How come tax loopholes aren't as scrutinized?
Mandatory age verification online is a blight imho. It should be outlawed.
Mandatory age verification online is a blight imho. It should be outlawed.
Parents should learn how to be parents; the government shouldn't force companies to do parenting instead.
Social media companies (e.g. Meta, Snap) are the first that should provide that but they don't.
(Not to mention all the other consent age laws.)
That said, VPN is a national security issue, children are only a pretext.
They’d just get an older sibling, or stranger to buy it. Or they’d have a fake ID. Or they’d just steal it from a family member.
But you know which kids did this the least? It was the ones where their parents / guardians took their responsibilities as a guardian properly.
Doesn't mean that it's equivalent to giving them free access to those consumables.
> But you know which kids did this the least?
Source?
Why do people on HN always need to look at things as a Boolean state? It’s entirely reasonable to have some preventative measures but acknowledging that there are ways to circumvent them and accept that as a reasonable conclusion.
Things don’t need to be “all or nothing” ;)
> Source?
I grew up pre-WWW. Literally lived and breathed the points I’m making.
But don’t just take my word on this. Ask anyone of a certain age and they’ll tell you the same: they either tried cigarettes or knew lots of kids in school who smoked under the age of 16. They had access to alcohol under the age of 18. And pornographic content was easy to get hold of under the age of 18.
The age at which they gained access and the frequency of the usage depended greatly on their upbringing.
I totally agree. That can be used as an argument in favour of age verification, though.
Parents cannot be responsible for what other children can do.
If all the children use social media, good luck preventing your kid from participating. "It's okay, just be completely disconnected from everything they share between each other, it's not important to socialise, you can make friends when you are old".
The problem with social media is that it's not okay for one kid to be disconnected. What we want as a society is to prevent them all, so that they are all in the same situation.
Our kids have access to social media, but we also know what they have access to because we check their phones periodically.
This is a far better approach than an “all or nothing” approach because we are giving the kids the freedom to learn how to use these tools maturely. But without removing any safety nets for if/when our kids (or any other kids in their social circles) fail to use such tools responsibly.
That’s called “parenting”.
Censoring access to tools, either via government regulations or over zealous parenting, doesn’t teach children anything. Whereas allowing kids to learn to use the tools but being around to support and help them grow when mistakes are made, is precisely what responsible parents should be doing.
And that’s the same approach you should take with learning anything as a child. You give them guidance and allow them to make mistakes but be there to support them. Kids don’t learn to ride a bike from telling them “bikes are dangerous” then suddenly when they’re 16 handing them a bike and telling them to ride it to colleague. So why are you treating social media like that?
I am not, so either you don't understand my opinion, or you manipulate it because it's convenient.
I am not, AT ALL, saying that we should make bikes illegal to kids. But some things make sense to me: we should not sell cigarettes or alcohol to kids. "Go ahead my son, you're 13, you should make your own mistakes: try smoking for a month like your friends, and then I'll explain to you why it is a bad idea" is not how I apprehend "parenting".
I am actually saying that it is nuanced, and that it is difficult to know where to put the limit. Should cocaine be allowed to kids? Cannabis? Cigarettes? Social media? Bikes? Chocolate?
> So why are you treating social media like that?
Maybe you think that social media are like bikes, and that's your right. I think they are closer to drugs. Maybe you think everything should be legal (drugs, killing, ...) and that "parenting" is the solution to all, I don't.
Like cigarettes, the message is "you should never do it, but when you'll get older it will be your choice to do that stupid shit". That is obviously not how I treat bikes.
Nobody says "we ban it for children and then expect them to use it responsibly". Just like for cigarettes. It's never responsible to smoke, it's just that we as a society choose to let adults stink and ruin their health if they want to. But for kids, we a society believe that they are vulnerable and may smoke without realising how stupid and unhealthy it is, so we want to protect them until they reach an age where it becomes harder to justify preventing people from taking those stupid decisions.
