Hacker News Reader

Comment by klodolph | Hacker News Reader

How is this different from, for example, requiring age verification to purchase alcohol? Or are you also opposed to that?

I think we understand that parents are not in complete control over their children, and in the interest of harm reduction, we don't give parents the entire burden of keeping their children safe but spread parts of it out among the community. This doesn't seem like a particularly burdensome request, here. Some parents are terrible parents, some kids are complete terrors, sometimes there are circumstances outside your control. Parents are not gods.

View on HN

Did you read the article?

It clearly states that tinder and grinder already monitor for minors. They state that they spend, and I'm guessing this wouldn't be an exaggeration given their volume, millions of dollars on this effort.

What lawmakers want is ID required.

This is an extremely burdensome requirement. To have every new user of any online platform have to verify photo ID against a webcam is... very onerous. And even then whats to stop a kid from using his parents confirmed account?

Alcohol is a transaction for a substance that is deadly and purchased in public. Comparing it to creating an online profile in the privacy of your home is a big stretch. It would be more like creating an account with... I don't know, maybe buying a can of figs off amazon.

Can a child buy a can of figs without ID? Not easily, but he could. Could he hurt himself with it? Yes. Should we require ID for this: I'd say not.

The article seems to not mention any of the age verification things the kids forged and their parents computer. But don't worry, if it was convenient for the powers that be, they would have framed this as: "Evil kids get into banking system by HACKING."

Funny how I'm sure they won't be asking Amazon to verify ID everytime a purchase is made. I mean, plenty of kids have ordered down right dangerous things this way, probably even caused a death.

The worst part of the authoritarian inclined who use the 'what about the children?' argument is that many times they ironically make it less safe for children since the solutions aren't particularly well thought through (see drinking age in the US) - all while making it worse for the rest of us.

The thing about the outrage crowd is they point to a problem with while implicitly saying 'anyone who doesn't support 'the solution' is in favor of the problem'. I'm not in favor of the problem. I'm in favor of fixing the problem IF it can be fixed in a cost effective way. Many people can't accept that there aren't widespread easy and simple solutions to giant complex social problems. Accepting that this behavior is an emergent quality from our individual actions and pruning one's own actions is very hard. Most people shy from this and look for externalizations.

> Did you read the article?

That's an inappropriate response. Don't respond that way in the future.

> What lawmakers want is ID required.

Yes, like for alcohol.

> This is an extremely burdensome requirement. To have every new user of any online platform have to verify photo ID against a webcam is... very onerous.

New regulations are regularly called "extremely burdensome". I would say that alcohol regulations are extremely burdensome in most parts of the country where I live (USA). This is why I used alcohol as a comparison point. The government regulates how many alcohol licenses are given, sometimes operates liquor stores themselves, conducts enforcement operations including "sting" type operations with underage informers. The hours and days when alcohol can be sold are regulated and in most places, minors are not allowed to serve alcohol or work the register for alcohol sales. In some states, most types of alcohol can only legally be sold in state-licensed liquor stores. In NY, for example, each liquor store must be owned and operated by an individual living within a certain physical radius of the store's location.

The question here is about weighing the burden against harm reduction.

> And even then whats to stop a kid from using his parents confirmed account?

Condoms aren't 100% effective. Why should laws be 100% effective?

> The worst part of the authoritarian inclined who use the 'what about the children?' argument is that many times they ironically make it less safe for children since the solutions aren't particularly well thought through (see drinking age in the US) - all while making it worse for the rest of us.

The effects of raising the drinking age in the US have been well-studied, and provide a wealth of data because laws were passed at a state-level and at different times. From a harm-reduction versus cost perspective, I am in favor of the 21 year drinking age in the US. Based on the studies.

> The thing about the outrage crowd is they point to a problem with while implicitly saying 'anyone who doesn't support 'the solution' is in favor of the problem'. I'm not in favor of the problem. I'm in favor of fixing the problem IF it can be fixed in a cost effective way.

I think you might be directing your comment at some kind of nebulous "authoritarian" or "outrage crowd" and I'm not a part of that, so if that's the case, I'd appreciate it if, when you respond to my comment, you respond to the content of the comment itself and not some third party.

