Your comment, as well as the comments of others, is orthogonal to the question: should children be exposed to anything and everything
on the Internet? This has no relation to religious beliefs, of
which I have none, coming from a secular background.

The problem I see with age verification is the way it shifts the
discussion. The real problem is in what it takes to be exposed to
harmful content. By focusing on age-control, we stop discussing the responsibility of algorithmic propaganda sites (so-called "social
media"), even though it's also very harmful to grown ups (actually, to
society as a whole).


=== Stefan

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.12
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 02:48:07PM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:

Your comment, as well as the comments of others, is orthogonal to the question: should children be exposed to anything and everything
on the Internet? This has no relation to religious beliefs, of
which I have none, coming from a secular background.

The problem I see with age verification is the way it shifts the
discussion. The real problem is in what it takes to be exposed to
harmful content. By focusing on age-control, we stop discussing the responsibility of algorithmic propaganda sites (so-called "social
media"), even though it's also very harmful to grown ups (actually, to society as a whole).

Exactly. Last Chaos Communication Congress there were a bunch of very
good talks on that (currently hot) topic, and most of the takes go
into your direction: don't exclude kids, fix "social" media.
Actually it seems to be mainly the social media companies lobbies
(Meta et al) pushing for that torough age verification (their wet
dream: make the state force their users to cough up yet another bit
of information).
Cheers
--
t


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.12
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 2:48?PM Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

Your comment, as well as the comments of others, is orthogonal to the question: should children be exposed to anything and everything
on the Internet? This has no relation to religious beliefs, of
which I have none, coming from a secular background.

The problem I see with age verification is the way it shifts the
discussion. The real problem is in what it takes to be exposed to
harmful content. By focusing on age-control, we stop discussing the responsibility of algorithmic propaganda sites (so-called "social
media"), even though it's also very harmful to grown ups (actually, to society as a whole).

In the US it is difficult to reign in social media. That is why Europe and Asia need to take the lead, and why Trump is pushing back so hard on
guardrails from Europe and Asia.
In the United States, the companies providing social media have first
amendment protections. And then there's that awful 47 U.S.C. ? 230
(a/k/a/ Communications Decency Act of 1996), < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230#Debate_on_protections_for_social_media_(2016%E2%80%93present)

.

You may have heard of the "26 words that created the internet." Here they
are, straight from Section 230:
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated
as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another
information content provider.
That lets companies like Meta and Google off the hook for what their users
say and do.
Jeff


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.12
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 2026-03-11 at 17:16, Jeffrey Walton wrote:

On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 2:48?PM Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

Your comment, as well as the comments of others, is orthogonal to the
question: should children be exposed to anything and everything
on the Internet? This has no relation to religious beliefs, of
which I have none, coming from a secular background.

The problem I see with age verification is the way it shifts the
discussion. The real problem is in what it takes to be exposed to
harmful content. By focusing on age-control, we stop discussing the
responsibility of algorithmic propaganda sites (so-called "social
media"), even though it's also very harmful to grown ups (actually, to
society as a whole).

In the US it is difficult to reign in social media. That is why Europe and Asia need to take the lead, and why Trump is pushing back so hard on guardrails from Europe and Asia.

In the United States, the companies providing social media have first amendment protections. And then there's that awful 47 U.S.C. ? 23

0

(a/k/a/ Communications Decency Act of 1996), < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230#Debate_on_protections_for_social_media_(2016%E2%80%93present)

.

You may have heard of the "26 words that created the internet." Here they are, straight from Section 230:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated
as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another
information content provider.

That lets companies like Meta and Google off the hook for what their users say and do.

It also lets Debian host this mailing list, without having to worry
about being held liable in court if someone posts something here that is
held to be defamatory or infringing or otherwise illegal.
Some of the consequences of Section 230 (which, I'll note, is from what
I understand the sole remaining piece of the Communications Decency Act
which has not been overturned as unconstitutional) can be problematic,
I'll agree. But others are foundational and necessary, and many of the relatively few good things remaining about the Internet nowadays would
not be practical/viable without it.
I dislike seeing Section 230 presented purely as a negative, without acknowledgment of its important or positive aspects/consequences; that
reads to me as little if any different from propaganda.
--
The Wanderer
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.12
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

You may have heard of the "26 words that created the internet." Here they are, straight from Section 230:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated
as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another
information content provider.

That lets companies like Meta and Google off the hook for what their users say and do.

Yes, tho I think we're falling into that trap as well when we say things
like "what their users say and do": while the messages technically
(presumably) originate from other users, it's the companies which choose
which messages they send: with such a vast number of users (and hence
messages) to choose from, they can literally say anything they want
while hiding behind section 230 for protection.


=== Stefan

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.12
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

It also lets Debian host this mailing list, without having to worry
about being held liable in court if someone posts something here that
is held to be defamatory or infringing or otherwise illegal.

Agreed. The difference being that Debian doesn't choose which messages
it pushes to its readers, beyond some limited moderation/censorship
(also the relatively small number of messages it relays, severely
constrains the diversity of messages it could send out if it decided to actively choose which messages to promote).


=== Stefan

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.12
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 10:21:18PM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:

It also lets Debian host this mailing list, without having to worry
about being held liable in court if someone posts something here that
is held to be defamatory or infringing or otherwise illegal.

Agreed. The difference being that Debian doesn't choose which messages
it pushes to its readers, beyond some limited moderation/censorship
(also the relatively small number of messages it relays, severely
constrains the diversity of messages it could send out if it decided to actively choose which messages to promote).

