kids have rights too and privacy is one of them. 

Y'all north american people need to understand that helicopter parenting and the traditional soccer mom shit are extremely harmful of the development of a kid.

It's obvious you're not a parent and you're severely ignorant on how parenting works. (Regardless of the country)

There 3 types of parents, Responsible, Helicopter and Irresponsible.

• The first category knows everything their children do without the child really knowing and giving the child the breath to make choices without screwing up so badly they can't turn back. (This really isn't hard to do in most cases)
• The second doesn't allow their children to do anything without them being involved, hence the helicopter phrasing.
• And well the third... I don't think I need to explain that one. 

 

My point is you can be a responsible parent without the need to hover over the child and still know what is going on and being aware. Able to step in when needed and when need to. (there is a difference) If parents need to give children "freedom of privacy", well all I have to say to you is good luck when/if you have your own, LMAO I have a strong feeling how those children will end up. Privacy doesn't exist for children as the parent is responsible and liable for the well-being of said child until they reach adulthood, then yes at that point they have earned their privacy. Privacy is not a right that children have or get.

If a parent gives what I believe is your definition of privacy is, then that parent falls under the irresponsible category. Choosing to be ignorant of one's child's habits, and this includes online habits, is a recipe for disaster for both the child and the parent.

 

*Edit, I will add one more thing that I didn't include initially. Not all children turn out poorly from bad parenting, i can name several examples as I have a few friends that came from bad parents/homes but sans the details, these individuals overcame the shortcoming of their parents, and this does happen. But in most cases children do take after the upbring the parent provides and based on that metric the above is absolutely true regardless of how you wish to believe otherwise.

Edited September 20, 2022 by SansVarnic

[Imbadatnames]

10 hours ago, whm1974 said:

What about Websites that don't collect User Data at all other then a Email Address, and of course require a User name and Password? Come to think of it most sites don't even do that.

They wouldn’t need to? The verification would be through the passkey when you log on  

[whm1974]

9 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

It's obvious you're not a parent and you're severely ignorant on how parenting works. (Regardless of the country)

There 3 types of parents, Responsible, Helicopter and Irresponsible.

• The first category knows everything their children do without the child really knowing and giving the child the breath to make choices without screwing up so badly they can't turn back. (This really isn't hard to do in most cases)
• The second doesn't allow their children to do anything without them being involved, hence the helicopter phrasing.
• And well the third... I don't think I need to explain that one. 

 

My point is you can be a responsible parent with the need to hover over the child and still know what is going on and being aware. Able to step in when needed and when need to. (there is a difference) If parents need to give children "freedom of privacy", well all I have to say to you is good luck when/if you have your own, LMAO I have a strong feeling how those children will end up. Privacy doesn't exist for children as the parent is responsible and liable for the well being of said child until they reach adult hood, then yes at that point they have earned their privacy. Privacy is not a right that children have or get.

If a parent gives what I believe is your definition of privacy is, then that parent falls under the irresponsible category. Choosing to be ignorant of one's child's habits, and this includes online habits, is a recipe for disaster for both the child and the parent.

Well I hope I can be the 1st Type, and not the 2nd. And I despise the Third.

[Lurking]

That age stuff is BS and will lock out children from much good content. My daughter started using Google classroom, youtube and other stuff on a chromebook during the pandemic and for school. We were so stupid to set her up with her actual age of 8 at the time. Most totally innocent videos, and websites then all of sudden don't work. I assume whoever hosts them doesn't implement any age stuff, which defaults it to not appropriate for children. 

 

I ended up changing her age to be 13 the next day (I think 13 was their cutoff to not be a child anymore) and then it worked. And all the content she needed (for school etc.) was really not something inappropriate. That whole nanny stuff just doesn't work. 

 

The other time she took a CAD class and needed Tinkercad, which is free. She signed up with her real age, and it required some parental verification. Was total BS and we didn't get it to work, or it required a 1-day waiting period. IIRC, there also was a small cost to accelerate the parental verification. I then just signed up with my age, and it worked. Lesson learned, always say you are 21 or older when you use the internet. 

 

As a parent you can control what they see. Your router can show you the sites they visit, and you can see the children while they use the computer. Router also can block selected sites. You also can limit what time they can access the internet, or the computer. Obviously a computer is part of school these days, so they better learn soon how to use the Internet. 

 

Government starts censoring with "protecting children". Because everyone can get  behind protecting children. Then they protect the general populace from lies, and the ministry of truth makes sure we only see true content. Laws like that are just the beginning. 

 

 

[Dedayog]

40 minutes ago, Lurking said:

That age stuff is BS and will lock out children from much good content. My daughter started using Google classroom, youtube and other stuff on a chromebook during the pandemic and for school. We were so stupid to set her up with her actual age of 8 at the time. Most totally innocent videos, and websites then all of sudden don't work. I assume whoever hosts them doesn't implement any age stuff, which defaults it to not appropriate for children. 

 

I ended up changing her age to be 13 the next day (I think 13 was their cutoff to not be a child anymore) and then it worked. And all the content she needed (for school etc.) was really not something inappropriate. That whole nanny stuff just doesn't work. 

 

The other time she took a CAD class and needed Tinkercad, which is free. She signed up with her real age, and it required some parental verification. Was total BS and we didn't get it to work, or it required a 1-day waiting period. IIRC, there also was a small cost to accelerate the parental verification. I then just signed up with my age, and it worked. Lesson learned, always say you are 21 or older when you use the internet. 