You seem to believe that the burden to verify age is too onerous for online dating apps. I think that we should require age verification for dating services across the board, and it should be up to the online apps to compete with offline dating services on equal footing.

If it turns out that the reason why online dating services succeed is only because they don't have to bear the cost of age verification, then I'd be shocked.

Actually, asking if you read the article was me being kind in my assumptions.

Alcohol is responsible 88,000 deaths per year.

You are literally comparing something with 0-10 deaths per year (if that) to almost 100,000 deaths per year. That type of grotesquely disproportionate comparison is part of 'outrage' culture. It's something I dislike and have no trouble calling people out on.

Not a single cost/benefit analysis. No consideration of the cost, just a wave of the hand (they will bear it). No discussion even of what type of age verification should be or any pros and cons.

The fact that tinder has revolutionized sexuality for a generation is... or made dating safer for women... or made dating safer for LGBT in places where it can be dangerous to date as an LGBT... better bury that in bureaucracy.

No care about privacy.

Doesn't matter if over regulation just pushes people to less regulated platforms like online classifieds, maybe hosted in a non-us country.

If you don't seem to consider the consequences of laws, or even the fact that the logic you use is based on grotesquely unbalanced comparisons, I see little possibility for dialectics.

> Actually, asking if you read the article was me being kind in my assumptions.

Your assumption here appears to be that anyone who disagrees with you must be misinformed.

> You are literally comparing something with 0-10 deaths per year (if that) to almost 100,000 deaths per year. That type of grotesquely disproportionate comparison is part of 'outrage' culture. It's something I dislike and have no trouble calling people out on.

Please respond to content, not to your own emotional responses (likes and dislikes). Being offended is not an argument for or against anything.

Harm comes in different forms, and we are going compare harm prevention strategies even though some strategies try to prevent liver disease and death (age verification for alcohol) and others try to harm prevention strategies for child sexual abuse (age verification for dating apps). It is appropriate and normal to compare different things.

> Not a single cost/benefit analysis. No consideration of the cost, just a wave of the hand (they will bear it). No discussion even of what type of age verification should be or any pros and cons.

Yes, I would also like to see a cost/benefit analysis. On this, we agree.

> If you don't seem to consider the consequences of laws, or even the fact that the logic you use is based on grotesquely unbalanced comparisons, I see little possibility for dialectics.

You have come up with a great many explanations for how I am somehow an inferior person, but this is inappropriate behavior and you should in the future respond to content unless someone is acting inappropriately.

Nope, I don't think anyone who disagrees with me didn't read the article.

The thing is, logical people when they read about 3 deaths per year don't propose applying the same social burden as to avoid 100,000.

You ask questions, but don't answer. How about addressing the fact that a comparison of something that costs 88,000 lives to 3/year is grossly out of line? How about you write out exactly what you propose instead of innuendos? Maybe include pros and cons without any hand waving? You know, dealing with those details you seem to support.

Using reason means understanding 3 < 88,000. It's not opinion. That's logic.

I didn't say you were inferior. I said you were emotive and didn't use reason: if you can't handle such a call out, then you might not have a place in a serious discussion. We've all been there; having taken unreasonable stances. Whether you choose to stay there is your choice.

How about addressing privacy concerns for LGBT?

How about you answering questions on margin of error improvement based on the proposed changes? After all, you are the one proposing new things; the burden to prove your new solutions good is on you. Not that you have shown any desire of understanding this burden of proof thing. Asking for changes WHILE requesting others prove your numbers... it shows such a lack of understanding of how dialectics work. Reverse burden of proof isn't opinion, again, that is fact; you are wanting a change that you are asking others to prove/disprove.

Your opinion on inappropriate behavior is, as you used to put my perspective down, just that, your opinion. Last, you telling me what to do is... laughably authoritarian.

> You seem to believe that the burden to verify age is too onerous for online dating apps. I think that we should require age verification for dating services across the board, and it should be up to the online apps to compete with offline dating services on equal footing.

