Really good clear explanation from @…, laying out various problems and risks with trying to implement "age verification" online.
"Firstly, in order to prove your age you’re being asked to hand over some fairly important personal details. ... Usually the company you’re handing these details to is a third party, often one you will never have heard of before. ...
"The data that is being collected for age verification purposes is extremely tempting to hackers ... and at the moment there is no specific regulation outlining the security standards that these companies should meet ...
"Let’s say all the current age verification providers are incredibly robust, though. ... The question still remains... should you be sharing this information with random websites anyway?
"... once you’ve trained the population of an entire country to routinely hand over their credit card details in order to access content, you have given them an incredibly bad habit that it’s going to be tough to break. ... You don’t just prove your age once, after all, you potentially have to do it dozens of times, to access a bunch of different websites. Everything from BlueSky to PornHub to Spotify and even maybe Wikipedia. It becomes a weekly or perhaps monthly occurrence. Just as individual users don’t tend to read every website’s terms and conditions, it’s unlikely they’re all going to do due diligence checks on every provider who asks for ID, especially once they’ve become used to just handing that data over.
"And although that may not be a problem for _you_, you tech-savvy cleverclogs, if you’ve ever found yourself in the position of unpaid IT support for one of your less knowledgeable friends or relatives, hopefully you can see why it’s a huge problem for the UK population more broadly."
And more!
#AgeVerification #OnlineSafetyAct #OSA
TL;DR: what if instead of denying the harms of fascism, we denied its suppressive threats of punishment
Many of us have really sharpened our denial skills since the advent of the ongoing pandemic (perhaps you even hesitated at the word "ongoing" there and thought "maybe I won't read this one, it seems like it'll be tiresome"). I don't say this as a preface to a fiery condemnation or a plea to "sanity" or a bunch of evidence of how bad things are, because I too have honed my denial skills in these recent years, and I feel like talking about that development.
Denial comes in many forms, including strategic information avoidance ("I don't have time to look that up right now", "I keep forgetting to look into that", "well this author made a tiny mistake, so I'll click away and read something else", "I'm so tired of hearing about this, let me scroll farther", etc.) strategic dismissal ("look, there's a bit of uncertainty here, I should ignore this", "this doesn't line up perfectly with my anecdotal experience, it must be completely wrong", etc.) and strategic forgetting ("I don't remember what that one study said exactly; it was painful to think about", "I forgot exactly what my friend was saying when we got into that argument", etc.). It's in fact a kind of skill that you can get better at, along with the complementary skill of compartmentalization. It can of course be incredibly harmful, and a huge genre of fables exists precisely to highlight its harms, but it also has some short-term psychological benefits, chiefly in the form of muting anxiety. This is not an endorsement of denial (the harms can be catastrophic), but I want to acknowledge that there *are* short-term benefits. Via compartmentalization, it's even possible to be honest with ourselves about some of our own denials without giving them up immediately.
But as I said earlier, I'm not here to talk you out of your denials. Instead, given that we are so good at denial now, I'm here to ask you to be strategic about it. In particular, we live in a world awash with propaganda/advertising that serves both political and commercial ends. Why not use some of our denial skills to counteract that?
For example, I know quite a few people in complete denial of our current political situation, but those who aren't (including myself) often express consternation about just how many people in the country are supporting literal fascism. Of course, logically that appearance of widespread support is going to be partly a lie, given how much our public media is beholden to the fascists or outright in their side. Finding better facts on the true level of support is hard, but in the meantime, why not be in denial about the "fact" that Trump has widespread popular support?
To give another example: advertisers constantly barrage us with messages about our bodies and weight, trying to keep us insecure (and thus in the mood to spend money to "fix" the problem). For sure cutting through that bullshit by reading about body positivity etc. is a better solution, but in the meantime, why not be in denial about there being anything wrong with your body?
This kind of intentional denial certainly has its own risks (our bodies do actually need regular maintenance, for example, so complete denial on that front is risky) but there's definitely a whole lot of misinformation out there that it would be better to ignore. To the extent such denial expands to a more general denial of underlying problems, this idea of intentional denial is probably just bad. But I sure wish that in a world where people (including myself) routinely deny significant widespread dangers like COVID-19's long-term risks or the ongoing harms of escalating fascism, they'd at least also deny some of the propaganda keeping them unhappy and passive. Instead of being in denial about US-run concentration camps, why not be in denial that the state will be able to punish you for resisting them?