 

As a parent you can control what they see. Your router can show you the sites they visit, and you can see the children while they use the computer. Router also can block selected sites. You also can limit what time they can access the internet, or the computer. Obviously a computer is part of school these days, so they better learn soon how to use the Internet. 

 

Government starts censoring with "protecting children". Because everyone can get  behind protecting children. Then they protect the general populace from lies, and the ministry of truth makes sure we only see true content. Laws like that are just the beginning. 

 

 

"As a parent you can control what they see"

 

It's so cute you think that.  

[whm1974]

4 hours ago, Dedayog said:

"As a parent you can control what they see"

 

It's so cute you think that.  

Well I certainly stayed up past bedtime watching TV during the mid 80's. Also had a TI 94/A1 Home Computer, trying to learn Basic and playing Parsec..

 

Didn't get into all that much trouble however. 

[Lurking]

10 hours ago, Dedayog said:

"As a parent you can control what they see"

 

It's so cute you think that.  

while I can't control every single search result she may encounter, I can generally know what she does. Right now doing homework and I look into her room every once a while. I also generally know when she watches a movie, or zooms with her friends. I also know when she doesn't do homework/movies/friends, she isn't much online due to other analog hobbies. Even if she does stuff on her own for hours, we check in with her a lot. Could she come across a dirty picture or a bad word? Maybe, but that also exists on paper. The problem is when parents use electronics as a baby-sitter and just leave kids to heir own devices all day. Heck, every movie has inappropriate scenes unless you only watch really boring movies no one wants to see. 

 

I also think her encountering some borderline things is good training that the internet is a spectrum of opinions, tastes etc. Can't have kids live in an analog cave until they are 21, and then encounter the internet the first time. 

 

Whatever you can blame on the internet....government and censorship is not the solution. Government isn't a better parent. At minimum any such age-scheme will inadvertently filter out useful web sites. Like I described in my above post. the AI, or whatever makes the decision, just isn't that good. And ultimately i as a parent can make a better judgment than Zuckerberg or whoever the government would hire to implement that. 

 

The news are pretty ugly, I wonder why we allow children to know anything bad.... 

[SansVarnic]

On 9/15/2022 at 11:00 AM, NastyFlytrap said:

I am not a parent, true, but unlike some of Y'all i understand the value of privacy, and as i've said, kids have a right to it too. Just because you're their 'silent guardian' and they dont know, doesnt mean you arent commiting a pretty bad act. 

We had unfiltered access to the internet, and we turned out fine (i mean, i dont think we did, but thats because the world has gone to shit, not because we could do whatever on the internet....)

Also, that kid WILL find out about you spying on them, and i hope i dont need to say how little they will care about your reasons. Rights belong to people, no matter what.

As for all the arguments you could bring up, im not saying pedos or groomers dont exist, but, lets be frank, modern media is extremely sensitized, and fearmongering is so mainstream most of you dont even notice it. Hence why kids are legally not allowed to be outside in Canada for example. What a fking shitshow that law is.... 


You north americans (and sadly europe is following suit.... Sigh) go overboard with the safety, and you're perfectly fine with depriving millions of life experiences, to save single digit lives, and, i get it, but, you can skip rope for the care criminals have about these laws. People will get hurt no matter what and this 'safety above all else' mentality is how you end up with a society where its illegal to be under 18. You cant go anywhere without your parents driving you, because the infrastructure doesnt allow walking and public transport is basically non-existant, schools are basically child prisons, and at home the parents are ""watching over"" the child. Have fun with a life like that. 

Hate me if you want, but food for thought. This style of raising kids will lead to a boom in obedient sheeple that never know freedom, and if they fight back against it, i'll take their side gladly.

You assume a lot about what I said. And pretty much everything you said is wrong and about as expected as I could put money on.

 

My kids are aware they are monitored, not spied on. I have no need to spy on my children, hell I don't even need to know what it is they did, I already know just by looking at them and what happened and that is good parenting.  I never said they were not aware; I said it's possible to do so without them being aware. If you are going to debate me then at least base your argument on what I said. Neither was I talking about me... My argument(comment) was a point from non-bias in form of argument to debate, I don't typically use myself in examples.

But since you're making this about me.... I am incredibly open with my children, and they are very well behaved, cultured, and intelligent. There is more to parenting than you know, and you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Trying to come into this debate based on point of view rather than experience and understanding. Now I am not trying to belittle you here but your view about privacy in the larger scope of parents versus kids are very skewed, and I understand you're not a parent, but my point included that and was meant to open you up to the possibility that you have much to understand.

 

Before I continue, I am not going to go down the list to correct every insinuation you made about me and my comment. When you get to parenthood, let me know how successful you are. You're not making a compelling argument on how a parent should not be aware of a child's actions or give the amount of privacy you say they should, based on the argument you gave. It falls noticeably short.

 

Btw, I don't hate you, I have no reason to. You are full of assumptions, aren't you?

 

I am fairly sure your parents did things in the background you will never be aware of so in a way you are also not giving your own parents their due. Anyhow that is the end of my contribution, arguing this will go nowhere as it is apparent, you're not open to accepting positions of experience and wisdom. 

 

Lastly your misplaced opinion about North Americans is way off, you need to tone that way down as you are getting pretty borderline prejudice. What the world sees is what our news media shows, and I can tell you it doesn't show you what we are like outside the largest cities. The majority of the US [for instance] is very well off in terms of normalcy. The shit in the coastlines and the larger city are so far wack it's not funny. You do more research and open your mind to more than what you see on tv and what others tell you. 

Edited September 20, 2022 by SansVarnic