This is like this in most of Europe: when in "quotes", it is not the journalist, but the person who said something. For example, Obama said "Yes we can". He did not say yes we can, he said "Yes we can".
It is not about the quotes being verified or unverified. It is about something said by somebody, that you are reporting.
Don't fall for the trap. The question isn't how we should technically force age verification on anybody. The question is why they're pushing it onto everyone. I did not consent to this, neither did you.
But it is needed to protect the children. The politicians say so, so it has to be true. Being against this is very dangerous to our children and democracy. There is no alternative.
Seriously, there is something tremendously wrong with governance when politicians keep changing the whole world around us, without us having any say in it at all. The threat this measure poses to the internet and society is significant, yet it is being pushed through without any substantial debate or push back. This just is not how decent and actual democracies should function. What messed up timeline is this?
When they run out of other rights to destroy, they will pipe videos of little girls crying from food poisoning into your e-verified telescreen during ChildSafe^TM viewing hours, and the result will be that you will get to choose between two state approved restaurants thereafter.
> Seriously, there is something tremendously wrong with governance when politicians keep changing the whole world around us, without us having any say in it at all.
That's where you're wrong. Most people actually do agree with age verification. Just because a decision is stupid it doesn't mean it's undemocratic. Trump was elected democratically, twice. Brexit passed through a referendum.
Most people are in favor of solving world hunger, poverty, the wars and climate change. Until you hand them the bill. Likewise most people will not agree with age verification when actually implemented.
It requires reason to understand the consequences of your decisions. Reason is something democracies have a shortage of. Thus, democracies structurally suffer from issues like this.
It worked great for the last several hundred years. The problem is that as government keeps expanding to control more and more of our lives, every decision it makes it necessarily imposes on everyone, whether they agree with that decision or not.
E.g. In a country of 100M people, if 60% agree with a bill and it becomes law, the country has imposed that law on 40M people against their will. That's just as true in a dictatorship as it is in a democracy. The more areas of our lives government involves itself in, the bigger this problem becomes.
Whether it's federal, state, or local, you're going to see laws imposed on the 40% of people who don't agree with it. From what I've seen it's the federal legislature that is interested in protecting my rights and the state and local legislatures that want to infringe on my rights. The governments we are under have never been particularly hands off.
This doesn't make it untrue, instead it just confirms it (I know you didn't say or mean to disprove it, just wanted to add my thoughts here).
People make dumb decisions and don't think about possible outcomes twice, or even once. But (unfortunately, in this case) this is a core principle in a democracy. People may be lied to, or at least they are fearmongered into thinking that age verification is needed and encryption needs to be weakened because they thing they have nothing to hide, but if in the end they elect the people that are pro-age-verification, it's perfectly democratic.
IMO the media (including, most importantly, social media) is the problem, not the politicians and/or the democracy or whatever. They all play their part, sure, but it's how people are influenced by the current state of media what's driving all these populistic forces.
> Social media is destroying children's brains! Do you want access to be delayed until a certain age?
> Do you want children under a certain age to be banned from social media, which means that you will now have to give your ID, only with Android or iOS?
Indeed, it is just as unfair no matter if 1%, 55% or 99.99% of the affected population has one. Your operating system should be a choice.
1. By doing this, the EU is killing any alternative operating systems for phones: no one will switch to one if they can't access online services. Banks are already making it extremely hard.
2. Google and Apple might be better regarded than Huawei, but they are not moral (or they are not guaranteed to remain so).
3. The very idea of a de facto state-enforced monopoly on operating systems is outrageous.
I don't think it's going to be any more convincing with that. At this point anyone I encounter in "normal" life already assumes that I and everyone else has and primarily uses a Google or Apple account.
Luckily, the EU's current structure was put to a referendum. That referendum then failed to get the votes needed, so they implemented it anyway. Much superior.
It's just like democracy. Without the "dem(b)" part. Much better now.
We have such warm feelings about it! What could possibly go wrong with doing such strong governance and extreme-right parties polling at record highs in more than half the EU countries? We have warm feelings now. Or maybe the warm feelings the result of 30 years of climate action in the EU. Luckily, the extreme right is hard at work defending our right to airconditioning!