It is a burden for the apps themselves but it's not something they can't overcome. The real issue is end-users wanting some degree of privacy and not wanting to submit their real identity to who knows what's on the other end. For example, a gay dating app, or an app for people into BDSM or whatever the thing might be that they're into, or someone who is already in a relationship but wants to see what's out there - a significant percentage of those people will never submit their ID and won't use the app. Even if it’s just some vanilla dating app, how do you know the operators aren’t just in it to easily skim tons of IDs in some vast identity fraud scheme? I certainly wouldnt submit my ID to such services. It also doesn't solve the original issue, since teens will find a way to get around the ID check - use someone else's account, use photoshop to alter an ID, get a fake ID, etc etc.

> Condoms aren't 100% effective. Why should laws be 100% effective?

Yes, nothing is 100% effective. Yet proponents of these laws try to push things to 100% without stopping to check how we're doing so far. The article says 60 cases of child sex offenses since 2015. So 15 / year, about 1 a month, out of how many hundreds of millions/billions of people using these apps? Also, the article counts 16/17 year olds as children, despite them being above the age of consent in the UK and in many states in the US, so who knows how many of those 60 are actually under 16 and not just 16 or 17. Sounds like we have this issue 99% solved with current enforcement methods. Do we really need to institute onerous burdens on apps and end-users for the sake of that last 1%? We can eliminate automobile accident deaths by instituting a nationwide speed limit of 10 MPH on all roads at all times but we don't do that because of the obvious cost/benefit concerns.

If you're concerned about your child going on these apps, give them a feature phone until they're of age. That's what I'd do.

You are speaking to the outrage crowd. Really hard to reason with them.

They reverse the burden of proof.

If they find an issue, they point it out and imply that there is a solution that people don't want to take.

They don't consider any nuances: magnitude, scale, proportions, cost/benefit, margins of error, the concept of diminishing returns, game theory, etc. Hell, half the time they will comment without even reading an article. They just read title and then pull out a speech based on the topic of the title.

Instead of them having to advocate for their position with pros and cons and facts, they put you on the defensive with innuendo, distorted comparisons and other sophist techniques.

Yea, very frustrating.

As to extremely burdensom... require a minimal one time fee to create the account to pay for a person to confirm their identity. Require an ID upload and a separate picture that matches a CC/Debit card to cover the cost.

If you don't have ID, a matching CC or debit card and $5, then maybe you should have other priorities other than getting onto DATING-APP

Actually, what we need is a single chip system given to you when you are born and charge people for it. If they can't pay, put 'em to work.

The chip will hold all our info.

Then when we want to do something on the internet or IRL, a computer will read our chip and we will use the system.

It will have... no abuse or secondary consequences.

But it will perfectly protect minors from getting on dating sites.

I wonder what other historical characters/political systems would love such a system?

Okay, my suggestion was nowhere NEAR the hyperbolic suggestion you are making.

Require a $5 CC payment and a photo ID where the picture matches their profile ID in order to create the account... The $5 would cover the cost of HUMAN verification.

Not every aspect of every interaction online needs to automate out human interaction.

The other aspect is to actively encourage REPORT for minors on the platform.

Another possibility is to allow 16+yo and wall them off from those over ~21 with a big fat banner on the account that it's a minor.

People like you have existed for a while. They want to tie internet use to verified ID offline.

And that is great; there are clearly good things that will come.

But there are also bad things will come with that.

Ignoring that second part makes your post seem shallow and not very well thought out.

I'm not saying all internet activity should be tied to a real identification... but, just perhaps, dating sites/apps should be.

Well the article mentions instagram. Facebook is a dating site for many. Many people use all kinds of platforms to hook up. Especially when you look internationally.

Exactly what do you define as 'dating site'? Craigslist has a dating section.

Please, you have suggestions, I'll be glad to reconsider my position in favor of reasonable suggestions that are based on a well thought out position.

Also, please let me know about how we are going to deal with leaks.

Like, when X person's sexuality is leaked and he/she is beaten to death for it or maybe for an infidelity (and you know those things get hacked/leaked), who do we apply for remuneration to? How many people do you think that will be? And why do those people not count vs the 15 kids in 5 years?

