The core issue here, as often, is that it pits ethical and economic concerns against one another. There has been a systemic choice by web/tech companies to prioritize maximum profit, often at the expense of necessary user support and compliance. Because of that, user support/relations are deficient and there is little accountability for what they're doing, even if, as we often read here, a tech company cancels user accounts, projects, or monetary accounts, without anyone or anywhere to appeal. Age verification presents the same problem. If companies maintained a professional, human-centered user relations function, they could implement a non-intrusive, real-time validation process.
If we were in the real world, with for example a barman needing an ID, that single person could confirm the age without copying or indefinitely keeping the ID card. The digital equivalent would be a decent support representative who could conduct a live brief video interaction to confirm a user's age, without even storing a copy of the ID, and who could even require the parents to be there with the minors signing in. That would address both the need for verification and the data minimization problem.
Yes, that would cost the companies a lot of money, but that would solve both problems at the same time: verifying the user's age and ensuring privacy. And guess what, the same person could also serve as an entry point for other issues that no one can really appeal against now, like the frozen accounts and other horror stories mentioned above. Yes, parental control is necessary, but it is insufficient. Zero-Knowledge Proof thingies could allow a device to validate parts of the process, but the possibilities of circumventing this are so enormous and endless that they look to me as completely insecure (and using a third party validating this adds another layer of trouble).
The most effective way would be to reintroduce a human element in the process, but we have already given up, because we are at the mercy of the web companies due to their free tools. The governments trying to introduce some ethics to those processes are not the problem at all, they should be commended for that. We are the problem because we accept that what should be the web companies' responsibilities is not being fulfilled because we don't want them to make less money as we would lose some freebies. That's on us, not on the laws. So the answer to "Why isn't online age verification just like showing your ID in person?" is : because we collectively accept it is not exactly showing our ID in person.
Actually, it is not quite the case: the most warmongering country in Europe was the UK since the 1600s (between 16 and 18 times depending on the criterias you use, a war declaration is way less a clear cut decision than you might think). They most often declared war to France, whereas during the same time, France declared war about 13 times (mostly to Spain, Prussia and Austria). There is no single source for those numbers, because some count invasions as war declarations, and some others don't, and some count wars against coalitions as 1 and some detail the exact number of countries involved. If you want to compare that with Germany/Prussia, they declared war about 10 times during the same time. And if you want to know which country was the most declared war upon, it was France (about 20 times), whereas England/UK was declared war to only 10 times. So it would not be far fetched to argue that it was mostly England/UK that was the biggest warmonger of the past.
Britain never tried to conquer all of Europe, but France did.
Also, when the Brits have a revolution (e.g., English Civil War, American Revolution) deaths never get as arbitrary and difficult-to-predict as in the French Revoution.
I don't understand your issue between gram and kilo gram: gram is the base unit and the prefix kilo, meaning one thousand just says that 1 kg = 1000 grams.
It is exactly the same as meters and kilometers: meters is the base unit and 1 km = 1000 meters.
There's an etymological reason for the word gram. It derives from a greek word γράμμα which roughly translates as "small weight" and made its way into French via the latin gramma to the French gramme, and the English gram. And 1kg is just very chunky. It wouldn't be right to refer to that as small.
As the name kilogram implies, gram is actually the unit here. But it was derived from the mass of a standard 1 kg chunk of metal that lives in a museum somewhere near Paris. This is the literal base unit of mass (at least historically, the definition has since been redefined using the Planck constant). A 1 gram chunk would have been tiny and be tedious to work with doing e.g. experiments with gravity.
They also have the original prototype meter in the form of a length of platinum-iridium alloy bar. And because the specific reference object for mass weighs 1kg instead of 1g, it means 1kg is the base unit in SI.
But quite obvious in the system of measurements, the gram is the logical unit here that you augment with prefixes and people commonly handle a lot of mass quantities that are in the order of grams rather than kg.