The scope of the things we already do to "protect the children" is tremendous. None of them have, will, or could prevent them from continuing to use it as an excuse for things that should never be done.
You seem to have jumped from "protecting children" to accusing them of an unrelated war crime for not censoring things aggressively enough.
On top of that, the relevant law they would have to comply with in those countries would be the laws of those countries, and those are the governments committing the genocides.
The governments won't protect them either. The governments are the ones enabling these corporations to exist and facilitate harm towards children. Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to have those corporations.
They are doing something which is not a solution but can fake being a solution, so that the masses will accept it. An actual solution would be to regulate these social media, to prohibit addictive and manipulative algorithms.
Maybe OS vendors should stop trying to sell ads and instead fix their operating systems so that parents can responsibly monitor their children's online activity in a way that promotes both parental responsibility, and children's human rights ... but of course, that would require OS vendors to stop selling ads.
There’s a huge amount of stuff that the EU does that no one consented to, or had a realistic democratic avenue to influence.
I’m in the UK and very anti Brexit. But were we still in, I would have no idea how to influence what happens behind those closed doors at the European Commision.
Granted the current UK Labour/ Conservative pact on these issues show they’re completely out of control. But I still theoretically know how I could influence policy.
Theoretically, you vote for the Parliament, and they influence the Commission.
The Parliament and Courts keep the Commission in check, although their… misguided rule of majority is bound to allow some nonsense to pass. Especially since the Commission is, in my view, made up of people that do NOT want what the citizens do. You could argue they represent the majority of their specific countries, but even that is stretching things a bit given how many people actually vote.
So: the Parliament, the Courts (you can bring them issues), the European Citizens’ Initiative, and indirectly through your own country’s agencies (e.g. your local DPA).
It’s not that different from the high levels of indirection and bureaucracy in most democracies, I think. (Not that I’m defending the EU, there’s plenty to attack.)
> But I still theoretically know how I could influence policy.
I mean even in the EU there's theoretic ways to influence policy, it's just that the system is currently sabotaged and/or partly not strong enough to withstand politicians who want to actively work against it.
Not being for or against UK or Brexit, but I don't think this is a EU problem. These kinds of problems exist in all European democracies, at least this is what it feels like currently.
I and many others have been banned from Twitter for the last two weeks because of a new process[1]. I have to view all links in incognito tabs or hand over my biometric data to a trillionaire. Just don't use Twitter some may quip, well that would be a great group effort, but I can't do it alone.
I think that's trying to see something that isn't there, just to try and make some sense out of things. The reality is much simpler - they are elected parlimentarians, same as any regional government, and they vote without much thought based on quick brief summary. System to protect the children? Sounds great, let's vote yes - anyone who doesn't is a pedo, right?
I know this sounds bad, but when has consent mattered before? I agree with you wholeheartedly, but consent is simply not something these power structures value.
Some people consent to it, and they have a voice too. If they win and you didn't also consider the technical solution, you will find yourself not only with a law you disagree with, but also with a terrible technical solution.
So whatever you opinion is on the subject of forcing age verification, it is worth looking at the technical solution, especially if it is your domain of expertise.
Bruce Schneier goes on about this A LOT, and you’re exactly on point. If the knowledgeable tech people don’t get into policy, it will become law drafted by lawyers and MBAs. Man, I wish I knew how to get into policy…
Yes, I said it before and I will say it again: We should invest our energy in the discussion whether to implement it and not already wonder how to implement it.
Shifting this question benefits only those who want to force this upon us.
Doesn't the "how to implement" determine whether to implement it? A poor implementation shouldn't be done, but a good implementation could make it simpler for companies to verify the ages of users, limit information passed to companies, offer a quality of life improvement for users.
It's funny, concomittant all this chest beating about representing open societies, democracies, unlike those creepy evil authoritarian states which we don't like, that the EC seems hell bent on proving we can have a police state _just_ as intrusive if not more than say: Russia. This is not how we were supposed to prove that we are better.
