[gertlex]

Am I wrong in feeling like the solution you outline is only applicable to an individual's kids? But at the societal level, it clearly seems we can't depend on enough parents to do what you talk about. Something else is needed.

I don't have answers to give. Certainly not a fan of the government approach of "everyone must prove their age online now", which I believe is how the AU law is done. (casual listening to Security Now podcast about this for a long while now)

[indymike]

"Everyone must prove their age online now" creates a trail of identity that kills anonymous speech dead. Anonymous speech is very important to maintaining freedoms... such as freedom of speech and freedom of association.

[tzs]

> "Everyone must prove their age online now" creates a trail of identity that kills anonymous speech dead.

That depends on the implementation. Do it the wrong way, like many countries or US states, and that is a problem.

Do it right, like the EU is doing in their Digital Identity Wallet project, which is currently undergoing large scale field trials, and the site you prove age to gets no information other than that you are old enough, and your government gets no information about what sites you have proved age to or when you have done so.

[SiempreViernes]

> Anonymous speech is very important to maintaining freedoms... such as freedom of speech and freedom of association.

Ha! Tell that to an American and they would laugh if it wasn't for ICE threatening to shoot you for trying to get close enough to ask.

[intended]

It is frustrating, to have this argument, when the current state of the art to mould speech, has already found ways around this defensive line.

Currently speech is shaped by producing a glut of speech, and then having the most useful narratives platformed by trusted personalities. Simultaneously, any counter views which do not support the goals of the media-party, do not get aired. Education, science, evidence and journalistic standards are eschewed and authoritarian techniques of loyalty and trust are used to take advantage of whatever story is currently most engaging.

The churn in anonymous forums is used to identify narratives that are the best evolved to spread and gain engagement.

Don’t mistake me for saying anonymity must be given up. Do recognize that worrying about anonymity today, is very much like people talking about the way things were back in their time.

If it helps - from a utilitarian perspective, free speech enables the free exchange of ideas in the service of debates to understand reality. The marketplace of ideas.

Currently the marketplace is captured, and it is not a fair fight between state actors, media teams, troll farms, A/B tested algorithms, and regular folk on the other side.

The invisible hand of the market IS working, ensuring the optimum outcome given the current constraints, or lack thereof.

If we want to defend speech for individuals, if we want a fair fight, we need to address the asymmetry of powers, and lack of recourse.

[lovich]

Hard disagree on anonymous speech. Individual humans should have free speech but that is divorced from anonymous speech.

With anonymous speech you don’t even know if you’re talking to a person or a program.

If you want to say something, then say it with your identity. You don’t get to be anonymous when saying something to my face so why should it be allowed across a screen?

[anon84873628]

Yes, this is one of those game theory traps like the prisoners dilemma, because it requires coordinated action across a large group of people. Unfortunately the lowest common denominator parenting is not able to handle the problem, because the parents don't understand the situation, are addicted to platforms themselves, and just generally don't have the necessary skills.

Government regulation is a ham fisted approach that risks unintended consequences / secondary effects, but it is generally good at breaking the game theory traps because it changes the playing field for everyone. That is fundamentally why we have government at all - to solve coordination problems.

[Gigachad]

The government can also act as the faceless bad guy who 13 year olds can get mad at while parents shrug and say “sorry that’s just the law”.

[deminature]

>not a fan of the government approach of "everyone must prove their age online now", which I believe is how the AU law is done

This is not how the law is implemented. The vast majority of verification is being done by 'age inference', ie analysis of the content the user consumes or posts to infer likely age. Only accounts suspected to be children by the inference process are being required to verify or have the account disabled. In practice, the inference process means very few accounts are required to provide any proof of age. Personally, I haven't been asked to verify by even a single website.

The age inference process is described on this page under 'What is Age Assurance?' https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/your-privacy-rights/social-m...

[makeitdouble]

If you think we can't depend on parents for the kids education, school should handle it.