Derivations are simple. Simply apply powers of ten and their commonly used prefixes (kilo, milli, mega, micro etc.). The base unit is something physical that you can point at as the base unit. Or at least historically that was the intention.
There's also convenience. A 1l of water is about 1kg and a volume of 10x10x10cm. or 1 dm3. That's not accidental but intentional. It makes it easy to work with volumes and masses for people. Never mind that a liter of water isn't exactly a kg (because water purity, temperature, and a few other things).
Kilogram is indeed the base SI unit and not gram. It’s an exception.
Every formula using SI will expect mass in kg and you will be off a factor of 1000 if you use gram as the base unit. Same with derivative units like the newton which all use mass in kg for conversion.
It’s an historical artifact, as it was easier to manufacture a reference kilogram than a reference gram.
Considering today we set the kilogram by fixing the Planck constant and deriving it from there, we can just divide each side of the definition by 1000 and use that as a base unit. Using kg as the base unit is completely arbitrary, as we can derive each unit of weight directly from the meter and the second, not from the base unit.
It's not the same reason. Gram is already part of the nomenclature, wug is not. The change I asked about would shift the relation of the prefixes to the masses: kilogram would represent a mass 1,000 times larger than it does now.
It's exactly the same reason: gram referenced a known quantity. Changing it by a few insignificant digits because of the kilogram update wouldn't force people to realign their perception of it.
Changing it to ~1,000 times what it used to be, or giving it a new name, would force people to realign.
There's reason many people still prefer customary and imperial units, and it's not just bigotry and nationalism (even if they play a part in that preference).
The kilogram is no longer defined by a physical artifact, fwiw.
Anyway, the point is the inconsistency in the system due to the kilogram being the base unit. So derived units are defined in terms of kilogram rather than gram. Say, the unit of force, Newton (N), is defined as kgm/s^2 and not gm/s^2). Or pressure, Pascal (Pa) which is N/m^2 which inherits N being defined in terms of the kilogram). And so on. Anyway, an annoying inconsistency maybe but doesn't really affect usage of the system once you get used to it.
Basically, he didn't say anything. At the entry point, he was asked to show his phone (unlocked) and computer. On one of them, in some messages he exchanged with a colleague, he was criticizing the politics of Trump in research and science. Then, he was threatened to be charged with terrorism, because his exchange with his colleague was 'hainous against Trump' and 'conspiracy ridden'. Charges were dropped after he was denied entry and his computed and phone confiscated.
edit: I see this has been now downvoted below zero, but the information posted here isn't in any of the official communications about it, so I think it's fair to ask where it came from, no?
That's all the article says, so it doesn't match everything OP said. So either OP made it up, or there is another source in case it's exactly what I'm asking for.
"According to a diplomatic source to AFP, the incident occurred on March 9. The space researcher was reportedly subjected to a random check upon arrival, during which his work computer and personal phone were searched. The same source also reported that messages discussing the Trump administration's treatment of scientists were found. He was reportedly accused of messages "that reflect hatred toward Trump and can be described as terrorism ." His professional and personal equipment was reportedly confiscated, and the researcher was sent back to Europe the next day."
Maybe, but our tech advancement could only happen because of our acceptance of others and of cooperation. And I have not seen any evidence that neandertals and sapiens considered themselves that different, this is just an assumed thing from our limited knowledge.
> Maybe, but our tech advancement could only happen because of our acceptance of others and of cooperation.
Or maybe the technical advantage was driven by survival and desire to occupy/expand which eventually resulted in overall development (because you can only hide your advantage for so long) which lifted most of the boats resulting in conditions that make acceptance of others and cooperation easier. I would like to know large-scale examples of acceptance and co-operation when the world was being discovered, conquered, divided and shaped through occupation and wars.
Maybe... but probably not. Having to divert investments from one part of the economy to another is not that much a big problem: Russia has been doing the same and they have an economy of war that works more or less (some say they are on the brink of collapse and yet, they are still there). So, Europe can totally rely way less on the US, they just have to change their priorities, and they'll adapt just as Russia has adapted. Thinking they cannot is really presumptuous, or even comptemptuous (and a lot of people have made the same mistake with Russia by the way). And yet, at the moment, the US think that way, not believing in soft power any more, but only in pure pressure or even blackmail. If history teaches one thing, it is that you always create your own ennemies (Versailles treaty comes to mind).
