Okay, but should we not oppose laws about data collection and facial recognition in that case, rather than a law that implements an entirely separate, optional, user driven approach. Saying this is bad because those are bad is not an argument any more so than saying CCPA and GDPR are bad because the government want to collect data. Your argument isn’t against this law, or even the concept of having age verification in general. Its against government overreach as a broad concept. You’re again relying on slipery slope falacy to say that because I’m okay with this one specific form of age gating, I’m okay with every other one, which I have repeatedly made clear is not true.
The fallacy isn’t assuming that it will happen. Clearly, there is a significant push towards it, and its something we need to be fighting against. The reason its a slippery slope fallacy is the assumption that this law is a direct attempt to implement those systems, in spite of the fact that AB1043 implements a system that would be redundant with AI or ID based methods, technically doesn’t offer any good way to transition into an AI or ID based system (since it all has to be done locally), and legally, imposes additional data protection laws that are likely to interfere with AI-based age verification.
The problem with AI and ID age verification isn’t the age verification. Its the data collection, limits on personal freedom, and to some, the inconvenience. So far as I can tell, AB1043 doesn’t have a significant impact on data collection (it does add another metric that could be used for fingerprinting, but also adds stricter regulation on data collection when this flag is used,) or personal freedoms - esspecially not when compared to what is already the existing standard of asking the user for their age and/or if they’re over 18.
The fallacy is the expectation that following escalating events would arise from the event in question.
It’s only a fallacy if it’s unreasonable to expect the subsequent steps to occur or in this case, be attempted.
Does that mean it’s a guarantee, of course not, just that the fallacy doesn’t apply.
The intention or plan for escalating steps doesn’t have to be laid out perfectly to draw the parallels between this and previous similar events that were then subsequently used as foundations for greater reach.
Your reasoning around the technical implementation of such escalation isn’t applicable here (in the conversation about whether or not the fallacy applies)
If you want to argue that they won’t escalate, or it’s not possible , go right ahead, but raising a fallacy argument when it doesn’t apply isn’t a good start.
If you want i can address your arguments around implementation directly,as a seperate conversation? I don’t think you’re correct on that either, but as I said I also don’t think correctness in that subject matters in the context of the fallacy.
My interpretation was that slipery slope was more about the event in question (AC1043) being predicted to directly lead to escalation (AI/ID verification). As from you’re Wikipedia quote, “to result in the claimed effects”. I don’t see any reason to predict that this law will directly influence their decision to escalate or not. That said, perhaps its a disagreement on how much cultural influence a law like this would have, and how seperate a parent/user-managed system of age verification is from a government managed one technically.
I would be interested to hear your argument for technical implementation, however.
But sure, let’s talk about this on its merits, in a vacuum, like there’s nothing else happening. What the fuck is it for? You endlessly insist it’s super minor, barely an inconvenience, and obviously any idiot can bypass it. That is your defense. If you freely acknowledge all of the other efforts went too far and didn’t work, why is this one worth trying? How is this encroachment on all operating systems not a waste of time, at best?
Okay, but should we not oppose laws about data collection and facial recognition in that case, rather than a law that implements an entirely separate, optional, user driven approach. Saying this is bad because those are bad is not an argument any more so than saying CCPA and GDPR are bad because the government want to collect data. Your argument isn’t against this law, or even the concept of having age verification in general. Its against government overreach as a broad concept. You’re again relying on slipery slope falacy to say that because I’m okay with this one specific form of age gating, I’m okay with every other one, which I have repeatedly made clear is not true.
If you’re going to reference the slippery slope fallacy so much, you should probably read where and when it actually applies.
From the wikipedia entry:
You yourself just acknowledged that the worst-case is already happening, so the assumption that the worst case will continue to happen is reasonable.
Unless you wish to argue that :
followed by you saying
isn’t an acknowledgement ?
The fallacy isn’t assuming that it will happen. Clearly, there is a significant push towards it, and its something we need to be fighting against. The reason its a slippery slope fallacy is the assumption that this law is a direct attempt to implement those systems, in spite of the fact that AB1043 implements a system that would be redundant with AI or ID based methods, technically doesn’t offer any good way to transition into an AI or ID based system (since it all has to be done locally), and legally, imposes additional data protection laws that are likely to interfere with AI-based age verification.
The problem with AI and ID age verification isn’t the age verification. Its the data collection, limits on personal freedom, and to some, the inconvenience. So far as I can tell, AB1043 doesn’t have a significant impact on data collection (it does add another metric that could be used for fingerprinting, but also adds stricter regulation on data collection when this flag is used,) or personal freedoms - esspecially not when compared to what is already the existing standard of asking the user for their age and/or if they’re over 18.
The fallacy is the expectation that following escalating events would arise from the event in question.
It’s only a fallacy if it’s unreasonable to expect the subsequent steps to occur or in this case, be attempted.
Does that mean it’s a guarantee, of course not, just that the fallacy doesn’t apply.
The intention or plan for escalating steps doesn’t have to be laid out perfectly to draw the parallels between this and previous similar events that were then subsequently used as foundations for greater reach.
Your reasoning around the technical implementation of such escalation isn’t applicable here (in the conversation about whether or not the fallacy applies)
If you want to argue that they won’t escalate, or it’s not possible , go right ahead, but raising a fallacy argument when it doesn’t apply isn’t a good start.
If you want i can address your arguments around implementation directly,as a seperate conversation? I don’t think you’re correct on that either, but as I said I also don’t think correctness in that subject matters in the context of the fallacy.
My interpretation was that slipery slope was more about the event in question (AC1043) being predicted to directly lead to escalation (AI/ID verification). As from you’re Wikipedia quote, “to result in the claimed effects”. I don’t see any reason to predict that this law will directly influence their decision to escalate or not. That said, perhaps its a disagreement on how much cultural influence a law like this would have, and how seperate a parent/user-managed system of age verification is from a government managed one technically.
I would be interested to hear your argument for technical implementation, however.
Mandatory OS integration is not separate, optional, or user-driven.
I have explicitly argued against this, in itself, for its own sake.
Under the other submission, I am even arguing against age verification in general.
But sure, let’s talk about this on its merits, in a vacuum, like there’s nothing else happening. What the fuck is it for? You endlessly insist it’s super minor, barely an inconvenience, and obviously any idiot can bypass it. That is your defense. If you freely acknowledge all of the other efforts went too far and didn’t work, why is this one worth trying? How is this encroachment on all operating systems not a waste of time, at best?