Zagorath @ Zagorath @aussie.zone

Formerly /u/Zagorath on the alien site.

---

Read more

Posts

161

Comments

3,586

Joined

2 yr. ago

I also concede that the ABC did in fact pay her to the end of her 5-day contract

I don't think that was a relevant fact, legally speaking.

The problem at the moment is that the technology does not aid parents in this.

Personally, I would like to see the existence of this sort of age-gating API be mandatory, and set some government guidelines, but leave it up to parents whether or not they wish to use it. Because right now, unless they are hovering over the shoulder of their children every moment they're on a computer, there's literally nothing they can do with available technology to prevent children accessing age-inappropriate material. So a law that can help them out without forcing their hand would be great.

It's basically a repost. Within the same community, while the other post is still near the top of the community. It divides the conversation.

I find the question itself strange. Why would there not be a problem with short-term reposts?

The key difference with the YouTube example is that Google requires you to create an account (which helps them track you) and specify the account's age. They also require proof of ID these days to give you access to age-gated content, which is possible, but quite tricky, to bypass.

The idea with my fallback solution is that it could work completely accountless. Your browser just reads from your operating system what your age is, the same way they can read what screen resolution you have or what version of your browser you're running.

With robust parental controls in place, an OS should be able to prevent a child from installing any software without the parent's consent (by the parent typing in a password that the child should not know). If it's done robustly, the only way a child should be able to get around it is by dual-booting (or live USB-ing) into an entirely separate petition that their parents don't control. And I'mma be honest, any kid who can figure that part out deserves free reign over their computer.

This is the second time in a week you've shared a BBC article to !australia on a subject that already had an ABC article about it a single-digit number of hours earlier.

I mean sure. I was just pointing out that your comment would have made a lot more sense in this context if you'd said a 15 year-old, who would actually be affected by the law.

Why would a 17 year-old bother breaking it? When I was 17 I would have loved the idea that my younger sibling couldn't be on social media!

You've basically got it.

A parent would be required to activate a ‘child lock’ feature on a device before handing it to their kids.

Unfortunately, all governments are too chicken-shit scared to compel parents to do this small thing.

My proposal provides two separate options. One, the one I prefer, is exactly what you said. Inactive by default.

But there is a fallback option that I still think is significantly better than any alternative age verification. Which is that if inactive, social media sites would be required to presume you are underage. This would give governments an extra bit of leeway from the problems you've described here. It would require everyone to provide "age verification" (in the form of stating your age to the system, proving only that you have admin access to the device which parents should not be giving to children) without compelling turning over sensitive data like photo ID.

The government's plan? No idea, because they still don't have any idea. It might involve requiring you to install software to use any social media legally. Or it might not require new software, but require you to upload your photo ID or a selfie (on the promise that they will totally delete the photo as soon as they're finished verifying it, pinky swear!). The law was passed 6 months ago in a rush, and is now 6 months away from coming into effect, but we still don't know. Because the government did not do its due diligence in planning this out. It didn't even have sufficient time for proper public submissions.

If you meant my idea? I didn't specify. It could be designed either way. To assume anyone who hasn't specified an age is an adult and allow them through, or to block by default in order to ensure age verification is being proactively provided. Personally, I would advocate for the former, but even the latter would be vastly superior to any other system I can think of.

Importantly: it wouldn't be any software you have to install. It'd be a basic feature of the operating system. Like your operating system probably already has child controls on it; you just don't use them. (Windows, macOS, iOS, Android, and at least Ubuntu Linux all certainly do, to different extents.) In the stricter scenario where it blocks if no age is provided, you would have to set your age up through your operating system's settings. The key is: it relies entirely on trust. You can enter whatever age you like; there's no checking of your face or your documents, so there's no possibility of privacy invasion. This provides compliance with the intent of the law for children by requiring parents to enter the correct age for their kids and set sufficient locks on it to prevent the kid easily bypassing it.

including any Lemmy, Piefed, or Mastodon servers, unless they can receive a specific exemption—and whether fediverse owners try to receive such an exemption and operate legally without age verification, or they implement the system, or they simply try to fly under the radar and hope they don't get in trouble, is going to be a point that all fediverse admins where either the admin or the server are based in Australia are going to have to consider once the law comes into effect.

So we still have no idea how exactly this age verification is supposed to take place in a privacy preserving way.

I still maintain that the only acceptable way to do this is via platform-based APIs and child lock software. Your operating system must have a setting parents can set (locked so children are unable to edit it) with their child's age. The browser and other apps must check that setting via an API. Websites would check the setting via a browser API.

It puts the onus for actual age verification on parents. So it's completely privacy preserving. It's not bypassable by some of the simplest methods like finding a fake photo of a driver's licence. It's certainly not going to completely bug out and give nonsense answers like AI age detection from selfies.

The fact that it's not being done in consultation with platform providers is pretty indicative of the myopic, frankly idiotic approach of both the Labor Party and the Coalition when it comes to tech.

An interesting theory, but there are good reasons to doubt the claim, including the fact that woolly sheep are a recent product of human breeding, and that wild sheep are not even native to the same areas blackberries grow.

Turns out they basically did the marshmallow test. So we're talking toddlers.

The sport would absolutely have to change in some significant ways to adapt to that rule, but it could be done. Learn a more rugby-like style of tackling. Push from the line of scrimmage more like sumo wrestlers (a comparison I think I saw someone else in this thread bring up).

I am not what you'd call a fan of gridiron. I'm not American, and have only really been exposed to it in more than a very light "cultural osmosis" way over the last two or three years since I now know an American who refs local games here in Aus. But to be honest, I like the game. If I were American, I could easily see myself getting right into it. And I want the sport to keep the core elements that make it interesting and to be viable at a high level indefinitely. I just don't see a future for the sport in the long run with CTE rates as high as they are and research continuing to show how bad the long-term effects even of repeated sub-concussive impacts can be. (Though on that topic, I have no idea how boxing plans to exist into the future. I can't imagine it'll still be a thing in 60 years unless it undergoes some pretty extreme changes.)

I suppose the argument would be that you explicitly agree to that, and your employer doesn't have any possible response if you choose to if kre it other than to sever your relationship.

That, of course, is assuming they've even thought about it that much, which is probably giving sovcits too much credit.

lol

Happy cake day, banana!

Is it possible to have such an action as a fast bowler? I associate the wider action with spin, which, as previously mentioned, tends not to be associated with injuries.

the official app tries to not be killed by Android woth the usual tricks (permanent notification, disabling battery optimisation)

…

You can (theoretically) control how often locations are tracked and sent but for me was using the location service constantly and draining battery quite a bit.

Ah. Those are exactly what I was worried about. It's not able to just happen entirely in the background the same way Google's feature does, then? Kind of automagically?

But not exactly how the app works. If it's a Strava-like app you have to remember to run in the foreground, the value is a lot lower to me than something that either uses or replicates GPS' automatic background behaviour.

Alpha being the elements up to iron?