The statement "By enforcing crimes more consistently, we can actually reduce incarceration" sounds logical and reasonable, but actually isn't necessarily true unless A and B below are also true.
A. Actions that are considered crimes do not change over time.
B. Incentives to catch and prosecute crimes are not KPIed based on incarceration rates.
There is at least one comment here that mentions CGNAT and how it enables IPv4 to continue to exist.
CGNAT breaks the end-to-end principle of the Internet and 100% forces you to depend on centralized services, because you will absolutely not be able to receive unsolicited traffic on your IP without coordination/permission from your ISP or other various third parties. Yes, there are NAT bypass methods-but those methods all rely at least in some situations on an external server that relays connection requests.
Many people really don't care if the Internet becomes the next cable TV along with business tunneling services and 2 or 3 social networks and would really be fine with that.
If you don't want this to be the only choice in the future, you should start learning, using, and demanding IPv6 and really stop putting NAT on a pedestal and bitching about the long addresses.
When I set up IPv6 on my home network, I took some time and learned how to get it working with DNS, and now I don't have to type long addresses any more. I have an actual separate IPv6 subnet for guest network. It's pretty cool.
My 91-year-old grandmother used to use Audacity to record audio from such services on her PC. She would the edit the .mp3 metadata and put them on an old-school iPod. I told her that I would kick her out of the house and send her to a nursing home unless she started entering into license agreements and mailing royalty checks to the appropriate parties, and she hasn't done this since, so a win for morality I guess.
And good riddance to it. The broadcast model is inherently hostile towards anything that deviates from "the norm", however defined. It is precisely because music consumption is so individual and customized these days that very niche genres can be viable.
Liability should be 100% on the parents. They are the ones who decided to have a child, and are the ones that are liable for any other type of neglect, such as not providing food or shelter, or letting them roam unsupervised. I don't know why it's different just because it's on a computer.
Isn't that a problem with the school, for allowing your kid to do dangerous things when you're not allowed to watch? They could just as well be giving your child unsupervised access to dangerous chemicals while the chemistry teacher is absent from the classroom, or letting them play in a woodshop.
You generally can't supervise them 100% of the time, and that would also be harmful to their development.
It's almost impossible to control what your kid can do or see or who they interact with once they get on the internet. I had long conversations with my son about the dangers, and thankfully he seems to have absorbed them, but not all do.
I wish there had been safe, non toxic areas, equivalent to playing in the back yard, for kids.
For the record, I don't think banning social media for under 14s will work particularly well. It's more about providing safer places than banning existing ones IMHO.
I hope you are not on a jury trying a child rapist and blaming the parents as 100% at fault.
Liability is obviously not always 100% on the parents. Sometimes you have to send your kid to school. If they are beaten bloody every day that's not necessarily 100% the parents fault - others can exercise some responsibility with respect to kids in our society.
The takes here on HN are frankly scary as a parent.
> I hope you are not on a jury trying a child rapist and blaming the parents as 100% at fault.
I just want to remind everyone else that saying something like this to another human being is an incredibly ugly thing to do, and it is only because the bar for "acceptable discussions" online is so low (that it's underground) that people feel comfortable saying crazy things like this to each other.
Like, I'll be honest, if someone came at me with this "child rapist" line after I said "Liability should be 100% on the parents", that would be my cue to immediately stop interacting with that person. Less reasonable people would throw their drink in your face for saying something like this, some people would even punch you.
Talking to other people like this is not okay, there are better ways to make your point.
(And no, I do not believe "Liability should be 100% on the parents", but I would never accuse someone of letting a predator off the hook just because they have that opinion.)
The idea that liability should be 100% on the parents is an absolute horrific ugly hacker news only type take.
Hackers love to argue these sort of points into the ground. I'm sick of it. They take these points to absurd lengths.
And yes, these arguments overlap with child protection issues. I'm not a "protect the children" political type, but these types of arguments and derivates show up in a fair bit of ugly stuff.
And no - someone like this who does not believe in third party liability with respect to children should not be on a jury.
> I hope you are not on a jury trying a child rapist and blaming the parents as 100% at fault.
A result X may happen because of more than one entity A, B, etc. In this case: the rapist is obviously at fault. If the rape happens because the child was neglected/unsupervised, then the parents may be 100% at fault as well.
Similarly parents who give their children phones and are neglectful via not supervising them should be 100% liable for harm that is caused as well as the harm-causing entity. If they cannot supervise them they should not give them the phone. You wouldn't give an 8 year old a weapon and then divert blame from yourself if the child killed someone, so why is it really any different because it's a phone?
If your 10 year old makes a Facebook account, and Facebook doesn't delete it when knowledge of the user's age is known, Facebook is in the wrong, and the parent that didn't bother checking what their child is doing is also equally as wrong, and both should be fined equally.
And when public schools create an account on Google for a child? And require active use of the account as a condition for receiving an education?
Is the school responsible for that?
The state I’m in guarantees the right to a free state education. If that right is predicated on my child having a Google account, is that my fault as a parent?
It's a massive infringement of your natural rights to be forced to create a Google account for your child. That said, I don't see why that's a reason to keep someone else's 13 year old off Twitter.
it's not theft when the owner still has the thing.
If the owner never had the thing, it is theft, but subject and target are reversed (actions taken against me for money I never gave you are stealing money from me). This could be considered protectionism, but also extortion.
The actual wrong is people taking adverse action against you based on fabricated evidence. Is creating such fabricated evidence with the intent to induce adverse action also wrong? I would say so. It seems similar to defamation or libel to me, unless there is a clear element of parody.
It seems you're then fine with me "lending" your voice to make irritating prank calls to all your relatives and coworkers - since it's, to reiterate, fair use of AI in your opinion
Why do you think that means I'm lending my voice? I still have the ability to talk while you're playing around with a digital representation of my voice. If I lend you my car, I can't use it to drive myself around because you have it.
I mean harassment or libel laws already cover this right? Or revenge porn laws could apply if you did it to your ex. That's not fair use, simply reproducing the sound of a voice using AI is not a crime.
A. Actions that are considered crimes do not change over time.
B. Incentives to catch and prosecute crimes are not KPIed based on incarceration rates.
reply