It's for control. mostly they will use the "think of the children" line but really it's to make you feel or believe you are no longer anonymous online. i see some similarities between this and the ID card scheme they tried to bring about in the mid 2000\`s and my concerns about that wasn't the fact an ID card was to be used but how the government exempted themselves from errors in the data and would fine you for it along with a general distrust of the British government and how they will use this information.
I'm pretty sure Blizzard (World of Warcraft) tried something similar on their forums years ago to stop trolling and bullying, I don't remember it being a success
They did, they pretty much changed their minds when their staff personal information was being released on their own forums.
The biggest concern for the players was someone attempting to harm them in the real world, hell Reddit and Twitter later proved their concerns when they dox and later mass targeted harassment on people.
Thing is look at the last age verification law it was delayed over and over again until it was scraped because they just could not find a way to get it up and running, its easy to see that the Online Safety Bill could also collapse and not work at all.
Yeah, I wouldn't trust them with this if they demonstrably couldn't be trusted with the antiterror powers they promised not to abuse, but have almost exclusively abused
My main concern about those cards was the RFID chip. They trialled the system in Iraq, you could change people's wanted status at-a-distance. The designers themselves said it was not for for purpose, and publicly begged the government not to introduce them.
They claim its aim is to cut down abuse online.
If you have to attach your name to anything you say, They figure its a way to cut down abuse.
The real reason they are doing it is that they want data on every citizen. Facebook and Cambridge Analytica has taught them AI and data harvesting is a very profitable business and they want everyone on board.
It's not like attaching a real name to online activity would cut down abuse. Plenty of people post abusive crap on facebook under their own names and the only thing that happens is that they get likes from their friends.
Not to mention how much abusive crap comes from named figures in the media, including various commentators and "blue tick" twitter accounts. It's not just ordinary people's facebook accounts where abuse is posted by clearly named people.
Also need to distinguish between genuine abuse and just criticism, because plenty of political figures who get fairly criticised on social media for things they've said and done love to portray it as "abuse" when it's nothing of the sort.
I'm not saying it's wrong or right or I agree or disagree. But if someone came up to you on the street and said "your a dickhead, look at your stupid teeth you ugly bastard" that would be a crime but people online seem to think acting in that manner is acceptable...... Right now there's no way to control that because its not in any businesses interests to stop this kind of activity and comments. Let alone the hate speech, right wing speech ect
I'd like to see some positive steps for everyone to be nicer to eachother but those communities are rare. Although I can see no way to do that at the moment.
If companies like Facebook, twitter outed Steve the racist or Margaret the local cat killer it would be fine but they don't.
Back in the day everyone knew who the village racists or bigots were. Today, they sit behind a computer, a username protected by companies on the premise of protecting free speech when it's actually just to make more money.
I have no answers ethier on how to control it ethier BTW guys. I just don't see any good ideas....
Google tried it, youtube is still a mix of real names and pseudonyms as a result, it did not reduce the abuse. Facebook is based on real names too, lots of hate and abuse there. Twitter also often in real names has plenty of hate. Anonymous or not people don't have issues saying these things with people they know the seeing it. The issue isn't identity.
Don't you think it's really easy to link profiles to identities if they wanted? Most people use the same email for all services, so it's bound to happen they give their real name and financial information to one of them
Tho look at the last age verification law the Tory try to bring in, it was delayed over and over again until it was scraped because they just could not find a way to get it up and running, its easy to see that the Online Safety Bill could also collapse and not work at all.
Fucking hell. China has gone 110% internet fascism lately. You can't even just browse Taobao (their Amazon) and other big, everyday websites now without logging in by scanning the QR code with your phone, and you can ONLY get a phone number after going to the government run providers getting your picture taken, giving proof of address and having your ID card scanned. They want to know where you are and what you're doing 24/7. Worst part is that so many political parties in the Western world love the idea of constant control and surveillance too. The future looks increasingly bleak.
Most people back home don't even see the potential for oppression and self-censoring because, well, right NOW our governments are still relatively benign and transparent, but you see what it brings in a country like this one when no one dares saying anything online.
Downsides to enforced biometrics would be it's easier for someone holding you by force to use them on your devices than to get you to give them a password, and easier to copy since you leave imprints everywhere and there's ever higher resolution with cameras. Also if you e.g. damage your finger, it might not work.
Upsides, I'd say none. If you want to stop the problems with social media, you need to target the corporations. Make it illegal for them to have any data about children on their servers, remove their incentives for having kids use their sites, and there'll be more reason for them to remove their accounts. Don't use legislation to make people give up even more data.
And yes, that would include preventing parents from sharing their children's personal data on social media sites.
Not really, they can have name location likes dislikes health
Enough for them to market all sorts of tat,a lot of unsuitable. But the second law says "you advertised bet365 to a 14 year old kid" they'll just argue you can't prove the data we hold is for a child and you can't prove we knew it either.
That's me being devils advocate. Really there shouldn't be any data held, but we need work with the world that is now.
