That's true but has anyone studied the good things that have happened from younger people being able to find community or other positive aspects?
Either way the solution again is not age gating, it's real meaningful data privacy laws that if enacted would have a huge effect on many companies today.
How do data privacy laws address the significant number of voters who are being told and believe that social media use is causing issues for children and want something done about it?
This is exactly what I mean: you've rocked up and started talking about something else entirely.
I think you misunderstood me, I'm saying strong (very strong) data privacy laws make age gating unnecessary. This solution has far reaching benefits across all age groups.
Your example is in bad faith as your example assumes that the only thing blocking a child of 5 from porn is age verification of some type. There are lots of blockers today for 5 year olds to get access to porn.
> I also acknowledge that there is a reasonable debate to be had if the disadvantages to adults and businesses from imposing these rules are worth the harms prevented
Nobody on the "we need age verification" side wants a debate. They want to run face first in to dumb legislation giving governments and companies even more power to track every movement and know exactly who you are.
The blockers generally don’t work (I’ve tried). A big part of the problem is that it is in the interest of the providers to subvert them. The main benefit of age verification is changing that responsibility by making it the business of providers to ensure it works, not consumers.
You can make the same argument with alcohol: surely it’s sufficient that parents supervise their children not to drink. But it’s prove to be more effective to distribute that responsibility to the providers as well.
I think the only thing I actually have any concern about is phones and social media use for kids, and I think that has a much easier solution than any sorting of tracking-BS.
there are laws against underage drinking and buying alcohol. some kids still get access to alcohol. the law is mostly successful, with an acceptable amount of failure rate.
Gating is not just for porn, they are talking about using for social media and various other things. You can imagine that many things end up age gated if this becomes legislation, as a preventative measure.
Then your 10% becomes problematic because you are either restricting or granting access based on invalid information. So in your world here we then need ways for people who were incorrectly gated to reach out and be corrected somehow.
You're mixing up false positives and false negatives. Nobody is going to be incorrectly blocked under this system unless they lost their ID, and the fix there is getting a new ID.
Some kids skipping the block sometimes isn't catastrophic, especially because there won't be all this peer pressure to join adult social media when 90% or more are blocked.
You know this? My guess is that companies will be held responsible for anyone accessing there content that is not supposed to. In that light they will feel the need to block any unknowns that come through rather than potentially face issues if someone who is technically banned from accessing gets in.
I'm not sure how you confidently can say that every company is going to allow the people we can't verify have access?
1 assumes that some "private entity" gets to decide what is crucial infrastructure and what is not, what gets the opportunity to be patched and what doesn't.
I'm not ok with that and don't know why anyone would be.
Because it's their property. Now you can try to make an argument that it's stolen IP and that matters in some way, but that's just more likely to ensure no one has access.
Even more so they are getting push back from the government (good job electing idiots) that said models are a security risks.
But until then the company can charge/give access to whoever they want for however much they want except in the cases the law says no.
And if you don't like it raise a trillion dollars and make your own.
> Because it's their property. Now you can try to make an argument that it's stolen IP and that matters in some way, but that's just more likely to ensure no one has access
The knowledge of the world is their property? Or is it the model weights? Or is it the natural resources they are subsuming by buying politicians and political power and leaving residents with high bills (while securing cheap energy costs for themselves). Perhaps it's the equipment they lease causing drastic price spikes in RAM and GPU's for everyday normal people.
> And if you don't like it raise a trillion dollars and make your own.
> Or is it the natural resources they are subsuming by buying politicians and political power and leaving residents with high bills (while securing cheap energy costs for themselves). Perhaps it's the equipment they lease causing drastic price spikes in RAM and GPU's for everyday normal people.
Yes to both. That is how free markets work and also why people object to free markets.
The owner of a thing deciding to whom they wish to provide access to the thing they own, is a necessary consequence of the concept of private property.
The only two alternative to a private entity making this decision are a government making this decision, or nobody making this decision, the latter of which is equivalent to both government and a private entity making the decision to do (1).
Consortium are entities, and the CEOs of Anthropic and OpenAI at least are openly begging for feedback with all their efforts to handle this, openly asking everyone else to figure out what the rules ought to be. Even if you think that too is a cynical ploy, they're asking.
First of all, these products are "legal". I think the point is more that we pay for your top subscription but you've decided that a handful of companies that you pick get access to the best of the best now and everyone else has to wait and perhaps they may be allowed access at some point...if deemed worthy.
You want the few leading AI companies in the U.S. to work under the model where they (and potentially the U.S. gov't) gets to decide who gets access to what compute? If you are fine paying into that model, then good for you...just a matter of time before they cut you off and you have no ramifications.
Since when did US markets ever guarantee unlimited access to everyone. I don’t understand this line of thinking that has cropped up around AI companies.
I haven't seen anyone suggest that a company can't do this, they absolutely can within certain frameworks of the law. That doesn't mean consumers have to like it and continue to business with companies such as these.
> I don't understand why Americans continue believing that democracy is the only way for every population in the world
They don't! The majority voted for the guy who wants to, admittedly (multiple times), be a dictator and is huge fan of other dictators. If he finds a way to stay for a 3rd term his most loyal followers along with all the republicans in Congress will be just fine with it.
Now I want one!