For social media it's exactly the same: the goal is to protect the children while they are vulnerable, until they reach an age where it becomes harder to justify. Not that many (most?) adults are wasting a big part of their life swiping utterly stupid stuff on their smartphone, but banning social media for adults is a completely different discussion.
The thing is, if a kid is the only one in their class to not have a smartphone or to not have access to social media, they are in an uncomfortable situation and that puts pressure on the parents to give them access to those, so that they can conform. A big part of being a kid is to conform: being an outlier is a risk. One reason for age verification is to prevent enough kids to access social media, such that "the norm" is suddenly not to have access to social media anymore.
You can disagree with that, but at least you could acknowledge the argument instead of going around it and talking like if there was absolutely no way a sane person could imagine that banning social media for kids could ever be constructive.
:/
What "national security" implications are there with VPNs?
Clearly, Big Government can't see what you or your company are doing and that's a problem for them.
"Foreign agents" communicating in an untraceable way.
All internet communication is wiretapped by default unless you use a VPN to a rival jurisdiction. (Where it's also wiretapped, but presumably the interplay of state actor interests comes up in the "foreign agent"'s favor.)
No.
Regulate the poison first, not the access to it. All this age verification nonsense is an admission that some platforms knowingly harm their users. And instead of fixing the issue by cracking down on the proverbial crack, governments make everybody's life worse.
I remain hopeful that one day, humans will regard the online advertising companies with the same scorn we do the tobacco industry and may they be ashamed and disgusted at our inaction.
https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/ireland/corporate/tax-credits-a...
In case anyone wonders: this means the FANG companies don't pay tax in Ireland if they hire enough people in Ireland, which has famously high income tax. It is, in other words, effectively a massive tax increase on the employees while actually reducing total tax income in the EU compared to the "double dutch sandwich".
Note that Ireland signed at least 2 international treaties that they weren't going to do this (OECD minimum tax treaty, EU tax treaty). Of course, there are no consequences to this.
The response to is that EU is exploring company-tax-per-transaction which is so incredibly bad in the massive administrative burden it will generate. It's not final, but it will mean that for every transaction done companies will have to keep (PER transaction) pieces (plural) of evidence for what country they happened in. Every single transaction.
https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/projects-and-acti...
> How come tax loopholes aren't as scrutinized?
And with mobile capital, like multinationals, they can.
Ireland violated international treaties, multiple, to do this. Oh and they call it a huge success (despite that this will obviously suddenly crash and burn when other countries either block it or give better deals).
Oh and it cements the power of American multinationals over local EU companies, when the Irish government publicly and loudly claims they intend the opposite, and for reasons I don't understand, people seem to actually believe them.
When I was a kid, child programming and commercials were heavily scrutinized. Now any kid can access porn, violence, and scams on the internet. That's a blight. Not age verification.
Before Internet they used paper.
That does not, of course, mean that age verification laws are the appropriate solution. You could even argue that it's not a problem that kids have access to all this stuff (though I don't think I would agree with that). But you can't just hand wave it away by saying "we looked at porn on paper when we were kids". The situations are not at all the same.
It was still the job of the parents to set the bed times etc, but at least this was something the parents could actually control.
And for pay-per-view stations with actual heavily violent or pornographic content: Yes, they were absolutely age-gated, usually via a PIN.
Im contrast, the internet is default-permit: Everyone can access everything, unless the device is specifically set up to block it. Setting up such a block has the risk of causing massive drama with your kids, and they fill probably quickly find ways to circumvent it anyway.
This is why I find the "it's the parent's responsibility" calls so hypocritical: The whole idea behind the internet is to make it as hard as possible to block things. But suddenly we expect the parents to do exactly that? How?
(All that independent of the point that the current push for age verification really seems like a disguised push for control. But that doesn't mean there isn't a real problem. Both things can be true at the same time)
Maybe porn and violence is making today's teenager behave better than those 30 years ago after all!