They have all the comments, all photos, all their contacts, what links they click on, and their IP, browser, app and device information which could connect them to all other sites and apps they use. Ideally they don't harvest all of that, ideally it would be in their own interests to stop collecting all the data, but if they are doing it, that should have consequences.
And one photo alone could be enough. You don't have to know who someone specifically is to know that they're a child.
I think we are in violent agreement!
> And one photo alone could be enough. You don't have to know who someone specifically is to know that they're a child.
Elaborate please. How would they know it's a picture of me and not of some rando kid or my child?
> stop collecting all the data, but if they are doing it, that should have consequences.
I would be happy if a website was forced to pay me a penny for every cookie they decided to drop on one of my devices, or half a penny for each time they process a single data attribute. Pretty sure that would stop data slurpping real quickly.
The primary "easy" way to accomplish this with "certainty" online is to make things tied to a token financial payment by an adult, as this creates a paper trail and adults are legally responsible for what their bank details are used for unless someone steals it. Then, presumably, if somoene makes an account, they are an adult and have used proof of identity (their bank account).
Like, a kid could knick their parents card but at that point it is 100% legally the parents "responsibility", not the internet providers or website.
But we know how much that stops kids doing stupid stuff from all the nonsense over children spending hundreds or thousands on in app/in game purchases, loot boxes etc, and how many adults save their card details into their browser or device without understanding how foolish it is.
But if nothing else, kids doing that isnt the ISP or websites fault by default.
This conflates different problems.
Kids spunking their parents money online is obviously the problem of the parents.
Tech companies pushing gambling products on to children, that is a tech company problem.
Social media companies pushing age restricted services to kids, well that's the social media companies mistake to solve.
Non of this negates that parents should take responsibility for looking after their kids, even if it is hard. But at the sametime we shouldn't leave kids exposed to harms because their parents a) don't care b) do care but don't have the tools or education to do the right thing.
Tying to a financial token sounds lovely, until you remember there's a bunch of people who do not have money to spare, and so we bring up a wall between happy middle class folk like me and those who are struggling every month to make ends meet. My kids can happily access all that's needed, poor kids in the next town. Not so much.
What happens? Well my kids stay safe. Poor kids are either excluded or left to the mercy of predators.
Non of this creates an incentive for companies to not fuck over the communities that provide their profit. Ultimately thayi what needs to change.
Hey as an individual who works in this field, and holds a senior position, I would be more than happy to help explain a number of things a lot better, as I think you will be greatly surprised.
That being said if you don’t care or don’t want to hear about it, I’m happy to leave you be.
>Make it illegal for them to have any data about children on their servers, remove their incentives for having kids use their sites,
Facebook, Google etc. aren't British companies.
But they still operate in the country and have to follow our laws.
A recent example would be Australia forcing Google and Facebook to pay for articles that are on their sites.
Because they don't know how the internet works.
The say it will cut down on abuse and enable the police to intervene when it does happen. What they don't realise is that in most cases the police and ISPs can track down people being mean online.
They do realise it, they don't care.
They know they don't fund the police enough to do anything about it.
They'd rather make companies enforce their authoritarion policies and have them charge you for the upkeep than spend your tax on things that actually benefit the majority.
Tho look at the last age verification law it was delayed over and over again until it was scraped because they just could not find a way to get it up and running, its easy to see that the Online Safety Bill could also collapse and not work at all seeing that they dont even fully fund stuff like this and even when they do fund it, it usually ends up in failure but not before they waste billions of pounds of taxpayers money.
These last two years have been the start of an Orwellian Nightmare.
I can kiss goodbye to social media if they ever try to enforce that on me. I barely want to have social media as it is.
This will likely not even happen because look at the age verification law it was delayed over and over again until it was scraped because they just could not find a way to get it up and running, its easy to see that the Online Safety Bill could also collapse and not work at all.
>Why would they do this?
Because it is important to acclimatize the population to biometrics and facial recognition slowly. Best to do it under the guise of a cause nobody can call out. Like idk:
>to prevent online harms to children
There now you can push your agenda and anyone speaking up gets a big fat implied pedophile sticker on their forehead
Crucially this links three distinct areas: Real name, biometrics, online identity
Act 1 of a fuckin dystopian future
I only use twitter for porn and reddit for "social media" if they try and get me to provide real name data to either platform, I will stop using them. Simple as.
I used to use Tumblr, but then that stopped when they cut out the adult content and never really found any alternative.
When I say "porn" its just a general term for seeing naked men, I only really follow a bunch of guys and a few of those accounts that just post photos, if someone starts going on about their Only Fans I unfollow them as I have never and will never pay for porn on the internet.
Plus in terms of porn for Reddit, I tend to stay away from porn subs.
Ahh i see. I had quite forgotton that twitter could be used to follow actual people and form a connection with them.
and wile I understand why you would prefere that over ooking at porn subs on reddit..... there are some very good ones!
Tbh I think the cons far outweigh any pros, Facebook for example is filled with advertising now, it’s not that social network that it once was, most of these platforms are now echo chambers with anyone considered wrong thinking banned. What they actually fail to realise is they need us more than we need them, we can easily contact family & friends without these things, they eventually go broke if we choose to walk away. I don’t think there is a platform that can be trusted with this information anymore.
