Mandatory online age/ID verification is an unacceptable violation of privacy. It doesn't matter how its implemented. There's no such thing as privacy protecting or anonymous age verification.
Parental controls and self-declaration of age are the only acceptable solutions.
The only people living in a fantasy world are the ones that want mandatory online age verification for social media, adult content, private messaging, video games, and things of that nature.
Mandatory verification is an unacceptable attack on privacy. A device level whitelist of kid safe areas that is disabled by default and enabled by parents is a better idea.
I'm waiting for them to turn every wifi router in 3D tracking nodes that monitor the exact location and body position of everyone nearby in buildings. Its too juicy of target once they get the tech fully figured out.
The New Mexico AG behind this case is Raul Torrez. He's a fascist/authoritarian asshole who has been using this case to try and force mandatory online age verification on everyone while also banning encryption.
The last thing we need is for other state AGs to try to copy him.
The problem is that "what's right for children" should be better parental controls, and better enforcement of treating self-declared ages under 18 separately. Instead, the New Mexico AG and other assholes believe it means we need more mass surveillance, mandatory age verification, bans on encryption, and other insanity.
It's a bit of a tangent, but Meta actually really annoys me
Is the general war on encryption bad? Yeah
Meta? Meta forcibly upgraded people on Messenger. Now chats are broken. First they took away your friends https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4151433 and then they REALLY took away your friends, by doing this
There are, but only for using IP of large corporations. If you put 12 seconds of a major label song in your video review of an album, that video belongs to the major label now.
It's a lot easier to automatically detect a match to 1 specific thing than detect a match to a completely novel thing that offends sensibilities in a similar way to other things.
There are basically always filters of some kind, though not necessarily the ones we want. The bigger the target that filter represents, the more effort is spent breaking it.
> For YouTube on a desktop OS you also want Sponsorblock.
No. I don't. uBO suffices. Maybe with some additional rules and lists which aren't in its default setup.
Maybe it also depends on the sort of content one watches, but I tried, and it did nothing for me, except one extension more running. Which I tend to try to minimize.
That's the thing. I rarely watch, just listening to music doodling in a background tab.
I think I remember some sponsored crap in 'der8auer' or something like 'linus tech tips' eons ago, but I don't watch them anymore.
So I can't really tell, but for my use case it seems redundant.
I also remember having imported uBo-lists from somewhere, allegedly enabling sponsor-blocking somehow. But that was another install. I don't have these anymore, ATM.
How is me installing that going to help prevent Facebook hosting unlawful adverts?
I barely visit the FB feed these days, about half of those visits being a notification that turns out to be someone's birthday.
Unlike FB themselves for the content they host, I find it easy to avoid them without needing the help of a filter, because on the rare occasion when I find myself being sucked into scrolling down the feed, this almost always stops within 3 items because that's how quickly I find the first utterly irrelevant item owing to how Facebook keeps trying to suggest (and advertise) nonsense.
The filter I want to see in the world is the legislative kind, the "Meta delenda est" style. This is of course *not* what Facebook would want: spammers want to break FB's filters, and FB would try to get past legislative filters. I count FB as a spammer trying to put ads into every third message you try to exchange with your friends.
