The Age-Gating of History
heatherburns.tech
heatherburns.tech
From what I've read of her blog, my interpretation is that Heather Burns opposes all government-mandated age verification (which most government-mandated age gates would require), but does not necessarily oppose all voluntary (on the part of the website) or socially-enforced age gates.
> not to mind the controls if they are on manufactured gore or porn.
Should we ignore the differing purposes of creating contextually inappropriate info and the differing purposes of sharing it? Is there a logical or moral contradiction in treating potentially inappropriate info created or shared by people for the purpose of pleasing or shocking (without urgency) other people with violent, disgusting, or sexually explicit material differently than we treat potentially inappropriate info shared or recorded (not the same as created) by people for the purpose of informing or shocking (into urgency) other people?
What's more in this case, 9/11 is one of the few events that some US middle schools (with students as young as 10 or 11) and high schools hold an annual moment of silence for. After "hearing" it twice, almost every student will understand that 9/11 is being singled out as a particularly important historical event. At least by the end of middle school age, children should have some room to voluntarily (on the part of the children) learn about the most disturbing aspects of 9/11.
Anyway, TFA is not about any particular act. TFA is about the attitudes that lead toward both privacy-harming government-mandated age gates and toward privacy-harming or education-harming voluntary/informally-pressured age gates.
Analogy: parent seeing that a movie is R rated and not letting their kid see it.
Age verification means that the content origin still has to rate its material for age suitability, and match that to the user. Asking them to do just one out of these two things is easier.
If the website doesn't want to make a filtered version than the metadata can mark the page as R with an additional indication that PG content is present on the page. The parent can manually select the PG content or someone will make parental controls that can automatically select or (like an ad blocker) filter for only the PG content.
I was wrong to say:
> Adults cannot choose to withold both their own age info and the age info of their children. Older children in abusive parental situations cannot both get their own (standard) devices and withold their age info.
I fix both sentences by adding to the end of each one "unless they lie about the age info".
The other parts of my previous comment remain unchanged so far:
> The California Digital Age Assurance Act forces operating systems to collect age info.
[...]
> I oppose such an implementation because a more privacy-respecting implementation is available: the government could mandate that operating systems provide device owners with an option to reveal their age info or their children's age info.
Are the proponents of the California Digital Age Assurance Act satisfied with the law despite the elephant-shaped "they can select any age they want to" loophole? If not, then the spirit of the law does not respect privacy. If yes, I would still oppose the law. I want both the text and spirit of the law to respect privacy, not merely be compatible with privacy. An illustrative example: even if there were a technology or magic that literally prevented law enforcement from searching a house without a warrant, I would still want the legal system to have a law (in the constitution, specifically) recognizing a right to have one's house not be searched by the government without a warrant.