Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Preventing 14 y.o. kids from accessing a website because they are underage is a fool's errand. Disclaimers are only risk reduction, not underage access prevention.
Yes, you could make the site owner responsible for underage access, but that would kill the internet as we know it.
When a website wants my birthday, it is always February 29, 1981. Many accept that, and I get birthday greetings every February.
But, I am hardly as relentless as a 14 year old with a mission to see something I am not supposed to see.
If I may ask (and this is a question for m378 as well)
Do you think my point here is “all sites” should have to follow this hypothetical (age verification)? If that is how you are interpreting my point, that isn’t it.
Social media is a wholly different beast than your run of the mill internet site. It’s wholly different (in terms of what it does in the brain) than even “really distasteful” sites like 4chan/8chan, Stormfront etc etc etc etc.
Is your position basically “ehhh it’s the internet. It’s like that old skit from Chappelles show”?
A digital bill of rights will happen. Even the tech companies (Google for one) know soon as the Boomers aren’t running the joint anymore, and a more digitally in tune generation is, the wild Wild West/free lunch is over. (Ie the death of cookies)
The post cookie world is tech’s “ok we better come up with a new way to track people because we know where this is going” moment.
That's not necessarily a bad thing. The internet as we know it came about basically as an unregulated experiment primarily for commercial interests.
Correct.
The closing lines from an essay I wrote four years ago when I left FB
"In the last two years, it has become abundantly clear that Facebook themselves Pivoted (maybe only naturally). Capitalism and for-profit existences somehow require infinite growth come hell or high water. A phenomenon which only really exists in nature is a core foundational concept in modern American Business and it has finally reached this fun little space we all share….and that means I am out.
Facebook can’t and won’t police itself. When called to answer for things they have done, repeatedly they have answered halfheartedly only for information to come out later that shows they only owned up to half the truth. Facebook doesn’t sell a product to its customers, the product is its customers, which they are happy to sell to others and this reader is no longer willing to be that.
I accept that I agreed to your T&C; as open ended as they were when I joined in 2003. But your pursuit of Infinite User growth and ad revenue clouded your judgement. Whether it was Cambridge Analytica in the lead up to 2016 or the millions of fake accounts that spewed nonsense, which you ignored because more users meant more money, or as we now know, Spotify and Netflix; and I am sure there are more to come, you traded my data and access to it; which allowed it to be weaponized and monetized with no oversight or controls in place and without having to ask me if I was ok with that, and for that I am pivoting… and leaving.
I didn’t sign up to be your product. I signed up to be a consumer. As a consumer I have choice and my choice is easy to make. Maybe I will be back someday; but that will require you to grow up, accept regulation and oversight and probably put a for fee offering in place. Because as we all know, America is the land of cheap traders. Drunk Uncle ain't gonna pay to troll people on here."
If I may ask (and this is a question for m378 as well)
Do you think my point here is “all sites” should have to follow this hypothetical (age verification)? If that is how you are interpreting my point, that isn’t it.
Social media is a wholly different beast than your run of the mill internet site. It’s wholly different (in terms of what it does in the brain) than even “really distasteful” sites like 4chan/8chan, Stormfront etc etc etc etc.
Is your position basically “ehhh it’s the internet. It’s like that old skit from Chappelles show”?
A digital bill of rights will happen. Even the tech companies (Google for one) know soon as the Boomers aren’t running the joint anymore, and a more digitally in tune generation is, the wild Wild West/free lunch is over. (Ie the death of cookies)
The post cookie world is tech’s “ok we better come up with a new way to track people because we know where this is going” moment.
I don't think boomers are running FB, Instagram, MSFT, or certainly twitter.
Nothing is stopping the generational icons running them from evolving, other than lack of vision or integrity or ability. Waiting for regulation is sorry performance.
Truth? LOL That there un is a story unto itself.
twitter and $8. LOL
Users are up. The monthly hasn't hit yet.
Ad revenue is down, down, down.
Elon's desire to turn it into a mainstream 8 chan lite while burning his Tesla fortune (and that of TSLA shareholders) as there is no cogent plan or path to profitability is ego-defeatist.
What efforts are underway on any social mediat platform to embrace GDPR or GLBA in the U.S., to get ahead of the curve?
And then, and I love this headline: Elon Musk's Twitter is making Meta look smart
"Compared to the sophisticated interplay between Meta and its board in the Cross Check investigation, the Twitter approach seems like something out of the Stone Age. The Oversight Board, which has ambitions to extend its work to platforms beyond Meta, sees an opportunity here. “I hereby ask Elon Musk to read this,” says Greene of the report his board just released. Good luck with that."
