Hacker News Reader

Comment by inigyou | Hacker News Reader

So why are ID checks necessary at venues that serve alcoholic drinks in particular, out of all the venues that exist?

1) venue is in meatspace, 2) age can be eyeballed, 3) they don't routinely hoard data, 4) they don't routinely leak hoarded data, 5) they aren't monopoly with billions of users routinely extorted for PII, 6) they don't routinely leak all that hoarded data, 7) they don't have bots, 8) they aren't connected to PRISM for routine surveillance, 9) they don't routinely leak all the hoarded data, 10) they don't sell hoarded data on black market, 11) they don't sell hoarded data to thousands of business partners, 12) they don't have thousands business partners that routinely hoard, leak and resell data

Maybe that's why metabase was hacked - to conceal sale of data. "It's just a hack, it happens, we fixed the hole, nothing to see here until we find the next buyer".

> 1) venue is in meatspace, 2) age can be eyeballed, 3) they don't routinely hoard data, 4) they don't routinely leak hoarded data, 5) they aren't monopoly with billions of users routinely extorted for PII, 6) they don't routinely leak all that hoarded data, 7) they don't have bots, 8) they aren't connected to PRISM for routine surveillance, 9) they don't routinely leak all the hoarded data, 10) they don't sell hoarded data on black market, 11) they don't sell hoarded data to thousands of business partners, 12) they don't have thousands business partners that routinely hoard, leak and resell data

So your argument is that ID checks are necessary simply because they are possible, and not a privacy invasion?

They are possible, not necessary.

> They are possible, not nevessary.

The question was why they are necessary.

The question was why they exist.

Allow me to quote the question in question:

> So why are ID checks necessary

Why are you gaslighting HN?

That's not a start of the discussion, so it doesn't set the topic, but I'm not against the idea that you tried to derail it.

Because otherwise they can not serve alcohol. This is the law because alcohol is an addictive substance and more addictive if interacted with in younger years as your brain is not fully developed. And "we" as a society deem alcohol consumption problematic as it is associated with risks for other societal participants, like drunk driving accidents and domestic violence. Similarly why you can't enter a casino underage.

The underage crowd can't enter a space that is specifically exists for experiencing the prohibited behavior. Where the internet is a more general space and we are restricting anyone that has not proven to be adult. And what are we restricting them from? Posting/publishing & accessing content, that sounds like age based censorship.

Would someone underage have less rights to receive or publish unpleasant/controversial topics under the First Amendment? I think you need to have a very strong case to undermine those rights and I just don't think "might protect the kids" (which is debatable) is strong enough.

What if the controversial topics were addictive and more addictive if interacted with in younger years as your brain is not fully developed?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com