The idea that one should be forced to verify one's age or identity to use one's own computer absolutely baffles me.

[trainguyrom@techhub.social]

@neil but if we don't verify you're old enough for us to legally harvest every scrap of data we can get away with and sell it to every bidder for advertising and ??? purposes, then we might not be able to legally track every last thing you do on the computer and package it up the data for sale!

[leadore@sunny.garden]

@tired_panda @neil

Except that all activities required to participate in society will require you to use one. Buying and selling (other than bartering items), access to information (other than underground sources), communication (other than face to face), driving a car, taking public transportaion, etc. Everything.

[tak@gush.taks.garden]

@dalias @neil I remember complaining years ago about companies caring whether I had root access to my own phone, and several people independently came at me with "but you're connected to the phone network, you could do 1337 h4xx!!!"

[jerrymassloii@mastodon.uno]

@neil
I believe a distinction is necessary between using a computer as a personal tool and using it as a means of communication or for economic activity, which require adulthood and other forms of accreditation to operate in the market or in society at large

and it may be necessary to assume legal responsibility for economic activities

[kirenida@social.linux.pizza]

@dalias

@RonnyAdsetts @tokyo_0 @ItsePerkele @janeishly @neil

And you don't even have to buy a licence, you can just activate it using a script hosted on a Microsoft-owned service.

[neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk]

@jerrymassloII

> I believe a distinction is necessary between using a computer as a personal tool and using it as a means of communication

I don't!

[lydiaconwell@todon.nl]

@neil That means you're not a fascist.

[neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk]

@lydiaconwell Well thank goodness for that!

[cassandravert@indieweb.social]

When our kids were big enough for their own computers, we had them in the same room as ours. My daughter thought that was such a good idea, she's planning to do that with hers. That supplanted any need for online verification. I realize some kids need more (i was much sneakier than my kids), but that worked for us.

[perpetuum_mobile@mastodon.social]

@neil then I'm some sort if radical too it seems, because I agree with you

[csnetprogrammer@dotnet.social]

@dahukanna @neil I vote the age required to do dishes is always greater than my own.

[tired_panda@mastodon.social]

@leadore @neil the point I'm making is that I would cease every single use of a computer that I can. The point would be exercising every single choice I can to not use computing power any more.

[leadore@sunny.garden]

@tired_panda @neil

Yeah, I agree with that and would try to do the same as much as I could. Just saying that it'll be made as difficult as possible for us since everything will be structured to require it.

Like it's getting to be now with smartphones. Most of the infrastructure around doing things without them has disappeared and now we're expected and (almost) required to have one, which I hate.

[nazokiyoubinbou@urusai.social]

@neil I think what frightens me most is how fast it's happening. The processes of reviewing and dealing with this stuff are glacial, but then you have a few people just pushing it out there with only "Claude" to decide if it's ok or not and suddenly most people who do frequent/automatic updates already have the basis in place for at least some of it right now practically overnight...

It's f-ing my computer and if age-gate crap installs on it I WILL break that age gate crap. I am quite significantly past the age of 18, but I don't care. Software developers have absolutely no right to force this on me — especially since I don't even live in California (though I argue that even if I did lawmakers have no right to force this either and the law is surely illegal.)

[nazokiyoubinbou@urusai.social]

@neil I know this is dangerously close to a "slippery slope" fallacy, but I'll say it anyway: next step is verification (probably online through brokers who will leak data) and then finally full identification. Yes this sounds like a "slippery slope" argument, but it's also quite literally the recent history of every single thing in tech that goes this direction.

And when our operating systems themselves identify us, we're in deep deep trouble.

[colmdonoghue@mastodon.ie]

@neil
It's peculiar that there(afaik) is no move to prevent the purchase of computers by any age of person, but once you buy it you can't use it?

[aral@mastodon.ar.al]

@neil (They don’t see you as owning it. They see themselves as owning you.)

[plock@mas.to]

@jerrymassloII @neil

"using it as a means of communication or for economic activity, which require adulthood..."

We had phone boxes where you could communicate with anyone without proving you are an adult. Long before that, we had (and still have) post boxes, where anyone can post a letter to anyone else without having to identify themselves.

The idea that communication is an activity which suddenly needs identification of all participants just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

[missconstrue@mefi.social]

@mikecox @neil

I mean, we don’t though. There’s a lot of us who keep old cars with no wired abilities running. As much as I would love a more comfortable, plusher car, I absolutely refuse to buy rolling subscription adware on wheels.

[raphv@social.edu.nl]

@hedders @neil I think "agentic AI" is the perfect example of that logic: the very name is all about pretending it acts on your behalf, but it's really a "double agent" that is instructed to betray you.