I don't think boomers are running FB, Instagram, MSFT, or certainly twitter.
Nothing is stopping the generational icons running them from evolving, other than lack of vision or integrity or ability. Waiting for regulation is sorry performance.
Truth? LOL That there un is a story unto itself.
twitter and $8. LOL
Users are up. The monthly hasn't hit yet.
Ad revenue is down, down, down.
Elon's desire to turn it into a mainstream 8 chan lite while burning his Tesla fortune (and that of TSLA shareholders) as there is no cogent plan or path to profitability is ego-defeatist.
What efforts are underway on any social mediat platform to embrace GDPR or GLBA in the U.S., to get ahead of the curve?
And then, and I love this headline: Elon Musk's Twitter is making Meta look smart
"Compared to the sophisticated interplay between Meta and its board in the Cross Check investigation, the Twitter approach seems like something out of the Stone Age. The Oversight Board, which has ambitions to extend its work to platforms beyond Meta, sees an opportunity here. “I hereby ask Elon Musk to read this,” says Greene of the report his board just released. Good luck with that."
Weak visionless people need the government to tell them the right thing to do. Or, they blame government when they cannot self-regulate.
That includes site and app owners.
But that isn't exactly true MJ.
"Doing the right thing" and "Maximizing shareholder profit" are rarely symbiotic, and really never have been (going back to the days of Upton Sinclair in a "somewhat modern US" scope).
Without regulation, almost every product imaginable would be produced in not in the "right" way, but in the way that makes the most money. That's just the nature of the beast. My dad worked in shoes. He spent 8 years in Indo and another 5 in China. Shoes require leather. Leather requires tanning. Tanneries in China cut corners to ensure the most yield from the raw product (maximize $$) which meant environmental issues (i.e poisoning ground water). Tanneries would keep ponds of fish. The chemicals would poison the fish. Regulators would show up, the tannery would dump a bunch of fresh fish into the pond, point to it and say "see, we're following the rules! there's live fish!" and the regulators would be like "oh the fish are alive, pass!". Fish would die the next day naturally.
I agree, in a vacuum, that leaders of industry are weak when they need to be told/regulated to do the right thing. But in that same vacuum, our system doesn't have doing the right thing as a shareholder imperative. Facebook could easily implement policies that could protect data better. Protect their user base better. Take steps to ensure their platform doesn't hurt kids (which is how we got on this sidebar on page one), to ensure kids aren't targetted with stuff that destroys their self esteem, while simultaneously protecting "Free Speech and Access to information" (which again is a red herring in a Constitutional sense, but I'll grant the point for discussion).... but to do that would mean there would be "short term financial pain"....and that isn't allowed in this system. That is a fail. Altruism is a loser if it means profit is impacted.
"Doing the right thing" and "Maximizing shareholder profit" are rarely symbiotic, and really never have been (going back to the days of Upton Sinclair in a "somewhat modern US" scope).
Without regulation, almost every product imaginable would be produced in not in the "right" way, but in the way that makes the most money. That's just the nature of the beast. My dad worked in shoes. He spent 8 years in Indo and another 5 in China. Shoes require leather. Leather requires tanning. Tanneries in China cut corners to ensure the most yield from the raw product (maximize $$) which meant environmental issues (i.e poisoning ground water). Tanneries would keep ponds of fish. The chemicals would poison the fish. Regulators would show up, the tannery would dump a bunch of fresh fish into the pond, point to it and say "see, we're following the rules! there's live fish!" and the regulators would be like "oh the fish are alive, pass!". Fish would die the next day naturally.
I agree, in a vacuum, that leaders of industry are weak when they need to be told/regulated to do the right thing. But in that same vacuum, our system doesn't have doing the right thing as a shareholder imperative. Facebook could easily implement policies that could protect data better. Protect their user base better. Take steps to ensure their platform doesn't hurt kids (which is how we got on this sidebar on page one), to ensure kids aren't targetted with stuff that destroys their self esteem, while simultaneously protecting "Free Speech and Access to information" (which again is a red herring in a Constitutional sense, but I'll grant the point for discussion).... but to do that would mean there would be "short term financial pain"....and that isn't allowed in this system. That is a fail. Altruism is a loser if it means profit is impacted.
"...rarely..." is a key qualifier.
Profits are impacted daily by companies doing wrong things, but impact from doing right things is held out as undesirable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