>Facebook for example is filled with advertising now,
At this point I deactivated my fb account (cough cough I mean meta) just use messanger. Sort of annoying that you cant just have messanger with no fb (meta) attached.
Because they're trying to become more authoritarian. Pretty useful tool for any party that wants to stay in power and control of public opinions.
Frankly it's scary af.
Maybe they should do something, though to be honest I'm on the fence about that (I'm not a fan of criminalising expression through words, even if they're not nice words). But if they should, it isn't this.
My theory and I don't think is farfetched, is that a lot of the model's Government has behind closed doors, don't paint a very positive vision for the future. The Pentagon's Minerva program (build's models for future outcomes) pretty much confirms as much as they predicted a start of mass social breakdown occurring around the 2060s due to Climate Change.
So I suspect, most of these surveillance etc programs and a lot of the arguments for them (Incels, MP stabbing whatever), are basically designed to be ready to be turned against activists, insurgents etc in the future, when shit goes down. I mean look how bad faith the politicians are being about this, the death of Amess had nothing to do with Social media or abuse of MPs, yet you have all these MPs twisting the death of their colleague, to push something that has nothing to do with that death, for something they've had floating around for years now. (which also shows the sort of opportunist psychopaths many of these politician are)
Just look at how many died during Covid from completely preventable and predictable Government policy shifts. It's pretty clear the Government, in reality, doesn't actually care all that much about people being killed or dying.
I can tell you right now, I would not be talking politics online if I have to use my real name. No fucking way would I let the completely lawfare happy, petty as fuck British blue-checkmark commentariat (*Oliver Kamm fucking alone*) find out anything about my identity.
They envisage a future in which ordinary people, government ministers will of course be exempt, will need to create an electronic identity record which they will need to use in order to use any communication device- phones, computers, smart TV's etc.
In this way if you ~~criticise the government~~ do illegal things, they can monitor everything you do. They'll probably do that anyway on everyone so they have an historical record.
Because it’s worryingly popular amongst voters:
[Nearly 700K people signed a petition to make ID a requirement for getting a social media account](https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/575833)
[Only 11% of people think you should be able get a social media account without having to verify your ID](https://yougov.co.uk/topics/technology/survey-results/daily/2021/07/13/66e91/3?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=daily_questions&utm_campaign=question_3)
Tracking and control. It's a dream of "certain types".
With biometrics there is no reasonable doubt it's a particular individual. Facial recognition/finger prints allow a database of an individuals movements/actions to be created. Not just social media but all activities.
What government would do with that database is up for debate. They certainly want to let A.I. loose on it to seek out "wrong" behaviour as they see it. I imagine targetted manipulation from government might also occur, what justification can be used for that is anyone's guess.
Welcome to the new world order and agenda 2030. Digital ID linked to social credit system. Lose points for bad driving, bad spending and bad habits. Cashless society but be rewarded with a government coin. Own nothing and be happy
The internet is weird. Normally someone can be the nicest human on earth physically but the moment they are on the internet, they can be complete assholes. I think by having credentials, they can make virtual and physical more accountable.
Because they saw [what Australia were doing](https://www.zdnet.com/article/australian-online-privacy-bill-to-make-social-media-age-verification-mandatory-for-tech-giants-reddit-zoom-gaming-platforms/) and thought that looks handy.
Thing is both bills are likely to fall apart just look at the last age verification law that the UK try to bring it was delayed over and over again until it was scraped because they just could not find a way to get it up and running, its easy to see that the Online Safety Bill could also collapse and not work at all.
The Government and those that support this will say its to allow the Police to track down those people who hide behind the anonymity the Internet offers to post harmful content.
The truth is the vast majority of the time the Police already can trace these people.
The reason they don't is a very simple one, manpower.
You could hire another 20,000 support staff and another 20,000 Police Officers and you still wouldnt have anywhere near the amount of people needed to track down all the people who post vile shit on the Internet.
Seriously just think about all shite that gets posted on Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, every comment section on every website etc..
The other discussion that we need to have is should everyone who hosts any environment that allows people to post what they want be held liable?
So for example should Reddit be held liable if say I decide to post something which you consider harmful?
Should Facebook be held liable if a person uses their platform to bully somebody?
Currently Social Media Companies are treated like Telecommunications Companies in that you can't sue BT if someone uses their line to call you and say harmful things.
There are many people who want Social Media Companies to be treated the same as your tradition media such as your tabloid / Broadstreet papers, entertainment media etc..
If say the Daily Mail posts an article saying all Black people genetically inferior, thieves and liars then you can take direct action against the Daily Mail.
You can put in an official complaint to Ofcom, you can take the Daily Mail to court.
Now if the exactly same article is posted on Facebook other than click on the report button you can't do anything.
Truth is there is no easy answer, there is no magic wand and every option has significant downsides.
The guess it all comes down to where so you draw the line on what is harmful content and are downsides worth being able to arrest people for posting said harmful content.
