It isn't, but you can't get blood from a stone and squeezing costs money.
It sounds like the entity that the contract is with has no real assets and/or is based in a jurisdiction which is hard to enforce judgements in. That's a case where you need to get paid up-front, which is the real lesson in this article.
Seems like even under young voters more people support it than being against it; 30% of people aged 18-23 are strongly in favor, 57% of people in that age group supports it.
I wonder why? Maybe these types of surveys don’t consider the implementation / what you need to give up in order to have age verification?
Because the internet, for all it's good, has caused society and individuals some pretty serious problems. I don't like the idea of mandatory age verification, but having unrestricted internet access as a kid was objectively bad for me and many of the people I know.
> That is your parent’s fault that it was bad for you. So don’t punish me or anyone else because you never learned control.
I think you're suffering from a lack of empathy. That doesn't mean OS age verification should be implemented or not, but that you're going to be insufferable and pretty ignorant about what's going on.
IMHO, the popularity of age-verification is due to the increasing awareness of the harms of much online activity, plus the impracticality of putting the whole burden of mitigating that for children onto the shoulders of parents. If you flippantly and contemptuously ignore those concerns, people will be happy to ignore your concerns.
And since you brought it up: honestly, I wouldn't feel bad "punishing" you with this policy, just because of the attitude displayed in your comment. It's needlessly aggressive and making contemptuous assumptions. Your comment actually shoots your position in the foot.
I am honestly making plans to ensure software will continue running without age checks. If that means committing myself to building clones, forking and stripping age drm, and providing services and tools to keep free of this hyperbolic over reach then I will be doing the world a favor. I am increasingly in belief that more of the world will be split into the cattle camp and the cattle with agency camp. You are welcome to live in the tracked, tagged, bagged world with ads. I am not interested in your “this will be good for society” bs.
I wont feel bad helping the big corpos keep you locked in and oppressed and help free others. Enjoy your “safety” and “security” built from hate and FUD.
I don’t have to be empathetic to you or your “well I have an argument to help make the world worse” ideas and beliefs just because you can argue for it and ignore opposing beliefs and criticisms.
I don't think surveys like this are a meaningful indicator of societal attitudes.
"age verification" is not unlike "DEI" in that everyone will have different schemas about what it is and how it will be assumed to be implemented. We're not learning anything about the public unless we try to pose the question more directly.
Perhaps the voting population should first be made acutely aware of the extent of surveillance they are under, and how much age verification would expand that surveillance, and then be asked again.
They'll claim they already "know", but watch their opinion change after they get paper mail with a list of recently visited websites, or their words written on public or unencrypted chats, or their movement history thanks to phone spyware.
That's likely, but only if it's possible to materially articulate some specific negative ways in which age verification data is actually being used.
You and I can strongly suspect that there's a significant downside to these providers having so much sensitive personal data but, until that is proven, the voting population will only see the upside.
The death of online anonymity isn't negative and specific enough?
People understand this intuitively - hire someone to obviously follow them everywhere, record everything they do (or only as much as current surveillance records), and they'll want to put a quick stop to it. Do the same thing, but out of sight, out of mind, and their correctly evolved instincts fail to carry over.
I think you would need a lot more context to say if 0.019% is too high. If this platform is driving real operational improvements and is the core software backbone, then it doesn't seem particularly unreasonable.
Speaking as a UK citizen: you're exactly right. If the UK wants to prevent 4chan from being imported into the UK then it needs to block it at the border as it would for physical goods.
The fact that's technically hard to do (at least without going full-on CCP) doesn't change the situation. Attempting to fine a foreign entity for doing something that breaks no laws in the foreign entity's jurisdiction is just risible.
Oddly that's Zuck doing that. And weirdly, the law would only apply to app stores. I think that's a separate movement from what the UK is doing though. That US law is designed to hamstring Meta's competition not restrict political speech but it can be abused the same way I think.
There is no "US law" there are 45+ pending or passed pieces of state legislation, along with the federal Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) that's yet to be passed.
The PACs that push the one specific law you're talking about also push laws in other states, and federally, that are very, very different and draconian.
If only it were isolated to the UK. I know a website that does not hold content itself but rather links to other sites. Basically exactly what google does.
And yet, me sitting in Germany suddenly saw a nice banned notice when trying to access the site claiming this is because of "a high court verdict yadayadaya".
Why on earth do I now find ways around a UK court order to unblock a website when I am nowhere near their country? They should at least try and keep things within their jurisdiction.
It's very much a rock-and-a-hard-place situation. "It's an import", so they have to respond to it like they'd respond to imports...
But unlike physical imports, there's a sense that blocking these imports is an affront to base philosophical freedom in a way that prohibiting physical imports isn't.
