I want to expand on the age-verification working group plan, to avoid confusion.
General Discussion
21
Posts
12
Posters
1
Views
-
@mellifluousbox Hello friend Greetings đș
âHow are you doing today hope youâre feeling well and your family? You are having a direct text from Elon.@elon12 shut the fuck up bot
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@Mastodon/116086899600949599
I want to expand on the age-verification working group plan, to avoid confusion. The goal is to create an informal group of experts in the areas of law, privacy, trust & safety, and technology. Their agenda is explicitly not to _implement_ age verification/assurance, neither in the Mastodon software nor in our own servers. The group will assess various risks for the user base, the server admins, and the project and analyse it from different perspectives to provide a balanced recommendation.
@mellifluousbox there's no need for a working group. Commit to never doing it. Enshrine it in the "vision and strategy" of the project that freedom of expression, privacy and personal control over data should be the goals of Mastodon. Parents have a job to protect their kids online, not an Open Source project.
-
@mellifluousbox there's no need for a working group. Commit to never doing it. Enshrine it in the "vision and strategy" of the project that freedom of expression, privacy and personal control over data should be the goals of Mastodon. Parents have a job to protect their kids online, not an Open Source project.
@ret @mellifluousbox Exactly. If you form a committee, it will never be balanced, and the trouble is, this nonsense will crop inside, like every other senseless stuff that gets in. Just SAY NO and DO NOT PUSH it. That is as simple as that, like KISS.
-
@ret @mellifluousbox Exactly. If you form a committee, it will never be balanced, and the trouble is, this nonsense will crop inside, like every other senseless stuff that gets in. Just SAY NO and DO NOT PUSH it. That is as simple as that, like KISS.
@fbinin @ret "we want to assess the risks these laws pose for our company, server admins and users" - "noooo, you can't do that, we want you to bankrupt yourself and go to prison! Knowing about the risks of violating laws would prevent that!" @mellifluousbox
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@Mastodon/116086899600949599
I want to expand on the age-verification working group plan, to avoid confusion. The goal is to create an informal group of experts in the areas of law, privacy, trust & safety, and technology. Their agenda is explicitly not to _implement_ age verification/assurance, neither in the Mastodon software nor in our own servers. The group will assess various risks for the user base, the server admins, and the project and analyse it from different perspectives to provide a balanced recommendation.
@mellifluousbox this may be useful for our cases for Brazilian instances given the new legislation.
-
@fbinin @ret "we want to assess the risks these laws pose for our company, server admins and users" - "noooo, you can't do that, we want you to bankrupt yourself and go to prison! Knowing about the risks of violating laws would prevent that!" @mellifluousbox
@nitrml which laws compel software developers to include privacy-violating age verification features in their code? I must have missed those. Iâm not interested in what happens to Mastodon dot social. They can do as they please, but their decisions shouldnât affect the software for all the other users.
-
@fbinin @ret "we want to assess the risks these laws pose for our company, server admins and users" - "noooo, you can't do that, we want you to bankrupt yourself and go to prison! Knowing about the risks of violating laws would prevent that!" @mellifluousbox
@nitrml @ret @mellifluousbox
Software does not come under that part, only a server, and in fediverse, this should not come into picture at all, as there isn't one server. We already have block servers option in place. Do we really think this will? Rethink please!!! Law makers around the world are crazy people having no other work but to "justify their salary" by doing crap and pushing crappy nonsense. Users are not their first, neither their last priority. -
@nitrml @ret @mellifluousbox
Software does not come under that part, only a server, and in fediverse, this should not come into picture at all, as there isn't one server. We already have block servers option in place. Do we really think this will? Rethink please!!! Law makers around the world are crazy people having no other work but to "justify their salary" by doing crap and pushing crappy nonsense. Users are not their first, neither their last priority.@fbinin @nitrml @ret @mellifluousbox
Different people clearly will have different perspectives on this.
Some - mostly, but not exclusively, larger - federated / FOSS-based service operators are interested in understanding the landscape here, and indeed some have engaged with regulators about it.
If nothing else, a mapping exercise seems pretty sensible.
-
@fbinin @nitrml @ret @mellifluousbox
Different people clearly will have different perspectives on this.
Some - mostly, but not exclusively, larger - federated / FOSS-based service operators are interested in understanding the landscape here, and indeed some have engaged with regulators about it.
If nothing else, a mapping exercise seems pretty sensible.
@neil @nitrml @ret @mellifluousbox
No trouble on mapping, but I have been seeing things. 10 heads, no answer, 1000 heads, of course one Greek bench answer: NO.
Gist: map, see, but stay focused on NOT implementing it at all. -
@mellifluousbox there's no need for a working group. Commit to never doing it. Enshrine it in the "vision and strategy" of the project that freedom of expression, privacy and personal control over data should be the goals of Mastodon. Parents have a job to protect their kids online, not an Open Source project.