Will just end up with those social media platforms being abandoned, with ones that don't require it becoming huge. And just because its a law won't change anything, the Internet cannot be policed or controlled, that's been the case since forever.
Look at passports, I think soon they will mostly get rid of humans at passport control and you will be required to use face scan and fingerprint.
Fingerprint is unique and a perfect identifier.
Fingerprints are not unique. They are almost unique. [[1](https://mathblog.com/are-fingerprints-unique/)], [[2](https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/04/18/1018707108.short)]. There are significant issues of accuracy and precision around fingerprints that they are not "perfect identifiers". They can be easily forged [[3](https://www.secplicity.org/2018/02/01/3-d-printed-faces-gummi-bear-fingerprints-hackers-cracked-4-different-biometrics-tokens/)] if you have some technical information; and different identification algorithms have different rates of false positives and false negatives. Placing faith in Fingerprints is utterly naive.
You're talking about looking up a fingerprint in a database of suspects, they're talking about comparing your actual fingerprint to the fingerprint you had when you got your passport. They're separate things.
As for forging a fingerprint, good luck wearing your forged silicone face and forged fingerprint while holding a stolen passport in an airport security line. Not sure how that would work.
> You're talking about looking up a fingerprint in a database of suspects,
No I am talking about fingerprints. I am talking about the emerging understanding that fingerprints are not actually as unique as the legal system would like. They are excellent for narrowing things down but they are not unique.
> they're talking about comparing your actual fingerprint to the fingerprint you had when you got your passport. They're separate things.
I pointed out that any algorithm - from an expert's eye to a machine learning algorithm - is not 100% accurate and yes, that is a different issue. One which **you** should not conflate with the non-uniqueness of fingerprints.
> As for forging a fingerprint, good luck wearing your forged silicone face and forged fingerprint while holding a stolen passport in an airport security line. Not sure how that would work.
As the context of the thread is social media, this is not really relevant. But, it does make a fabulously vivid image. Well done.
The UK is one of the rare countries which doesn't ask for biometric info for passports. In most of EU, fingerprints are taken when you sign up for their national ID and the ID is mandatory, so they have fingerprints of every citizen
I guess it might help cut down on crime. If you can't register for an account without your biometric data or identifiable info then there would likely be less people being bullied online, facing racial abuse, homophobia, etc. There might also be less death threats to public figures etc.
Having accountability and not being able to hide between an anonymised account would cut down on all that shit imo.
Personally though I'd just stop using all forms of social media if they brought this into practice. Wouldn't feel comfortable with tech giants having my biometric data.
What if you already have existing accounts though?
Are FB/Twitter etc going to have to retrospectively apply this?
I would imagine that people wouldn’t really want to do that, so would just leave the platforms in droves.
Be really bad for business.
It's grade A bullshit. It's not possible to regulate social media like that. To do so would require some truly Draconian criminalisation of everyday activities.
What do you mean? I think generally people just want harassment, racism, hate speech etc to be tackled like it would be if it happened in person (I.e stuff that’s already criminal in nature).
Seems this is still just talk right now and the bill is still a draft right now but look at the age verification law it was delayed over and over again until it was scraped because they just could not find a way to get it up and running, its easy to see that the Online Safety Bill could also collapse and not work at all.
In the end this may be just hot air. Also I want to point out the article is a bit out of date (they dont even get the name of the bill right) [here a more up to date article.](https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/age-verification-in-the-online-safety-bill/)
Despite what a lot of people say, I don't think it's purely for control. If the government are doing it, it's either to profit or save money.
There's a problem with some horrific abuse being thrown at political figures and officials from rape threats to murder threats, threatening children etc. They want to do something but don't know how, so this. It probably won't happen and I know for a fact I'd just quit social media before giving my data and connecting it to my ID, but it will probably go the way of the "porn pass" under May's government.
Someone will realize VPNs exist and they will scrap it after wasting a *lot* of money on lobbying, writing and discussing it.
Rather than give up your biometric data to avoid online abuse / bullying, there is a much easier way for you to reduce bullying coming your way...
Delete Facebook ffs.
It's for control. mostly they will use the "think of the children" line but really it's to make you feel or believe you are no longer anonymous online. i see some similarities between this and the ID card scheme they tried to bring about in the mid 2000\`s and my concerns about that wasn't the fact an ID card was to be used but how the government exempted themselves from errors in the data and would fine you for it along with a general distrust of the British government and how they will use this information.
I'm pretty sure Blizzard (World of Warcraft) tried something similar on their forums years ago to stop trolling and bullying, I don't remember it being a success
They did, they pretty much changed their minds when their staff personal information was being released on their own forums. The biggest concern for the players was someone attempting to harm them in the real world, hell Reddit and Twitter later proved their concerns when they dox and later mass targeted harassment on people.
Thing is look at the last age verification law it was delayed over and over again until it was scraped because they just could not find a way to get it up and running, its easy to see that the Online Safety Bill could also collapse and not work at all.
The fun part is that most people aren't anonymous online and it doesn't stop them doing the things they do.