It's bad, just not "We ArE LiTeRaLlY RuSsIa". But I guess it's the logical conclusion of the last few decades of critical thinking erosion and people not being able to form any kind of nuanced opinion
I love how "they" wanting to know your age is a big conspiracy, but zuck &co hiring the best behavioral and addictions scientists to get yours kids into doomscrolling brain rot as soon as possible is a fact of life and we shouldn't do anything about it
'They' are not pushing age verification onto everyone. 'We' are pushing it onto ourselves. People want this. It is popular all over the world. If 'they' are doing anything, it is subverting what people want into something else. Which is the worry here, as people asked for age verification but didn't ask to be locked into the mobile phone duopoly. The system people want for age verification could be implemented as Firefox plugin. If it requires these attestation services for binary blobs provided by the government, it includes features someone else wants.
Apple was generating (something)@icloud.com whenever you used that service.
Now, it will use (something)@private.icloud.com instead. So you can ban this subdomain instantly, knowing people will be "hiding" with this service by default.
It's like blocking anondaddy, simplelogin etc but not protonmail.
I outlined it over in another comment[1] so I'm not gonna copy it all over but the point isn't to eliminate all trust. The point of trustless architectures (of which blockchain and smart contracts are one) is that you are eliminating implicit trust.
You are taking all the implicit trust, lowering it into explicit trust assumptions, and formalising who is allowed to make what decisions when, what happens when they do, and how the other parties are permitted to respond.
You are moving all of those implicit assumptions about how a contract, interaction, or relationship work and formalising them into something explicit and upfront so that all participants can evaluate their risk tolerance and trust levels prior to agreeing to a given contract or interaction.
And of course you are also sprinkling in a heavy dose of automation to smooth out the complexities of these explicit, mechanised contracts such that the happy paths are buttery smooth and the unhappy paths are at the least bearable and correspond to the contract you signed on to at the beginning of your interaction.
Clicked the link but ctrl+f doesn't find any posts by you.
> The point of trustless architectures (of which blockchain and smart contracts are one) is that you are eliminating implicit trust.
That is also the point of laws and contracts as we have them today. How does, explicitly, blockchain improve on that?
> You are moving all of those implicit assumptions about how a contract, interaction, or relationship work and formalising them into something explicit and upfront so that all participants can evaluate their risk tolerance and trust levels prior to agreeing to a given contract or interaction.
What implicit assumptions aren't removed by laws and contracts as we have them today that are removed by blockchain and smart contracts?
> And of course you are also sprinkling in a heavy dose of automation to smooth out the complexities of these explicit, mechanised contracts such that the happy paths are buttery smooth and the unhappy paths are at the least bearable and correspond to the contract you signed on to at the beginning of your interaction.
Without any examples of what is being automated, how and what it is that is made buttery smooth... you really aren't saying anything here. Can you expound on any of those claims?
TLDR: By what you said the only thing that blockchains and smart contracts bring is a new medium to write contracts on.
> That is also the point of laws and contracts as we have them today. How does, explicitly, blockchain improve on that?
It's essentially automated tooling. The happy path (i.e. buyer and seller are in agreement) "just works" but when there's a disagreement you can rely on the contract to walk through all of the conflict resolution paths with whatever level of complexity the contract builds in for consensus from multiple third parties, etc.
i.e. It's tooling that replaces manual bureaucratic arbitration with state machines and consensus algorithms.
For two party smart contracts this means there's no third party but there's an inherent risk of exploitation by one party or the other by the design of the contract. It's inherent to two party contracts relying on any physical exchange but if you trust the party the contract is weighted in favor of, it cuts out any opportunity for arbitration and the complexity that comes with that. Now the only trust assumption is the two parties trust in each other.
For contracts with some arbitration process however things get more complicated. Who all is involved in arbitration. Who does the buyer trust. Who does the seller trust. What's the reputation of one of these arbiters? This reputation can be loosely represented as a set of markets for the arbiter with demand from sellers and demand from buyers. If those two markets are out of sync from each other that suggests an impartial arbiter and both parties can reason about that.
> What implicit assumptions aren't removed by laws and contracts as we have them today that are removed by blockchain and smart contracts?
Well. Part of it is that laws are an inherently fuzzy thing and how they are upheld is entirely dependent on a long running and constantly evolving chain of interpretations from past court decisions. And of course how they are upheld in a specific case comes down to how well lawyers are able to convince a judge or a collection of jurors who were more or less selected at random with anyone semi-literate about the law thrown out ahead of time. So it boils down to "who is best able to sway the opinions of this random collection of people who are as illiterate about the law as the lawyers could manage to get them". Which mostly just boils down to feelings.
