Comments by "" (@diadetediotedio6918) on "" video.

  1.  @turnert2005  They don't need to have, but it's the PARENTS DUTY to do that, not the government's. Kids had degenerate content available for them ALWAYS, from magazines to even going to a beach with family, and sometimes even walking on a street, and even at propaganda, and even at their own minds, and in schools. Internet was not the cause of this, it was never the main problem, but a complete LACK of parenting and the desacralization of parental education. Everything is good if the government says so, but the parents can say nothing, this shit is destroying the world.
    7
  2.  @wck  Childs are raised by their parents, dot. Other people are part of their community (as they grow), but they don't raise them.
    6
  3.  @sburton84  EU is not unaligned with UK in this, they are also pushing for the same things.
    5
  4. This is literally impossible. But we do have pseudonym identity verification mechanisms that do not leak personal info, they are called cryptographic signatures.
    4
  5. It's not "verifying age for p*rn", it's verifying EVERYTHING you do on the internet.
    3
  6. I'm mad at the big brother for wanting all my personal information and absolute control over my life and my relatives lives.
    3
  7. > It's simple really, don't create/work with harmful content and you won't have a problem. Shill.
    2
  8. Now you are understanding, this is the next step. And it will only get worse.
    2
  9. [[but has not proposed or implemented another solution either]] Have you, in any point of your life, thought that maybe there is NOT a good solution for something, and that maybe just force-pushing it through the government will not solve the problem either?
    2
  10. Oh, what a relief, government sites will have that information instead (ops, they are just as prone, if not MORE, to hackers).
    1
  11. Age verification is not bad in itself, but it's bad in the hands of the government.
    1
  12. > Companies should know how their algorithms work Impossible. There are so many variables in those things that it's humanly not possible to just know this all.
    1
  13. It's still bullcrap mass surveilance tho. Gov will absolutely be able to track your activities with such a thing. And even if it miracurously was not, it's still a completely insane shit needing to identify yourself to use a website.
    1
  14. Libs were sounding this alarm since 1970, and other people were sounding this alarm since ALWAYS. It does not matter, it's always late and it's never too late simultaneously. People are generally dumb, and they accept whatever the government puts to them, it's simple as that.
    1
  15. In no place of the world it matters what you think, democracy is made exactly for that purpose. It matters what "the majority thinks", and the majority is a dumb mass of ignorant people that will comply with anything the government decides either way.
    1
  16. [[Parents can't effectively protect their kids from all the "bad" stuff from the internet. That's just a fact of life.]] They can protect them for the MOST part, and the rest is just unfortunate but also a fact of life, no government will solve this problem entirely as well. Parents duty is to TEACH their children values, they should not need to control their kids entire lifes, they should teach them how to avoid this themselves and why it's BAD. If you can't do it, it's a failure from your side, or at least it's something out of your control, you cannot solve all the world's problems. [[The government can (and will) provide an ID with a secure chip than can be scanned to extract only the information needed. Even better, that info can be a zero-knowledge proof that only says "you are >18 years old".]] The government can (and will) control every single aspect of your ENTIRE life if he want to, he will adopt mass surveillance in the name of peace and will kill all the opposition if it needs to "in the name of democracy". The government WILL NOT do anything to gather LESS information, they will do EVERYTHING to make sure they are the ones getting all the information and companies get less, so you can be that they will make "zero-knowledge proofs, but pero no mucho". [[The platform needs to comply with the law. No way around that.]] Sure as hell, just like companies needed to comply with the law in the 1940 regime, but this does not make it a good thing. [[The developers just have to use the zero-knowledge proof. No 3rd party identity provider is needed.]] "just have" is a very funny way to say that, if you knew the absurd difficulty which is providing a secure ZKP about personal identity without allowing pseudonyms, this will just not happen. [[No one wants that, not even the governments.]] You can bet your ass that they sure as hell want this, for them. [[I can 100% assure you that when the EU will implement age verification next year, they will use a privacy-first system, probably a double-anonymity system with ZKP.]] I can also assure you that when the next dictatorship forms in the EU, it will be even worse hell for the citizens of it than all the previous ones combined, because no one will know until it's too late.
    1
  17.  @CottidaeSEA  You don't need to identify yourself, you just need to make this something that can only be done by the other person accepting it.
    1
  18.  @flyingsnake3737  "Regulation is good for certain things" Regulation can have practically good results, but it's not an "everyone wins" situation, and it's not certain. The amount of regulations that caused harm far succeed the amount of them that had good practical results.
    1