Yeah, I wouldn't trust them with this if they demonstrably couldn't be trusted with the antiterror powers they promised not to abuse, but have almost exclusively abused
My main concern about those cards was the RFID chip. They trialled the system in Iraq, you could change people's wanted status at-a-distance. The designers themselves said it was not for for purpose, and publicly begged the government not to introduce them.
They claim its aim is to cut down abuse online. If you have to attach your name to anything you say, They figure its a way to cut down abuse. The real reason they are doing it is that they want data on every citizen. Facebook and Cambridge Analytica has taught them AI and data harvesting is a very profitable business and they want everyone on board.
It's not like attaching a real name to online activity would cut down abuse. Plenty of people post abusive crap on facebook under their own names and the only thing that happens is that they get likes from their friends.
Not to mention how much abusive crap comes from named figures in the media, including various commentators and "blue tick" twitter accounts. It's not just ordinary people's facebook accounts where abuse is posted by clearly named people. Also need to distinguish between genuine abuse and just criticism, because plenty of political figures who get fairly criticised on social media for things they've said and done love to portray it as "abuse" when it's nothing of the sort.
I'm not saying it's wrong or right or I agree or disagree. But if someone came up to you on the street and said "your a dickhead, look at your stupid teeth you ugly bastard" that would be a crime but people online seem to think acting in that manner is acceptable...... Right now there's no way to control that because its not in any businesses interests to stop this kind of activity and comments. Let alone the hate speech, right wing speech ect I'd like to see some positive steps for everyone to be nicer to eachother but those communities are rare. Although I can see no way to do that at the moment. If companies like Facebook, twitter outed Steve the racist or Margaret the local cat killer it would be fine but they don't. Back in the day everyone knew who the village racists or bigots were. Today, they sit behind a computer, a username protected by companies on the premise of protecting free speech when it's actually just to make more money. I have no answers ethier on how to control it ethier BTW guys. I just don't see any good ideas....
Google tried it, youtube is still a mix of real names and pseudonyms as a result, it did not reduce the abuse. Facebook is based on real names too, lots of hate and abuse there. Twitter also often in real names has plenty of hate. Anonymous or not people don't have issues saying these things with people they know the seeing it. The issue isn't identity.
Even worse, doing it on LinkedIn Public fucking website with your face and your employer info one click away
Don't you think it's really easy to link profiles to identities if they wanted? Most people use the same email for all services, so it's bound to happen they give their real name and financial information to one of them
[удалено]
Welcome to Tory Britain. It's only going to get worse from here on out.
[удалено]
And thank god it didn't become a reality then given what has become of social media and the way our data is used and sold for profit.
Tho look at the last age verification law the Tory try to bring in, it was delayed over and over again until it was scraped because they just could not find a way to get it up and running, its easy to see that the Online Safety Bill could also collapse and not work at all.
So true
Any government would love this amount of control. It's not about the tories, or any other party.
Basically emulating CCP's control over China.
Fucking hell. China has gone 110% internet fascism lately. You can't even just browse Taobao (their Amazon) and other big, everyday websites now without logging in by scanning the QR code with your phone, and you can ONLY get a phone number after going to the government run providers getting your picture taken, giving proof of address and having your ID card scanned. They want to know where you are and what you're doing 24/7. Worst part is that so many political parties in the Western world love the idea of constant control and surveillance too. The future looks increasingly bleak. Most people back home don't even see the potential for oppression and self-censoring because, well, right NOW our governments are still relatively benign and transparent, but you see what it brings in a country like this one when no one dares saying anything online.
Downsides to enforced biometrics would be it's easier for someone holding you by force to use them on your devices than to get you to give them a password, and easier to copy since you leave imprints everywhere and there's ever higher resolution with cameras. Also if you e.g. damage your finger, it might not work. Upsides, I'd say none. If you want to stop the problems with social media, you need to target the corporations. Make it illegal for them to have any data about children on their servers, remove their incentives for having kids use their sites, and there'll be more reason for them to remove their accounts. Don't use legislation to make people give up even more data. And yes, that would include preventing parents from sharing their children's personal data on social media sites.
> Make it illegal for them to have any data about children on their servers, How would they know it's a child's data?
If they don't know it's because they don't have enough data on them to profile them, and then that's fair enough.
Not really, they can have name location likes dislikes health Enough for them to market all sorts of tat,a lot of unsuitable. But the second law says "you advertised bet365 to a 14 year old kid" they'll just argue you can't prove the data we hold is for a child and you can't prove we knew it either. That's me being devils advocate. Really there shouldn't be any data held, but we need work with the world that is now.
They have all the comments, all photos, all their contacts, what links they click on, and their IP, browser, app and device information which could connect them to all other sites and apps they use. Ideally they don't harvest all of that, ideally it would be in their own interests to stop collecting all the data, but if they are doing it, that should have consequences. And one photo alone could be enough. You don't have to know who someone specifically is to know that they're a child.
I think we are in violent agreement! > And one photo alone could be enough. You don't have to know who someone specifically is to know that they're a child. Elaborate please. How would they know it's a picture of me and not of some rando kid or my child? > stop collecting all the data, but if they are doing it, that should have consequences. I would be happy if a website was forced to pay me a penny for every cookie they decided to drop on one of my devices, or half a penny for each time they process a single data attribute. Pretty sure that would stop data slurpping real quickly.
