Life finds a way

[aaron@social.caskey-demaret.se]

@vowe next up, Groucho Goggles 🥸

[amici@fribygda.no]

@vowe Absolute LOL

Sounds like a scene some silly 70s movie

[nini@oldbytes.space]

@driusan @vowe Entirely unprecedented, not like I didn't do it myself or anything.

[nini@oldbytes.space]

@lydiaconwell @vowe Almost like they expect kids to circumvent it instantly requiring ever more draconian verification intrusions into people's ability to roam online anonymously.

[driusan@doomscroller.social]

@nini@oldbytes.space @vowe@social.heise.de Now I'm suddenly really hoping the fact that my kid's school "shadowbanned" MS Teams doesn't result in him trying to find illicit ways to continue to use Teams.

[greenpike@fosstodon.org]

@vowe Amusing headline aside, it's noteworthy that the report's evidence argues that VPNs are *not* being significantly used to circumvent age gates. Hopefully this will reduce some of the pressure to apply the same controls to VPNs.

Data protection and privacy of information are mentioned... but not strongly enough. People don't realise privacy's gone until it's too late, I think.

[wynke@mendeddrum.org]

@vowe What would be funny is if kids would learn 'proper' makeup-to-look-older from tutorials on youtube and tiktok...

[nimbius666@comp.lain.la]

@vowe you wouldn't download a moustache

[harib_murshidi@mastodon.social]

@ticho @vowe

We are living in the 'Age of The Onion' 🧅

[jpaskaruk@growers.social]

@vowe People are looking at this the wrong way.

Everyone understands that we are not banning the kids from socials in any real or effective way.

What we are doing is banning social media from our kids. Here in Manitoba, AI bots too, which is even better news.

Cause the thing is, they already know who is using the social site, they know everything, we've been obligingly helping them to setup the surveillance all along.

This idea that requiring a credit card or some such to use adult-oriented sites is somehow the final step is absurd.

But if they are found to have knowingly allowed kids to use the sites (and again, they absolutely do know who is at the keyboard, even if multiple people are using the same computer) and not kicked the kid off, that needs to make them legally liable, and if a kid ends up damaged in any way by it (ie. they are lured, for instance) the liability should be criminal.

At the moment it's "let the kids go on the internet anywhere because free speech!"

[lukeharby@infosec.exchange]

@vowe I knew it, it was 3 kids in a trenchcoat!

[nini@oldbytes.space]

@driusan @vowe The stuff of nightmares.

[driusan@doomscroller.social]

@nini@oldbytes.space @vowe@social.heise.de Maybe I shouldn't have kept suggesting they use Signal or something.

[ferricoxide@blahaj.zone]

@amici@fribygda.no @vowe@social.heise.de

Internet access kit for children

[ggmcbg@mstdn.plus]

@vowe

Just watched a whole skit in my head of a kid drawing a mustache on to go online, then mistakenly getting caught in a swarm of biznessmen on their way out of a martini bar from lunch, and he ends-up working as a vp with them forever.
Forever.
For. Ever.

[mdb@newsie.social]

@vowe If kids are able to unlock their parents phones with their faces, why wouldn't drawn on mustaches and wrinkles work for "general" age verification?

[h0ffmann@mastodon.social]

@vowe source?