Interesting. I think most users would assume they’re talking to other adults and might change their language or behavior if they thought they were conversing with children
Age is anything but arbitrary from a law perspective. With these laws there is no expectation of privacy in regards to age. I’d argue there never was, it was just poorly enforced and got normalized
I feel like we need a less invasive form of age verification
Yep. Probably a billion dollar idea if you can execute it properly. These laws are spurring competition
I think most peoples’ facial data is already for sale and breachable/leakable
Correct, I don’t really want 12-year-olds commenting here either. Do you? Genuine question
Though Lemmy instances are largely public. You don’t need an account to view their contents. So that’s pretty different from Discord
For the record, I do think the laws will apply to Lemmy instances
That’s a false dichotomy. Parents can and should protect children. Social media sites can and should protect children. It’s in the social interest. Parents don’t have control over every device a child has access to. Firewalls at schools and libraries are often lackluster
I have kids too. I’m not singling out Discord here, just pointing out they’re trying to follow the law.
Young kids and social media are inherently a bad mix. Primarily because it promotes antisocial behaviors and they cannot effectively comprehend and consent to the privacy polices and TOS. Hence why adults need to be involved in account creation.
The app will ask users to scan their face through a computer or smartphone webcam; alternatively, they can scan a driver’s license or other form of ID.
comes in response to laws passed in those countries that place guardrails on youth access to online platforms.
Personally this sounds pretty reasonable. I don’t want young children on there. Any expectation of anonymity on Discord, a social network, is not warranted. Ask any number of users who’ve been prosecuted based on evidence turned over by Discord. It’s also US-based
The U.S. Department of Education sent a letter to state education departments on April 3
The department that’s actively being dismantled…?
I don’t necessarily believe it’s in good faith. Just pointing out that it could be a simple misunderstanding and added back.
They can quietly drop or add anything internally, or just be inconsistent. They don’t even have to have a public policy. So the words don’t mean much to begin with. Once there are examples of no enforcement is when it becomes a serious issue.
A YouTube spokesperson said that the removal of “gender identity and expression” from the hate speech policy was part of regular copy edits to the website, and that the enforcement of the policy hasn’t changed. Hate speech toward someone over their “sex, gender, or sexual orientation” is still barred, however critics say that “gender” is very different than “gender identity and expression.”
If this is a good faith statement it’s a non-issue IMO
They’re open source, so for technical issues you can open an issue on GitHub
If you have a custom domain Tuta is way better than Proton. It’s unlimited addresses.
I’m not as sure. EFF does a fair amount of important reporting to hold big tech companies accountable. The same goes for Check My Ads. Obviously there’s places like The Verge, WIRED, and TechCrunch. Right now politics and tech are pretty intertwined. Having folks with a more technical background cover stories could be pretty beneficial for asking better, deeper questions
I think if you’re willing to put in the work to learn programming it could give you a pretty big leg up understanding the people and culture surrounding tech. It’s also a decent backup career option
Ukraine losing would be terrible for Trump. It makes him look weak and bad at foreign policy. Everyone knows that Russia invaded Ukraine unprovoked, and they’ll do it again
Disputing a CVE is no straightforward task either, as a GitHub security team member explained. It requires a project maintainer to chase the CVE Numbering Authorities (CNA) that had originally issued the CVE.
CNAs have conventionally comprised NIST’s NVD and MITRE. Over the past few years, technology companies and security vendors joined the list and are also able to issue CVEs at will.
These seems like an issue worth addressing. If it’s too easy to report and too difficult to dispute, I could see the CVE ecosystem be weaponized and turned into a political tool.
I played high-end games I couldn’t otherwise play, often at a discount, and then they refunded me at the end anyway. Pretty sweet deal
Flagging things like that usually leads to their removal
Worth noting: Android only