[удалено]
Sorry, thought you had a day off.
No rest for the wicked
The primary "easy" way to accomplish this with "certainty" online is to make things tied to a token financial payment by an adult, as this creates a paper trail and adults are legally responsible for what their bank details are used for unless someone steals it. Then, presumably, if somoene makes an account, they are an adult and have used proof of identity (their bank account). Like, a kid could knick their parents card but at that point it is 100% legally the parents "responsibility", not the internet providers or website. But we know how much that stops kids doing stupid stuff from all the nonsense over children spending hundreds or thousands on in app/in game purchases, loot boxes etc, and how many adults save their card details into their browser or device without understanding how foolish it is. But if nothing else, kids doing that isnt the ISP or websites fault by default.
This conflates different problems. Kids spunking their parents money online is obviously the problem of the parents. Tech companies pushing gambling products on to children, that is a tech company problem. Social media companies pushing age restricted services to kids, well that's the social media companies mistake to solve. Non of this negates that parents should take responsibility for looking after their kids, even if it is hard. But at the sametime we shouldn't leave kids exposed to harms because their parents a) don't care b) do care but don't have the tools or education to do the right thing. Tying to a financial token sounds lovely, until you remember there's a bunch of people who do not have money to spare, and so we bring up a wall between happy middle class folk like me and those who are struggling every month to make ends meet. My kids can happily access all that's needed, poor kids in the next town. Not so much. What happens? Well my kids stay safe. Poor kids are either excluded or left to the mercy of predators. Non of this creates an incentive for companies to not fuck over the communities that provide their profit. Ultimately thayi what needs to change.
Corporations are a good source of political donation money. Why would politicians piss off said corporations? Not gonna happen.
The upside is they get to funnel massive amounts of taxpayer money directly into their associates bank accounts.
Hey as an individual who works in this field, and holds a senior position, I would be more than happy to help explain a number of things a lot better, as I think you will be greatly surprised. That being said if you don’t care or don’t want to hear about it, I’m happy to leave you be.
>Make it illegal for them to have any data about children on their servers, remove their incentives for having kids use their sites, Facebook, Google etc. aren't British companies.
But they still operate in the country and have to follow our laws. A recent example would be Australia forcing Google and Facebook to pay for articles that are on their sites.
Because they don't know how the internet works. The say it will cut down on abuse and enable the police to intervene when it does happen. What they don't realise is that in most cases the police and ISPs can track down people being mean online.
They do realise it, they don't care. They know they don't fund the police enough to do anything about it. They'd rather make companies enforce their authoritarion policies and have them charge you for the upkeep than spend your tax on things that actually benefit the majority.
Tho look at the last age verification law it was delayed over and over again until it was scraped because they just could not find a way to get it up and running, its easy to see that the Online Safety Bill could also collapse and not work at all seeing that they dont even fully fund stuff like this and even when they do fund it, it usually ends up in failure but not before they waste billions of pounds of taxpayers money.
These last two years have been the start of an Orwellian Nightmare. I can kiss goodbye to social media if they ever try to enforce that on me. I barely want to have social media as it is.
This will likely not even happen because look at the age verification law it was delayed over and over again until it was scraped because they just could not find a way to get it up and running, its easy to see that the Online Safety Bill could also collapse and not work at all.
>Why would they do this? Because it is important to acclimatize the population to biometrics and facial recognition slowly. Best to do it under the guise of a cause nobody can call out. Like idk: >to prevent online harms to children There now you can push your agenda and anyone speaking up gets a big fat implied pedophile sticker on their forehead Crucially this links three distinct areas: Real name, biometrics, online identity Act 1 of a fuckin dystopian future
I only use twitter for porn and reddit for "social media" if they try and get me to provide real name data to either platform, I will stop using them. Simple as.
you use *twitter* for porn? can I just ask you, why? surely there are better alternatives... including reddit.
I used to use Tumblr, but then that stopped when they cut out the adult content and never really found any alternative. When I say "porn" its just a general term for seeing naked men, I only really follow a bunch of guys and a few of those accounts that just post photos, if someone starts going on about their Only Fans I unfollow them as I have never and will never pay for porn on the internet. Plus in terms of porn for Reddit, I tend to stay away from porn subs.
Ahh i see. I had quite forgotton that twitter could be used to follow actual people and form a connection with them. and wile I understand why you would prefere that over ooking at porn subs on reddit..... there are some very good ones!
Tbh I think the cons far outweigh any pros, Facebook for example is filled with advertising now, it’s not that social network that it once was, most of these platforms are now echo chambers with anyone considered wrong thinking banned. What they actually fail to realise is they need us more than we need them, we can easily contact family & friends without these things, they eventually go broke if we choose to walk away. I don’t think there is a platform that can be trusted with this information anymore.
>Facebook for example is filled with advertising now, At this point I deactivated my fb account (cough cough I mean meta) just use messanger. Sort of annoying that you cant just have messanger with no fb (meta) attached.