I'm truly open to solutions. I don't think they could possibly justify the tiny issue (statistically) that would probably not be fully mitigated by the solution anyway, but... I'm open. The burden is on you, who wishes to make changes, to prove that the change that you wish is preferable than the situation we have.

The real point I was trying to make, is often people say that verifying people is unreasonable because of costs... My counter to that is there's nothing stopping an organization for absorbing or distributing those costs at the point of entry. I'm not advocating some disclosure zone or requiring all internet activity to be doxable by anyone else online.

There are applications expressly for dating (tinder, bumble, pof, etc...), some also mentioned in the article. It's not an unreasonable expectation for such an app to be connected to an actual, verifiable person.

Aside: It also wouldn't be unreasonable to simply allow minors on a given platform, and give a visible indicator of minor (or under 21 for that matter) status. Other walls may also be appropriate.

As for leaks, abuse or other reactions to peoples behavior, there are already laws and courts for that. It's impractical to solve for every problem. All solutions have gaps, that's no reason not to try. It's up to individuals to reasonably protect their own identity when communicating semi-anonymously. And frankly, I'm not a fan of a lot of the association of real names to online accounts in a number of social platforms in general. My main counterpoint was that cost is NOT a real counter-argument to having a more thorough onboarding as it could be part of signing up for such platforms.

> It also wouldn't be unreasonable to simply allow minors on a given platform, and give a visible indicator of minor (or under 21 for that matter) status.

LOL if you think that fly's in today's legal landscape. I'm sure every VC will be happy to host a place where underage kids can hook up for underage sex. lol

But your post is filled with vague notions of what other people should do and no real word things like cost, except for measuring it as 'not unreasonable'... based off your own ideas. With no cost benefit.

Whatever down sides that has apparently can be brushed aside because "there are already laws and courts for that" - Can you please tell me more about that? Like, there are people who are terrified their sexuality is revealed and they might be killed for it. So when it does, exactly how do those courts work? Or do you mean to punish people once the leak has happens and the person is killed. If so, can you please make an estimate of how much damage your system will create vs the 15 cases reported in the news article?

Also, like for someone who was being unfaithful, when her abusive husband finds out and kills her, exactly how did the courts prevent that info from getting leaked? Like all the leaks that happen?

You also seem to suggest this should not happen on say, instagram or facebook, only tinder and grinder. But the article specifically states instagram (unless you didn't read it). So, should instagram be free of this requirement? And if so, what answer do you have for people on your band (who want ID) but who want ALSO it for instagram also. I'm sure they use the 'not unreasonable' argument too. After all, putting in all this stuff to save 7/15 kids over the last 5 years... well, is the cost/benefit change?

I'm truly interested in well thought out solutions. Yours, while having good intentions, seems to fail that test.

The difference is you can install a dating app and create a profile without providing a picture or providing a fake picture. This is what I did when I was 15 and just wanted to meet other gay people my age at a time when I was closeted and knew none. To the site operators, the profile looks just like any other. Unless they are actively reading private conversations between users, there is no way to tell a user is actually underage unless reported. Even then it may be difficult because oftentimes people don’t use the dating app itself to communicate but immediately take the conversation off the app to Snapchat or text, for example.

So to truly keep minors off adult dating apps you’d have to require everyone to submit photo ID and also somehow check that they haven’t just taken a picture of someone else’s ID and used that and I’m not sure how you’d enforce that.

The same way any highly regulated company does when ID needs to be 100% confirmed

Put on today's news/put up today's newspaper/generate a unique, time sensitive code the person needs to write down and display, have them take a picture while holding up ID and the date proof using a live webcam.

But when authoritarian people want other people to do things, they generally don't think about how much effort it takes, or if it does take effort it is brushed off as if nothing with no concept of cost benefit. It's easy when you just shift the burden of proof by making vague insinuating statements to appeal to the majority of the population which is highly emotive.

You'd better hope their ID/webcam matching software (or employee) isn't racist. Why are there no dark-skinned people on your platform? Oh, turns out they're all held up in ID verification…

Reply on news.ycombinator.com