That's exactly it. When convenient, social media companies purport to
be "just transport". When it comes to make money, they behave like
publishers. It's this gap which has allowed them to grow so obscenely
quickly.
Lawmakers know it, knew it in the 2000s (it was more search engines back
then, but the basic mechanism is still similar). They've just been bribed. Cheers
--
t


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.12
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 2026-03-11, Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 2:48=E2=80=AFPM Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontre= al.ca>
wrote:

Your comment, as well as the comments of others, is orthogonal to the
question: should children be exposed to anything and everything
on the Internet? This has no relation to religious beliefs, of
which I have none, coming from a secular background.

The problem I see with age verification is the way it shifts the
discussion. The real problem is in what it takes to be exposed to
harmful content. By focusing on age-control, we stop discussing the
responsibility of algorithmic propaganda sites (so-called "social
media"), even though it's also very harmful to grown ups (actually, to
society as a whole).

In the US it is difficult to reign in social media. That is why Europe and Asia need to take the lead, and why Trump is pushing back so hard on guardrails from Europe and Asia.

Social media reigns, and should be reined in; but the devil as always is
in the details.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.12
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

I am calling on the Administrator of this Reflector to bring this off
topic thread

to and end. Please focus exclusively to Debian Software Development issues.

A lot of us are NOT on a political reflector for a reason!

Thomas Dineen


On 3/12/2026 8:59 AM, Bigsy Bohr wrote:

On 2026-03-11, Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 2:48=E2=80=AFPM Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontre= >> al.ca>
wrote:

Your comment, as well as the comments of others, is orthogonal to the
question: should children be exposed to anything and everything
on the Internet? This has no relation to religious beliefs, of
which I have none, coming from a secular background.

The problem I see with age verification is the way it shifts the
discussion. The real problem is in what it takes to be exposed to
harmful content. By focusing on age-control, we stop discussing the
responsibility of algorithmic propaganda sites (so-called "social
media"), even though it's also very harmful to grown ups (actually, to
society as a whole).

In the US it is difficult to reign in social media. That is why Europe and >> Asia need to take the lead, and why Trump is pushing back so hard on
guardrails from Europe and Asia.

Social media reigns, and should be reined in; but the devil as always is
in the details.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.12
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Wed, 2026-03-11 at 17:16 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be
treated as the publisher or speaker of any information
provided by another information content provider.

That lets companies like Meta and Google off the hook for what their
users say and do.

It does not leave them off the hook for what they do themselves though
(like the hyper-addictive algorithms, privacy-violations, etc.).


And they already block many ridiculous things anyway; e.g. I just saw
someone who had to pixelate her 5yo boy?s nipples on a beach photo
from
last summer because otherwise Instagram blocked it.


--
Jan Claeys

(please don't CC me when replying to the list)

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.13
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Sat, 14 Mar 2026 14:45:17 +0100
Jan Claeys <lists@janc.be> wrote:

On Wed, 2026-03-11 at 17:16 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be
treated as the publisher or speaker of any information
provided by another information content provider.

That lets companies like Meta and Google off the hook for what their
users say and do.

It does not leave them off the hook for what they do themselves though
(like the hyper-addictive algorithms, privacy-violations, etc.).

No, but they're all in bed with the US government one way or another,
so the law doesn't apply to them.

And they already block many ridiculous things anyway; e.g. I just saw
someone who had to pixelate her 5yo boy?s nipples on a beach photo
from last summer because otherwise Instagram blocked it.

Which is a bit odd since everyone is born with a couple and there seem
to be no moves as yet to prevent people seeing their own...

--
Joe

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.13
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Sat, 14 Mar 2026 10:28:05 -0400
Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> wrote:

Section 230 provides broad immunity for companies like Meta and
Facebook. It is completely opposite of the way things work in the
real world, where publishers are responsible for the material they
publish and distribute.

But the telephone providers have never been held responsible for any
slander uttered though their connections.

But one way or another would be good. If they censor or apply political
bias to what they carry, then they are have responsibility for what
they allow through. At the moment they claim no responsibility when they clearly are applying editorial control.

--
Joe

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.13
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 2026-03-14 at 13:29, Joe wrote:

On Sat, 14 Mar 2026 10:28:05 -0400 Jeffrey Walton
<noloader@gmail.com> wrote:

Section 230 provides broad immunity for companies like Meta and
Facebook. It is completely opposite of the way things work in the
real world, where publishers are responsible for the material they
publish and distribute.

But the telephone providers have never been held responsible for any
slander uttered though their connections.

This is part of the reasoning behind the difference, indeed.
There's room to make a counterargument involving the messages spoken via telephone being transitory, and the ones hosted by online service
providers being persistent. That's enough of a qualitative difference to
make drawing a distinction between telephone service and online
discussion fora reasonable, though IMO not enough of one to make erasing
the difference between online discussion fora and traditional publishing reasonable.

But one way or another would be good. If they censor or apply
political bias to what they carry, then they are have responsibility
for what they allow through. At the moment they claim no
responsibility when they clearly are applying editorial control.

That's the "allowed to moderate, but not obligated to moderate" thing.
If there were a requirement to moderate, only the biggest players would
be able to afford to do it, and everyone else would have to drop out, so
the only legal online discussion forums would be those hosted by those
big players; if there were a prohibition on moderation, not only would
there be no way to have discussion spaces dedicated to particular topics
that didn't get swamped with posts about unrelated topics, there'd also
be no way to rein in the floods of spam that are out there even nowadays.
There are definitely problems with the current situation, don't get me
wrong. But I've never seen a suggestion of an alternative that would fix
any of those problems without introducing enough others to be a cure
worse than the disease.
--
The Wanderer
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.13
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)