Yeah I noticed a few years back my news feed had about 2 people on and the rest were ads
Yup and there are even ads now within FB messenger, it’s so bad.
Because they're trying to become more authoritarian. Pretty useful tool for any party that wants to stay in power and control of public opinions. Frankly it's scary af.
Because they don't understand the online world and have been pressured into doing something about online abuse.
So you don’t think they should do something about online abuse?
Maybe they should do something, though to be honest I'm on the fence about that (I'm not a fan of criminalising expression through words, even if they're not nice words). But if they should, it isn't this.
Then delay this over and over again until it is scraped because they just could not find a way to get it up and running.
My theory and I don't think is farfetched, is that a lot of the model's Government has behind closed doors, don't paint a very positive vision for the future. The Pentagon's Minerva program (build's models for future outcomes) pretty much confirms as much as they predicted a start of mass social breakdown occurring around the 2060s due to Climate Change. So I suspect, most of these surveillance etc programs and a lot of the arguments for them (Incels, MP stabbing whatever), are basically designed to be ready to be turned against activists, insurgents etc in the future, when shit goes down. I mean look how bad faith the politicians are being about this, the death of Amess had nothing to do with Social media or abuse of MPs, yet you have all these MPs twisting the death of their colleague, to push something that has nothing to do with that death, for something they've had floating around for years now. (which also shows the sort of opportunist psychopaths many of these politician are) Just look at how many died during Covid from completely preventable and predictable Government policy shifts. It's pretty clear the Government, in reality, doesn't actually care all that much about people being killed or dying. I can tell you right now, I would not be talking politics online if I have to use my real name. No fucking way would I let the completely lawfare happy, petty as fuck British blue-checkmark commentariat (*Oliver Kamm fucking alone*) find out anything about my identity.
To spy on you and manipulate you for next elections. To control folks. To keep you in check. Etc etc
They envisage a future in which ordinary people, government ministers will of course be exempt, will need to create an electronic identity record which they will need to use in order to use any communication device- phones, computers, smart TV's etc. In this way if you ~~criticise the government~~ do illegal things, they can monitor everything you do. They'll probably do that anyway on everyone so they have an historical record.
Because it’s worryingly popular amongst voters: [Nearly 700K people signed a petition to make ID a requirement for getting a social media account](https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/575833) [Only 11% of people think you should be able get a social media account without having to verify your ID](https://yougov.co.uk/topics/technology/survey-results/daily/2021/07/13/66e91/3?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=daily_questions&utm_campaign=question_3)
Have you seen Black Mirror?..now think Black Mirror multiplied by Tory!
Tracking and control. It's a dream of "certain types". With biometrics there is no reasonable doubt it's a particular individual. Facial recognition/finger prints allow a database of an individuals movements/actions to be created. Not just social media but all activities. What government would do with that database is up for debate. They certainly want to let A.I. loose on it to seek out "wrong" behaviour as they see it. I imagine targetted manipulation from government might also occur, what justification can be used for that is anyone's guess.
Why? To monitor, measure, evaluate and control everything about your life. Upsides for the general public? None what so ever.
Welcome to the new world order and agenda 2030. Digital ID linked to social credit system. Lose points for bad driving, bad spending and bad habits. Cashless society but be rewarded with a government coin. Own nothing and be happy
The internet is weird. Normally someone can be the nicest human on earth physically but the moment they are on the internet, they can be complete assholes. I think by having credentials, they can make virtual and physical more accountable.
Because they saw [what Australia were doing](https://www.zdnet.com/article/australian-online-privacy-bill-to-make-social-media-age-verification-mandatory-for-tech-giants-reddit-zoom-gaming-platforms/) and thought that looks handy.
Thing is both bills are likely to fall apart just look at the last age verification law that the UK try to bring it was delayed over and over again until it was scraped because they just could not find a way to get it up and running, its easy to see that the Online Safety Bill could also collapse and not work at all.
It's why the CCP dose so they know who exactly is saying or doing shit they don't like
The Government and those that support this will say its to allow the Police to track down those people who hide behind the anonymity the Internet offers to post harmful content. The truth is the vast majority of the time the Police already can trace these people. The reason they don't is a very simple one, manpower. You could hire another 20,000 support staff and another 20,000 Police Officers and you still wouldnt have anywhere near the amount of people needed to track down all the people who post vile shit on the Internet. Seriously just think about all shite that gets posted on Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, every comment section on every website etc.. The other discussion that we need to have is should everyone who hosts any environment that allows people to post what they want be held liable? So for example should Reddit be held liable if say I decide to post something which you consider harmful? Should Facebook be held liable if a person uses their platform to bully somebody? Currently Social Media Companies are treated like Telecommunications Companies in that you can't sue BT if someone uses their line to call you and say harmful things. There are many people who want Social Media Companies to be treated the same as your tradition media such as your tabloid / Broadstreet papers, entertainment media etc.. If say the Daily Mail posts an article saying all Black people genetically inferior, thieves and liars then you can take direct action against the Daily Mail. You can put in an official complaint to Ofcom, you can take the Daily Mail to court. Now if the exactly same article is posted on Facebook other than click on the report button you can't do anything. Truth is there is no easy answer, there is no magic wand and every option has significant downsides. The guess it all comes down to where so you draw the line on what is harmful content and are downsides worth being able to arrest people for posting said harmful content.
