That is not entirely true. They are government but they work differently than a central government does. It is all part of a democratic process that includes all people into it and to make it so that people still have a voice and say in what laws they want in their community. That is why we are the United States of America each state has its own amendments and constitutions. These different regulatory industries are a collection of groups within local towns, states, federal districts and the government.
They may work together but they also interoperately do things differently from each other.
If you make a federal law then that is government control as it is mandated and accepted by Congress and must be followed by all states.
Local only applies to that town as in your legislators within your town that you elected in your town made laws within that town or district. And followed by local police.
Then theyâre also sheriffs who have their own rules who are not dependent on the government. They do follow government laws. But how they treat their town is different. You will find in Texas as theyâre independent. Mostly in the south.
I do also see the issue with this. As with those disabled studies of kids who have parents who are disabled they take more of a roll of the parent for their disabled dad or mom. So there would be issues here of my said solution would come about.
Look at the US government today and explain the checks and balances when thuggery is the name of the game with said government toward people and corporations. This particular statement while it should be accurate, doesnât appear to be accurate today. You seem to be putting too much trust in the government. They only exist to protect their interests - they do not care about the average person as much as they do about their own priorities - no matter the political party. They exist to safeguard their interests.
What part of the numerous ways that the following as been explained to you are you not understanding?: governments have no right to dictate anything in any private citizenâs (minor or not) life.
The problem always is not the system or the protocols or the laws in place, the problematic element is always humans. So, this rationalization or statement doesnât mean much because it canât be accounted when ensuring of something incredibly important.
Are you really, really claiming that the current admin particularly has never done anything illegal including violating the bill of rights on a semi regular if not a regular basis?
If ignorance is indeed bliss, Iâll have what youâre having cause I would love to be stress free.
If they actually did something illegal the whole judicial system I would think would have had him in jail by now. As, he has had so many cases.
Politicians still have freedom speech. As long as he didnât take action or anyone in his administration did not actually do anything then there is nothing that can be done.
That was different to when someone in Bidenâs administration actually threatened social media companies and had federal FBI agents threatening them to removing speech on social media platforms. A judge found that unconstitutional and then applied remedies.
Is it wrong whatâs happened in some of the things that heâs done morally. Yes but a lot of our laws are vague for a reason so they protect citizens, aswell as politicians. As politicians are still citizens of the United States and are still protected by the constitution and the bill of rights.
Edit: We should expect better. But are government is the product of the people and the reason we have the politicians that we do. Is because everyone keeps voting them back in. Instead of looking for change.
Just like you said:
You also forgot to include:
People shape this country for better or worse. If you donât like it. Then you donât like democracy.
That is why advocating for better solutions is always the way. My solution may not be the best or should be implemented. But maybe someone in this form who has more power to enact change can take something from this and come up with something better. With us discussing.
That can either be more training for parents more resources etc. Doesnât have to be age verification.
I am just defending my solution cuz itâs what I came up with and personally I think it could work. If people were willing. I still donât think my solution/solutions are perfect though.
I weep for the nation if this is the kind of critical thinking skills that drives people. The US is a great idea, lasted a long time- but when people start disagreeing on specificity on what dictionary defined words mean or should mean, facts donât mean anything and so does our alleged shared reality.
To still think or feel that there can ever or at all be a solution that is good enough to this fake/false/distracted issue to the larger one is leaving me ineffable (as much as I have already said on it in this thread).
I wish you well. I hope you keep reading learning the right things.
This wasnât a rhetorical question by the way. I know it reads as such given the framing and the context but I was genuinely curious to see what is still driving you.
But I guess we can stop debating this now. Feels moot. Seems like youâre mind is made up even after enough exposition for why youâre in the wrong here.
Feel free to let me know if you still have the bandwidth.
Whether we like it or not. That is the exact reason government exists. To provide rules, structure and safety.
As, without government there is no society structure for all citizens to follow. We always look towards a leader to make us safe or how to act. Government is supposed to be that leader. They dictate how a society shall be. The issue of opinion is how much should that said government have in a say. That is why Americaâs been an experiment as we the citizens who have made decisions in our government on what control government has. Compared to other governments around the world. Like China or Russia. Are there big issues yes. But I am not about to give up hope that all of Americaâs citizens are too far gone to vote for good. Same with politicians. They are all Americans born and raised and if you get good politician like Bernie Sanders, Arnold Schwarzenegger(beside him he is from Austria), AOC etc.
Take a look at Arnold Schwarzenegger (A foreigners take on America who was also a politician in America) views he talks about how people hold the power. After he says his views on Charlie Kirk.
What my opinion is and what I believe is there to be a balance. As, in providing safety. As, the right of privacy cannot impact the right to safety. There must be a way to strike that balance and debating solutions can bring that to light. As, we the people determine the United States government and if we arenât talking things out. The government will not be working correctly or in favor of the citizens who live in said government.
Personally I think the discussion here is also missing what age verification, even if performed in a hypothetical perfectly private way, means for the governments ability to censor the internet. Mark my words it is only a matter of time before âliberal western democraciesâ (whatever that still means) place age limits on content related to LGBTQ, minorities, media coverage of war (see reddit marking much Ukraine war coverage as 18+´), etc. There is also the hypothetical threat of using such a system to impose age limits of hundreds of years as a means to block access to âundesirableâ content completely within the framework of a pervasive age verification scheme.
Great point thanks for including. Do you think there is any legislation that could be made locally, or federally that could try to mitigate those issues?
As, we are already seeing age verification in some states and to prevent that from occuring in those states. What should be done now to prevent those abuses from occuring?
And I know stopping age verification could be a solution. But if it canât be done, as in the state governments keeps going ahead with what it has planned what are other ways to prevent the abuse from occuring.
Honestly people need to stop pretending that they can influence policies and politics from the outside. You cannot approach these people and issues with typical logical arguments like a parents responsibility for their own children because âprotecting the childrenâ has never been the goal (though a frightening percentage of the population supports such measures under those false pretences.
Stopping age verification is not a solution because that itself is a symptom of many much larger issues in our modern societies. Without a fundamental re-evaluation of what the role of government is in a society by a population that is enlightened enough to critically evaluate that role we will never see the change that is needed to reverse the course of global authoritarianism.
But to focus specifically on age verification since I still absolutely believe it must be stopped technological solutions are the only way I can see that has any hope of succeeding. The only reason there is any security of communications today is because of the prevalence of encryption and the next thing needs to be similarly accessible technological guarantees for privacy and anonymity.
Edit: @phnx I may have read that one quoted part wrong. Sorry. After reading it again. I think you may have been saying that you must get involved to enact change? Just not look from the outside and complain? So, if that is actually what you meant then there is nothing in your points that I disagree with.
I thank you for your opinion. But disagree with that assumption
You can still enact change. If the American people are willing. It isnât fast nor is it a delightful process atm.
The issue is that many people are inactive in politics for issues they would actually fight for. That is why it doesnât matter to politicians. After all, either citizens are working and donât have the time to devote to constantly surveilling all the news of policies their politicians are voting for. This is why we get stuck with some of our politicians because not many people understand that their politicians may not be voting in their best interest.
There are still good politicians out there who want to create holidays or special weekends where people can actually catch up on government policy news. But will the people actually use those holidays as a way to vote is another story.
Thatâs why I keep saying the society is made by the people who vote. If theyâre not willing to care or believe they donât have the power or they donât have the time to care, weâre not going to get the solutions we want, and the cycle continues.
As an example, I had some outrageous policies come out in state voting.
One was about the state being audited by external public third parties or not.
The answer was yes or no.
The majority voted yes, and the state government is now being audited by public third parties.
So, change can happen. But itâs about whether the citizens are willing to vote or voice those concerns to their politicians and actually vote for the people who will align on their issues.
The fact you think this is missing tells me that this discussion has gone on too long and is going in circles, and people are missing out on the actual facts earlier in the thread as a result
Every point currently being discussed has already been addressed above, which is why Iâm no longer responding unless I actually see something new brought up.
Everyone knows that the government can use it to censor. But what are you or advocates leaders going to do to stop it.
Are you just going to keep saying let not try private solutions. Or are we just going to wait out the wave and maybe citizens will turn out and complain about age verification to where it is overturned? But during that time have are privacy rights eroded?
Idk, but I also have reach the end for today. Maybe others can provide insight on other solutions (that are not just pertaining to age verification),
What ZKPs donât do is mitigate verifier abuse or limit their requests, such as over-asking for information they donât need or limiting the number of times they request your age over time. They donât prevent websites or applications from collecting other kinds of observable personally identifiable information like your IP address or other device information while interacting with them.
ZKPs are a great tool for sharing less data about ourselves over time or in a one time transaction. But this doesnât do a lot about the data broker industry that already has massive, existing profiles of data on people. We understand that this was not what ZKPs for age verification were presented to solve. But it is still imperative to point out that utilizing this technology to share even more about ourselves online through mandatory age verification establishes a wider scope for sharing in an already saturated ecosystem of easily linked, existing personal information online. Going from presenting your physical ID maybe 2-3 times a week to potentially proving your age to multiple websites and apps every day online is going to render going online itself as a burden at minimum and a barrier entirely at most for those who canât obtain an ID.
From the article you provided see discussing is needed everyone!:
Until the hard questions of power imbalances for potentially abusive verifiers and prevention of phoning home to ID issuers are addressed, these systems should not be pushed forward without proper protections in place. A more private, holder-centric ID is more than just ZKPs as a catch all for privacy concerns. The case of safety online is not solved through technology alone, and involves multiple, ongoing conversations. Yes, that sounds harder to do than age checks online for everyone. Maybe, thatâs why this is so tempting to implement. However, we encourage policy and law makers to look into what is best, and not what is easy.
@GorujoCY Will do but I will be taking my break for today. Thanks for sticking in there and being apart of the discussion! Even when we disagree. Thanks again!