Of course contracts often go to arbitration instead of to court proper so it's a different case there but arbiters are single authorities that almost universally side with the bigger entity (i.e. whoever is paying them to handle arbitration). So unless you are two large orgs, arbitration is inherently biased.
So an alternative is a largely automated system where multiple third parties who are selected ahead of time by the buyer and seller can be relied upon for arbitration and where their decision is for all intents and purpose final. The buyer and the seller have equal decision making power in the selection of these third parties and they can evaluate the reputations of these third parties prior to entering the contract.
i.e. you are moving away from trust in a large system with a thousand moving parts all performed by infallible people swayed by emotions and an endless process of appeals OR a single arbiter almost always paid by the larger party who will always rule in their favor. Instead putting your trust into a strict set of automated rules with a formal analysis of outcomes backing it + some optional assortment of selected third parties + a consensus mechanism for those third parties.
> TLDR: By what you said the only thing that blockchains and smart contracts bring is a new medium to write contracts on.
Yes. It is exactly that. A new medium to write contracts on. Manual bureaucratic systems and thousands upon thousands of people working in a complex legal system are replaced by a machine. Humans are still in the loop of course but only for making specific decisions at specific times in the process.
And at the time of agreeing to the contract the relevant parties can ideally rely on tooling to explicitly outline at what points each party is taking on a degree of risk, the likelihood of that risk, and the process for moving forward in those cases.
An extremely reductive TLDR is that the goal is to take a system that relies on an army of lawyers and legal analysts and reduce it down into something digestible and navigable by a single lawyer (or even a well educated layperson) with all the existing complexity abstracted away by formal methods tooling.
You are questioning the method when people just see the need.
If you're an engineer, no matter what you say about the method, you know a country at war will make you lose all your savings. Or if you're a foreign citizen in a country that will seize your assets, even "by accident".
They lost thousands of emails and they treated every customer individually while blocking people from complaining on their subreddit.
Then, it was posted here on HN and they finally decided to stand up and fix their reputation by saying they care and want to do better, after months of silencing the issue as much as possible.
Oh... It appears we were talking about 2 different things. After reading what you wrote, it appears that too is a storm in a teacup.
You are complaining about them "losing thousands of emails" when that is clearly not the case. The issue was with their IMAP bridge, meaning the emails in question would have been lost on a local host, not on Protonmail, and the 'lost emails' were fully recoverable just by logging into the web interface.
What if I need cron in my docker container? And ssh? And a text editor? And a monitoring agent? :P
Thankfully LXD is here to serve this need: very lightweight containers for systems, where your app runs in a complete ecosystem, but very light on the ram usage.
>What if I need cron in my docker container? And ssh? And a text editor? And a monitoring agent? :P
How are you going to orchestrate all those daemons without systemd? :P
As you mentioned, a container running systemd and a suite of background services is the typical use case of LXD, not docker. But the difference seems to be cultural -- there's nothing preventing one from using systemd as the entry point of a docker container.
fwiw I recently bootstrapped a small Debian image for myself, originally intended to sandbox coding agents I was evaluating. Shortly after I got annoyed by baseline vim and added my tmux & nvim dotfiles, now I find myself working inside the container regularly. It definitely works and is actually not the worst experience if your workflow is cli-focused.
My experience is if the tooling is set up right it’s not painful, it’s the fiddling around with volume mounts folder permissions and debug points and “what’s inside the container and what isn’t” etc that is always the big pain point
Very accurate - that was one of the steps that caused me to fiddle quite a bit. Had to add an entrypoint to chown the mounts and also some Buildkit cache volumes for all the package managers.
You can skip the uid/chown stuff if you work with userns mappings, but this was my work machine so I didn't want to globally touch the docker daemon.
Ideally, you have a separate docker container for each process (i.e. a separate container for the ssh service, one for cron etc). The text editor can be installed if it's needed - that's not an issue apart from slightly increasing the container size. Most of the time, the monitoring agent would be running on the host machine and setup to monitor aspects of the container - containers should be thought of as running a single process and not as running a VM along with all its services.
It is not about the quotes being verified or unverified. It is about something said by somebody, that you are reporting.
reply