What I find utterly wrong is the method, because this way you end up tracking also every adult.
A better way would be to legislate that minors need to use devices specifically designed for them, so that they can be kept under control, and forbid them to use regular devices.
My daughter cannot drive my car, and I don't need to insert my id card to use it, nor there is a facial recognition system to ensure that I am an adult.
Banning the kids from access social media sounds like just an excuse to be able to track adults.
You seem to have contradicted yourself saying it's OK to ban them and then saying it's just an excuse to track adults. But you're no exception it seems everyone involved in this discussion is conflicting these two issues. How about we just say we're going to ban minors - make that the law, and then figure out the proper technical approach? We're smart technologies here and I'm sure in about an hour we could find a solution.
No, I'm not conflicting the two issues. I'm fine with the ban I'm not fine with how it is being implemented, I thought the example would make it clear.
A ban shouldn't affect the adults (and this is the same for stuff like porn). If you think that kids should be restricted from a portion of the Internet, have the tools that they use check who they are... but adults should be able to use other tools.
I know I'm inherently an optimist, but I assume that society can and will implement it properly. This isn't hard technically but apparently it is hard politically.
I was worried about not being able to send emails, but is seems that as long as you setup properly SPF/DKIM/DMARC you're fine. You may have problems if using a domestic address though.
For the configuration, the best bet is probably to use a product that makes it easy to configure the above three, there are a few alternatives around, like Stalwart [1] or docker-mailserver (which is little more that your postfix/dovecot/rspam combo packaged in a container) [2]
Wrong answer. Or at least, obvious and not particularly useful.
Truth is, none of those parties are "nefarious" - they're all just not on your side. And "security" is never an unqualified good thing to have (it's not an unqualified bad thing either). It's just a framework of coercion.
The most important questions to answer about any security system is, what is being protected, for who, and from who. People don't ask that much, not even in the industry - it's an implicit assumption that everyone themselves is a "good person" and is on the protected side of security systems. And then they're confused because it turns out end-users are more often seen as threat actors. All the players mention, but perhaps especially Apple, in its own special way, is protecting the computer from the user just as much as they're protecting the user/user's data from third parties.
"In the distant future, humans live in a computer-aided society and have forgotten the fundamentals of mathematics, including even the rudimentary skill of counting.
The Terrestrial Federation is at war with Deneb, and the war is conducted by long-range weapons controlled by computers which are expensive and hard to replace. Myron Aub, a low grade Technician, discovers how to reverse-engineer the principles of pencil-and-paper arithmetic by studying the workings of ancient computers which were programmed by human beings, before bootstrapping became the norm—a development which is later dubbed "Graphitics"." [1]
I’m all for the sci-fi extremes that we might lose valuable skills to cognitive delegation, but the idea that we as a society will forget how to count is… extremely stupid.
At the time of the Internet bubble, there were people pushing for more "free" usage of the Internet, and those that couldn't care less.
And it's not like the companies didn't want to take advantage of the Internet, but there was a mismatch between what the companies and the employees had in mind, which mostly boils down
* Employees want to use it to do their jobs and make their life easier
* Companies want to improve productivity, spend less and make more money.
There is some overlap of course, but the problem is where the two clashes.
I don't think today it is too much different. I see plenty of people using AI for what they care about, they complain when they are asked to use it for things they fear will make their life worse (like programmers that think they will have to pick up the pieces of vibe coding later on).
> As a group, teenagers and young adults hate AI
I wonder what is their definition of AI. I haven't seen a single young person saying "I don't use chatgpt (or the like) because I hate AI". If else plenty of student have become dependent on it.
> > As a group, teenagers and young adults hate AI
Anecdotally, I've observed a robust correlation between the cost/quality of the model, and attitude towards it.
Most of the general public, young folks, and old folks (ie outside gen z, millennials, and some X) are using free models, usually what's immediately available (cough copilot cough), have really unreliable results, hear all the hype, experience dissonance, and chalk it up to just hype, and walk away thinking AI is a crock of junk.
The Z/Y/G cohort - the ones that grew up alongside the growth of the internet - seem to be the best adopters. They recognize a system which is powerful, albeit flaky, and know how to extract utility from it without over-reliance. Especially ones with paid flat-rate subscriptions.
The power users - the ones using API/paid (by usage) models, tricking out their claude with plugins, seem to have the least amount of hate, but rather a healthy respect for a powerful disruptor.
I also don't buy the whole "the young'ns have never dealt with barriers of entry to the internet and thus lack the tech skills the millennials developed." I think the internet cohort that adopted tech was always split between the powerusers/curious learners, and the "just get my goal accomplished and get out" folks. I think that's roughly the same percentage of folks in Z/alpha, and these kids are just as savvy and aware of limitations of the tech.
Those who won’t were doing it for the money. Those who continue are those who do it for passion, or those whose recipe is just a way to attract people to their business (e.g. kitchenware company). I don’t think it is necessarily bad, the quantity will decrease but the quality may even improve
I built a passion reference site. A large part of that passion came from knowing and talking to the people I was helping. One person emailing or saying thanks would later help power me through to create more useful articles. Enriching openai/claude/ms/google and no thanks from an individual, has disincentivized me from writing more.
Same here. People knew the website and it was immensely flattering to meet users in the wild. It motivated me to really sweat the small stuff, because people noticed. Now I'm just feeding the slop machine, and it feels pointless.
> a pro-Palestinian march marking “Nakba Day,” happening in London on the same day with an estimated 30,000 attendees, will not face the same biometric surveillance.
Mods here are getting ridiculous- who is the mod that removed my comment for just saying literally the opposite opinion of the original commenter? Why would my comment come down but not the OPs??
What I find utterly wrong is the method, because this way you end up tracking also every adult.
A better way would be to legislate that minors need to use devices specifically designed for them, so that they can be kept under control, and forbid them to use regular devices.
My daughter cannot drive my car, and I don't need to insert my id card to use it, nor there is a facial recognition system to ensure that I am an adult.
Banning the kids from access social media sounds like just an excuse to be able to track adults.
reply