> there's a sense that blocking these imports is an affront to base philosophical freedom in a way that prohibiting physical imports isn't.
It would serve UK legislators well to explore that tingling sense some more before they consider any further efforts in this direction, but that's just my two pence.
Right, but it shows their mindset. They're not letting China comparisons stop them from doing anything. It's not about the technology. In their mind, it's about the purpose and the legitimacy of any censorship.
For anyone else wondering why the article ends in a non-sequitur: it looks like the author wrote about decompiling the Claude Code binaries and (presumably) discovering A/B testing paths in the code.
Presumably the idea is that you put the relevant parts of the list in your thesis. You need to convince your examiner that you understand the background to the original research you did, and a solid reference list (with supporting text in the introductory/background section of your thesis) is part of doing that.
Personally I did the references at the end and didn't feel like I suffered from that decision, but the key references in my particular area were a relatively small and well-known set.
Hmm, yeah. I mean you often see huge reference lists which always just makes me feel like the person can't possible be actually well acquainted with the stuff that's being referenced. So who are you really fooling? Seems all very performative, though I guess I understand the motivation
What are the factors influencing the US Navy's position here? Not enough small/cheap ships for this work? Too hard to defend against guerilla speedboat attacks?
No minetrawlers, the four US had were scheduled to be scrapped earlier this year. So if there's even a single mine you're playing russian roulette with hundreds of people on board
Probably heaps of various anti ship missiles that have been squirreled away with ranges reaching from few nautical miles to few hundred, just for this exact scenario, please keep in mind that you only need one missile to get through to cause dozens if not hundreds of fatalities.
Unmanned naval drones of various kind, not exactly ultra-high tech in this day and age.
And then there's the guerrilla speedboat attacks which means more missiles
Did I mention that one ship has possibly hundreds of people on board? The political system of the US probably cannot tolerate a military mass casualty event of that scale and spectacle. It's therefore just too risky to get anywhere nearby with a ship so all US navy can do is just lob missiles from as far away as possible, while hoping that this whole mess ends before US runs out of standoff weapons. And between Ukraine, Yemen and now this, the armament stocks aren't probably looking too good considering the meager production numbers.
This isn't a military decision but more a public opinion one. Should an American ship take a hit, have casualties, become disabled, etc it would put immense pressure on the administration to settle/end the war, even though on a military objective level it makes a lot of sense. This is a reality of the instant informational world we live in.
Like a lot of things, little about this war is purely bad or purely good.
If the Iranian regime were over thrown, that would be good for basically the whole world except the people actually operating the regime. So, if the war ends without that happening, then that's at least partly a bad thing mixed in with the good of, y'know, not having a war anymore.
Imagine the optics of a single destroyer/cruiser being on fire. It would shatter the myth of American naval power (some are arguing that this war already did that, which I tend to agree with).
Its like the issue with the Vietnam war. You need 100% perfect security, or its not worth it. If you are only 98% successful, you arent going to have oil tankers or any cargo ships even attempting it. A single failure every 2 months was a massive waste of resources.
While Iran still has fire control, these ships can be hit by shore-launched anti-shipping missiles, one way drones of even old fashioned shelling. Their "navy" was never even a factor.
Too risky, and doesn't make sense from a cost-benefit perspective. Iran uses cheap and disposable weapons that are also effective. If you think about how much a single US ship costs, and the political price of US service members dying, I think the picture becomes clear.
The decision of the US Navy to not provide escort services makes perfect sense and it is no surprise.
The only thing that is newsworthy about it is that this has exposed yet another lie of Trump, who at some point has promised that the traffic will not be affected, because USA will provide such escort services.
Protecting the economic interests of the US and allies by defending commercial shipping is well within the remit of the US Navy. This is a risk management decision with a side of optics, not one of scope.
> Shaming individuals doesn't seem to be productive or helpful.
I don't see how much support from history for that viewpoint. Some examples of positive societal change driven in part by shaming individuals: drink-driving, civil rights, sexual harassment, automobile safety, the slave trade, McCarthyism.
All those cases also have huge penalties or effective costs associated with them. Is there an accurate "shame first, then penalties came later" stand point?
Automobile safety in my life has only changed after fines.
Sexual harrassment still happens and doesn't seem to be helped by shaming someone as much as firing them. Though we often don't have the guts or legal backing to publically shame someone.
Eh, other people throw litter on the floor and rob elderly folks in their homes. Those people hardly ever get caught, but neither you nor I are are going to start copying their actions.
It isn't, but you can't get blood from a stone and squeezing costs money.
It sounds like the entity that the contract is with has no real assets and/or is based in a jurisdiction which is hard to enforce judgements in. That's a case where you need to get paid up-front, which is the real lesson in this article.
reply