That is not what is happening. Listen to Ursula. She’s telling you what is happening. Eu countries are being “allowed” to go into debt without triggering eu debt procedures. It won’t be reinvestment. It will be dilution of currency though debt. Something all too familiar to Americans.
Correct. Interestingly enough, it will massively increase the supply of euro bonds, and probably pull in a bunch of cash that goes to US treasuries now.
If there's enough pan European bonds (which there won't be) then the reserve currency status of the dollar could be threatened.
Exactly. Î really don’t understand that some take issue of verifying ages. IRL, you can be asked your ID to buy porn magazines, drink alcohol… Why would it be a nuisance to verify the same things online? Is it because you would be asked every time as your data wouldnt be stored for privacy issues? So, people are realizing that automating everything has drawbacks and that interacting with real humans directly has also advantages? Societies have evolved over hundreds of years and that has resulted in sets of rules to organize them. Would you really prefer the real life to have the rules of the internet replace what we have IRL?
When I'm carded in RL, it is atypical for my ID to be stored, and I must be informed of the fact. A clerk examines the birthday line, and that is that. There is no record. The purchase is de facto anonymous; if I pay in cash, there is no record correlating me with the transaction.
As a gay man, I am profoundly uncomfortable with the idea of one or more private companies having a durable record of the content I look at, for what I would hope are obvious historical reasons. Additionally, age-gate laws will inevitably be used for oppressive purposes - remember, a substantial number of conservatives view ANY mention of the mere existence of LGBT people or families as inherently pornographic, sexual, or obscene, and those people would absolutely seek to have all LGBT content age-gated. Hell, even without such laws we see this in libraries and schools. The harm that would be averted from age verification online is not proportional to the evils it would give rise to, plain and simple.
The only form of age verification I would ever be OK with would be on the same basis as being carded in RL - something like, at a corner store I could buy a tag with an ID number on it that would count as proof of age for as long as I had it, for online purposes. The clerk would verify my age and then give me a tag in a sealed box with a random number, thus preserving my anonymity from both angles: the clerk would not know what number he sold me, and the state would not know who bought the number, only that the retailer averred that I had had my age verified.
My take is that it doesn’t even matter if Taipei has any card: this is not an economical/technological issue, it is an ideological one. China won’t blink an eye to invade if the conditions are right, because they want to unite their country, it is part of their identity. That might happen if anywhere else, there is a land grab. That won’t be Ukraine, because the US are not involved there, but if the US try to follow up on their claims about Greenland or Panama, Taipei is doomed within a month. As Trump is an adept of quid pro quo, that would mean a good deal for him, so the goal is to extract as much value from Taipei before letting them dead in the water.
And there are others, but not ultra young ones actually.
But why would it be bad if the goal of a country is to raise a little the wealth of everyone instead of a lot the wealth of very few ? A country is succesful not by the number of billionaires but by quite a lot of other criterias.
And yet from some of the HN comments I've seen on this topic it seems that quite a few of the Americans are stockholm syndromed to the point that if you do not want to benefit the ultra rich at the expense of regular people by removing their healthcare, vacations, employee safety and protection rights, ability to unionize, and basically by doing all you can to milk the average worker for your own gain, then you're stupid, and they demean EU by constantly bringing up the tired trope of us not having some mega billion valuation companies here because ... our people have rights ... and so no law-breaking/lobbying silicon valley god wants to come here.
And they say this seemingly without realizing that yes, that is exactly by design. This is what we want. Keep your mega wealthy and 3rd world life quality, and we'll here be poor, but can at least attend our children being born without getting fired for it, and giving our mothers a year or more of paid maternity leave, among many many other things we value a hell of a lot more than making our billionaires richer.
reply