Seems very similar to turning on compiler warnings. A load of scary nothings, and a few bugs. But you fix the bugs and clarify the false positives, and end up with more robust and maintainable code.
Curious if we are already seeing effects because of this in significantly reduced calcium and phosphorous levels, or if any reduction is largely dietary. Conversely, can you really use calcium and phosphorous levels as a proxy if they are driven significantly by dietary changes?
I actually was in the emergency in October last year. I had bicarbonate in the upper range of normal. This caused decreased extracellular potassium, still borderline as per hospital specs. Even so, this drop in potassium had been triggering worrying arrhythmia, specifically extreme tachycardia upon waking, possibly SVT.
Calcium is easy to get from supplements, and phosphorus from food, but don't mess with bicarbonate.
It turned out that my bicarbonate rise was driven by contributions from: potassium citrate (70%), alkaline water (8%), calcium bicarbonate (8%), calcium citrate (2%), and magnesium citrate (2%). I switched to calcium glycinate and magnesium glycinate capsules.
So no, my rise in bicarbonate was not driven by atmospheric CO2, but for a month, I got a taste of what happens even with a mild rise to the upper edge of the normal range.
Starts off with a flawed assumption, playing into the hands of people who want surveillance.
"The only way to prove that someone is old enough to use a site is to collect personal data about who they are. And the only way to prove that you checked is to keep the data indefinitely."
If you start by legislating that you can't collect personal data or ID, then you are forced to do your age verification through other means. And legislate the government can't see what websites a user is visiting if you can to stop overreach. End result is a workable solution, zero knowledge proof or similar where government (the source of your ID documents) signs a token brokered by a proxy.
But when you start arguments from the position of 'no way to do this without violating privacy', the end result will be to violate privacy, because it seems an awful lot of people are demanding age verification and will sacrifice if they believe it is necessary.
Maybe better, but still doesn't address the underlying problem. Governments print bits of paper and citizens need to scan and upload them to be validated by a 3rd party. Lots of obvious waste there. Legislating this approach is just entrenching it. But I guess it is cheap for the government. Sane approaches require the government provide a service which 3rd parties can query age with (indirectly, via anonymizing proxy). No need for those bits of paper to be involved at all, disclosing far too much information.
> Sane approaches require the government provide a service which 3rd parties can query age with (indirectly, via anonymizing proxy)
The problem with that is that the government obtained logs from the 3rd parties they might be able to compare timestamps with the timestamps of the anonymous age queries and figure out what sites some people were logging into.
Seems like a great thing then. People get annoyed, businesses that comply lose customers and money etc.
All that friction means these policies become inherently less popular regardless of anything else. While this crap work effortlessly out of the box is just outright dystopian
People are already annoyed, which is why society is demanding the stuff already age restricted for decades or even centuries actually be restricted on the Internet. The battle has never and will never be about allowing kids free access to porn. The battle is about restricting it in a way that doesn't endanger them or their privacy. Failing to do that is what ends in a dystopia, where tech and governments use society's demands as an excuse to move us further into a surveillance state. Like the proposed laws being discussed, centralizing data in an easily subpoenable location.
"Society" isn't demanding anything. A vocal minority of idiots, unfortunately overrepresented among the kind of people who tend to run for office, is demanding things, 95 percent based on stupid delusions and childish prejudices.
Trick is to not get into the unwinnable situation. I think the correct response is to not shield clients from blame when they refuse or are unable to comply with court orders and throw them under the bus. Which is what Julie Le did when she informed the court the violation was intentional, and was fired for.
"Julie Le, was removed from her post in Minnesota after she told Judge Jerry Blackwell the violations were the result of both a personnel shortage and lackluster procedures intended to ensure orders are followed." “And, yes, procedure in place right now sucks. I’m trying to fix it,” she said. “The system sucks. This job sucks.”
Governments around the world could setup, in solidarity with the US, freedom.ca, freedom.eu etc. Hosting provided by Pornhub. Maybe Pornhub could even start registering the TLDs now where available.
Age verification is required for age limited servers and channels. The vast majority are not age limited and will remain available without verification. As has happened in the past, more of the remaining channels will turn off age limiting as it becomes more invasive, in favor of moderation and tweaked community standards (no more porn in #shitpost). I'd expect the remaining bits will leave, with most of the members not wanting it to be linked to their real id.
reply