undefined | Better HN

0 pointsndriscoll23d ago0 comments

Kids having $20-30 means you're fine with them being unsupervised? Computers and smartphones are incredibly cheap.

In person, we expect stores won't sell cigarettes to kids. We should simply expect companies won't provide age restricted services to kids. The liability and requirements should be on those companies.

0 comments

guzfip22d ago

> In person, we expect stores won't sell cigarettes to kids. We should simply expect companies won't provide age restricted services to kids.

Stores won’t sell cigarettes to kids because doing that will probably get you arrested and shut down pretty quickly.

nemomarx23d ago

If they're able to get a burner phone unsupervised then I think they could also pay an adult to do the face scan for them or borrow your ID from your purse to authenticate an account. What level of security would you need to totally prevent that kind of thing? Unless it checks your age every time you log in with biometrics I don't see it.

(Of course adding any level of friction will deter some kids, but needing to get a whole new device other than the one their parents gave them is already a lot of friction, isn't it?)

ndriscollOP22d ago

We could e.g. try saying it's sufficient that the user makes ongoing credit cards payments as a proof of age. Or sure maybe you need to verify with every purchase, which is how e.g. alcohol works.

Don't currently take payments for your business model? Probably what you're doing is anticompetitive and we shouldn't allow it anyway.

iamnothere22d ago

What about non businesses, like nonprofits, hobbyist groups, or individuals offering a service out of their own charity?

ndriscollOP20d ago

What service? The social media regulations I recall seeing have a size threshold, so hobbyists don't seem relevant. For something like porn, after having actually thought about it some, I don't really see how we've decided that anonymous porn isn't blatantly public indecency, so frankly I don't see how hobbyists openly sharing their work with anyone without knowing who they're giving it to wouldn't be committing a crime.

1 more reply

IAmBroom22d ago

You are gliding past the crucial difference: detecting that someone is a minor in person is magnitudes easier than doing so online.

ndriscollOP22d ago

I'm not seeing how that affects my framing. Yes, it is more difficult. That sounds like a problem for businesses that want to offer restricted services online, and we should ensure it stays their problem, not everyone else's.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

guzfip22d ago

> In person, we expect stores won't sell cigarettes to kids. We should simply expect companies won't provide age restricted services to kids.

Stores won’t sell cigarettes to kids because doing that will probably get you arrested and shut down pretty quickly.

nemomarx23d ago

(Of course adding any level of friction will deter some kids, but needing to get a whole new device other than the one their parents gave them is already a lot of friction, isn't it?)

ndriscollOP22d ago

We could e.g. try saying it's sufficient that the user makes ongoing credit cards payments as a proof of age. Or sure maybe you need to verify with every purchase, which is how e.g. alcohol works.

Don't currently take payments for your business model? Probably what you're doing is anticompetitive and we shouldn't allow it anyway.

iamnothere22d ago

What about non businesses, like nonprofits, hobbyist groups, or individuals offering a service out of their own charity?

ndriscollOP20d ago

1 more reply

IAmBroom22d ago

You are gliding past the crucial difference: detecting that someone is a minor in person is magnitudes easier than doing so online.

ndriscollOP22d ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse