We could have a system where I authenticate myself against a government service only, or also licensed third party providers, they then provide me with signed proof-of-age certificates that can also be single use, and then I use them to proof my age with a particular service.
I don't want to give my ID to every service I interact online. But I also don't think it's reasonable to ask of parents to ensure their children aren't accessing age restricted content online.
What about liquor shops or strip clubs? They ask for ID, which makes sense; we're not expecting parents to make sure their children don't go into these places. But the liquor shop takes a look at the ID and then doesn't collect the data.
Being entirely against age verification is not a good stance I think, but we should definitely have a hard stance on the privacy issue. There are systems that preserve privacy while still making it possible to verify you're old enough to use a service.
If you work to earn a living, you're working class. If you use capital to pay your bills, you're a capitalist. So I'd say someone with that kind of salary and stocks is probably halfway to not-working-class. If you already have 1MM in stocks then you're not working class anymore, you don't need to work at that point.
Of course quitting can be in the cards, but I'd much rather see a successful pushback from meta employees against this new policy; maybe this could be a good cause to form a union over.
Can you elaborate what the problem is? IMO hosting and search are quite decoupled, why not just search for "open source solution to problem XYZ" in your favorite search engine?
But also maybe the parent post and you refer to kids of different ages?
I didn't have access to a computer until I was 9, and then also we didn't have tables and smartphones, so there computer was only available at home as well.
I think below a certain age the limit is fine to be set as 'not at all'.
Thanks for replying that. I think after reading this, I'd go with what was said at the end: “There is no such thing as an unintended consequence” - Amazon claiming that what they're doing is to the benefit of consumers is bullshit. Obviously Amazon knows about all of what's going on (i.e. they cause prize inflation elsewhere) and they willfully tolerate these consequences of their policy.
Individualizing systemic failures to regulate businesses is counterproductive. Meaningful change will only come by regulation.
Give me one example, where consumer behavior really changed anything. Usually what follows from large boycotts is political action or the company succumbing to pressure.
Just stopping to spend your money there might make you feel good but don't kid yourself, it barely does anything if you're not turning it into an organized action.
Yes I really wish people saying "X is the best place to live in the world" would add where else they have lived, otherwise their opinion is not very useful to me.
I live in a big continental European city that also has a start-up hub. The companies here are also small, creative, solving problems, but don't necessarily aim for an exit and growth at all costs, many of them want to create a sustainable business solving a need that people have.
I think, to the economist, these are just SMEs and a start-up is about making money, an IPO, an exit, the unicorns. And of course London as one of the largest financial hubs will be a good place to start such a business.
But I've always thought of these "SME"-type start-ups as belonging to the start-up category too; after all they "start up" a company and often have ambitious goals and creative, tech driven approaches to solving problems. This is how I've thought it would work when I was younger, and it is how I still think it'd be good to do today, and how I'd try to build a company if I have a good idea to pursue.
Anyways, the point I want to make re the article is that I think the definition is narrow, leaves out a bunch of interesting companies, and thus skews the picture towards London. There are plenty of innovative places around Europe, it's just a different model of doing start-ups. IMO this overly financially motivated view onto the start-up world is quite a bit less interesting than a the broader (maybe harder to quantify) picture.