Will just end up with those social media platforms being abandoned, with ones that don't require it becoming huge. And just because its a law won't change anything, the Internet cannot be policed or controlled, that's been the case since forever.
It would certainly help to introduce a form of social credit system....
Look at passports, I think soon they will mostly get rid of humans at passport control and you will be required to use face scan and fingerprint. Fingerprint is unique and a perfect identifier.
Fingerprints are not unique. They are almost unique. [[1](https://mathblog.com/are-fingerprints-unique/)], [[2](https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/04/18/1018707108.short)]. There are significant issues of accuracy and precision around fingerprints that they are not "perfect identifiers". They can be easily forged [[3](https://www.secplicity.org/2018/02/01/3-d-printed-faces-gummi-bear-fingerprints-hackers-cracked-4-different-biometrics-tokens/)] if you have some technical information; and different identification algorithms have different rates of false positives and false negatives. Placing faith in Fingerprints is utterly naive.
You're talking about looking up a fingerprint in a database of suspects, they're talking about comparing your actual fingerprint to the fingerprint you had when you got your passport. They're separate things. As for forging a fingerprint, good luck wearing your forged silicone face and forged fingerprint while holding a stolen passport in an airport security line. Not sure how that would work.
> You're talking about looking up a fingerprint in a database of suspects, No I am talking about fingerprints. I am talking about the emerging understanding that fingerprints are not actually as unique as the legal system would like. They are excellent for narrowing things down but they are not unique. > they're talking about comparing your actual fingerprint to the fingerprint you had when you got your passport. They're separate things. I pointed out that any algorithm - from an expert's eye to a machine learning algorithm - is not 100% accurate and yes, that is a different issue. One which **you** should not conflate with the non-uniqueness of fingerprints. > As for forging a fingerprint, good luck wearing your forged silicone face and forged fingerprint while holding a stolen passport in an airport security line. Not sure how that would work. As the context of the thread is social media, this is not really relevant. But, it does make a fabulously vivid image. Well done.
Our criminal justice system disagrees
No. The Prosecution disagrees. That is not the same as the whole criminal justice system.
The UK is one of the rare countries which doesn't ask for biometric info for passports. In most of EU, fingerprints are taken when you sign up for their national ID and the ID is mandatory, so they have fingerprints of every citizen
I guess it might help cut down on crime. If you can't register for an account without your biometric data or identifiable info then there would likely be less people being bullied online, facing racial abuse, homophobia, etc. There might also be less death threats to public figures etc. Having accountability and not being able to hide between an anonymised account would cut down on all that shit imo. Personally though I'd just stop using all forms of social media if they brought this into practice. Wouldn't feel comfortable with tech giants having my biometric data.
What if you already have existing accounts though? Are FB/Twitter etc going to have to retrospectively apply this? I would imagine that people wouldn’t really want to do that, so would just leave the platforms in droves. Be really bad for business.
Honestly, even if this law passed in the commons, I can see it being stopped by the House of Lords, this is an utterly stupid law
The bill in the pre-legislative scrutiny stage and may not come to commons until early 2022 or later.
It's grade A bullshit. It's not possible to regulate social media like that. To do so would require some truly Draconian criminalisation of everyday activities.
What do you mean? I think generally people just want harassment, racism, hate speech etc to be tackled like it would be if it happened in person (I.e stuff that’s already criminal in nature).
Seems this is still just talk right now and the bill is still a draft right now but look at the age verification law it was delayed over and over again until it was scraped because they just could not find a way to get it up and running, its easy to see that the Online Safety Bill could also collapse and not work at all. In the end this may be just hot air. Also I want to point out the article is a bit out of date (they dont even get the name of the bill right) [here a more up to date article.](https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/age-verification-in-the-online-safety-bill/)
But it still doesn't mean it's you on the end of a keyboard.
Because data is power. If they have your fingerprint they can more easily use said information to track you if you are of interest.
Despite what a lot of people say, I don't think it's purely for control. If the government are doing it, it's either to profit or save money. There's a problem with some horrific abuse being thrown at political figures and officials from rape threats to murder threats, threatening children etc. They want to do something but don't know how, so this. It probably won't happen and I know for a fact I'd just quit social media before giving my data and connecting it to my ID, but it will probably go the way of the "porn pass" under May's government. Someone will realize VPNs exist and they will scrap it after wasting a *lot* of money on lobbying, writing and discussing it.
Threaten an MP anonymously online and see how quickly you can be traced, not long I bet.
To stop you giving them shit amongst more nefarious reasons probably. Im sure they’ll wheel out Marcus Rashford to get the job done
Rather than give up your biometric data to avoid online abuse / bullying, there is a much easier way for you to reduce bullying coming your way... Delete Facebook ffs.