And fuck the instance admins who are at risk of being arrested because the government of the country they're in put a dumbass age verification law on the books and no one put together the resources for how they can protect themselves from it so they had to figure it out for themselves and hope they're right.
-
@nitrml which laws compel software developers to include privacy-violating age verification features in their code? I must have missed those. Iâm not interested in what happens to Mastodon dot social. They can do as they please, but their decisions shouldnât affect the software for all the other users.
@ret you claim things ("no need for a working group") and when told that they need to assess their organization for these risks (not the software! Their organization!) you start talking about the software. If you dont care what they do regarding dot social, then this whole thing shouldnt be relevant to you.
Except if they do something to the software itself. That would impact other servers, and that would be a different discussion. But thats not where any of this is right now.
-
And fuck the instance admins who are at risk of being arrested because the government of the country they're in put a dumbass age verification law on the books and no one put together the resources for how they can protect themselves from it so they had to figure it out for themselves and hope they're right.
@gbargoud theyâre free to make their own decisions about whether they comply or not. The instance Iâm using right now is in violation of UK law. Probably Saudi law, Iranian law, Chinese law, etc etc⊠thereâs no winning this.
-
@ret you claim things ("no need for a working group") and when told that they need to assess their organization for these risks (not the software! Their organization!) you start talking about the software. If you dont care what they do regarding dot social, then this whole thing shouldnt be relevant to you.
Except if they do something to the software itself. That would impact other servers, and that would be a different discussion. But thats not where any of this is right now.
@nitrml how do you think theyâll implement age verification on mastodon dot social? Special fork? No. Itâll be baked into the software, which will create a precedent for this to be implemented everywhere.
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@Mastodon/116086899600949599
I want to expand on the age-verification working group plan, to avoid confusion. The goal is to create an informal group of experts in the areas of law, privacy, trust & safety, and technology. Their agenda is explicitly not to _implement_ age verification/assurance, neither in the Mastodon software nor in our own servers. The group will assess various risks for the user base, the server admins, and the project and analyse it from different perspectives to provide a balanced recommendation.
@mellifluousbox It has to be thought about. Sometime soon people may have to decide if they're going to implement age verification or shut down their servers. If they're to be provided any answers, be they implemented options or a documented reason why this is just done, then the effort to come up with them needs to start before they're needed.
-
@fbinin @ret "we want to assess the risks these laws pose for our company, server admins and users" - "noooo, you can't do that, we want you to bankrupt yourself and go to prison! Knowing about the risks of violating laws would prevent that!" @mellifluousbox
@nitrml @fbinin @ret @mellifluousbox Should be noted that if we all actually did manage to get sentenced to prison we'd either break the system or end up in warehouses in the desert surrounded by overheated assholes in cammo.
Either way, problem solved.
-
@nitrml which laws compel software developers to include privacy-violating age verification features in their code? I must have missed those. Iâm not interested in what happens to Mastodon dot social. They can do as they please, but their decisions shouldnât affect the software for all the other users.
A working group might be able to come up with other, non-software strategies for dealing with this shit. Perhaps relying on new features in the software that don't actually ID anyone but could attach the status of having BEEN IDed or just let in and I'll take responsibility.
But it takes actually thinking about and studying a problem to come up with answers like that. You can't just shove your head up your ass and then yell at it.
-
undefined oblomov@sociale.network shared this topic
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
A working group might be able to come up with other, non-software strategies for dealing with this shit. Perhaps relying on new features in the software that don't actually ID anyone but could attach the status of having BEEN IDed or just let in and I'll take responsibility.
But it takes actually thinking about and studying a problem to come up with answers like that. You can't just shove your head up your ass and then yell at it.
-
@nitrml @fbinin @ret @mellifluousbox Should be noted that if we all actually did manage to get sentenced to prison we'd either break the system or end up in warehouses in the desert surrounded by overheated assholes in cammo.
Either way, problem solved.
-
@mellifluousbox It has to be thought about. Sometime soon people may have to decide if they're going to implement age verification or shut down their servers. If they're to be provided any answers, be they implemented options or a documented reason why this is just done, then the effort to come up with them needs to start before they're needed.
-
Also, you should give yourself a break and use the miscellany context.
-
@nitrml how do you think theyâll implement age verification on mastodon dot social? Special fork? No. Itâll be baked into the software, which will create a precedent for this to be implemented everywhere.
-
@gbargoud theyâre free to make their own decisions about whether they comply or not. The instance Iâm using right now is in violation of UK law. Probably Saudi law, Iranian law, Chinese law, etc etc⊠thereâs no winning this.
-
@raphael @liaizon @smallcircles @django ha! There are a lot of Djangos involved in the social API.
-
@ret you claim things ("no need for a working group") and when told that they need to assess their organization for these risks (not the software! Their organization!) you start talking about the software. If you dont care what they do regarding dot social, then this whole thing shouldnt be relevant to you.
Except if they do something to the software itself. That would impact other servers, and that would be a different discussion. But thats not where any of this is right now.
