Thread 106165831

Alright retards, here's the actual reason why this age verification bullshit is getting pushed so hard.

It's a counter-measure against bots.
Bots do huge damage to FAGMAN through ad fraud, scalping and by hurting valuation of social media companies.

>muh 1984
It's a nice side effect for dysfunctional governments across the globe, but it's not the root cause.
If it didn't benefit corpofaggots they would have easily lobbied against these laws, as they did many times before.
Bots are the only reason why big tech wants this, which would otherwise hurt them.

never verifying. suck my dick.

>>106165886
read my post again you retarded sub 80 IQ frogposter.

bump

first prove that bots really hurt GAYMAN (aka bring down profits)

we should start saying corporate's advocate instead of devil's advocate

>>106167092
>ad fraud has been estimated to cost google hundreds of billions
>bots were a major point of discussion during the twitter sale
and it's clear why. if your userbase consists of bots, you can't advertise and sell shit to them.

>>106167145
well I get the idea and I like it but I'm not convinced

>>106167260
not an argument, fuck off.

>>106165831 (OP)
>It's a counter-measure against bots.
And ID verification (ZKP or not) is a counter measure again foreigners shitting up platforms and coordinated influence operations.

>>106165831 (OP)
No. If they've tried to sell it as the AI countermeasure they would've gained more unironic support from normies lucid enough to be fed up with all the slop, but dumb enough not to see the implications of new restrictions.

>>106167574
ai isn't the same as bots. normalfaggots don't even know that they're conversing with bots half of the time when they enter some stupid argument on twitter.

>>106165831 (OP)
I think we should stop thinking, that there is only one reason why this is happening. I agree with OP, but I actually believe there are more than one reasons at play.

>>106167619
I'm pretty sure this is the biggest reason though, yet somehow nobody seems to talk about it.

>>106165831 (OP)
>It's a counter-measure against bots.
>Bots do huge damage to FAGMAN through ad fraud, scalping and by hurting valuation of social media companies.
>It's a nice side effect for dysfunctional governments across the globe, but it's not the root cause.

If you want the real root cause you have too look into why bots are even a thing to begin with and why they do what they do. The real reason why bots are thing is that the only "profit" that any website can make is by making money from advertisers who want to push their ads onto websites. Bots are used to convice advertisers that the ads that they paid for to be on said sites are actually doing anything other than costing them money. To put it simple people dont watch ads, if anything ads have the opposite effect of turning people away. Even when websites like youtube put mandatory ads that you cant skip people dont watch them and no matter what you do they never will.

> but muh data collecting
The reason websites want to collect data off of the people visiting them is again, because ad companies thinks said data is useful. It can be useful in terms of metrics but that is not what they are trying to do. What they are trying to do is get personal information (phone numbers, addresses, emails) so that they can spend more money to send out more useless ads that no one wants to see. The whole marketing industry is a bubble just waiting to burst and this will probably be the needle that pops it.

>>106167751
anon, you do know that ads have existed since way before the internet, right? Are you implying that the whole concept of ads is just snake oil that has somehow managed to persist for hundreds of years?
seems unlikely.

>>106165831 (OP)
ah yes, bots from palestina, iran, china and russia, very real

>>106167819
>Are you implying that the whole concept of ads is just snake oil that has somehow managed to persist for hundreds of years?
yes. I am not saying that all forms of marketing are snake oil but in the context of ads and the internet they certainly are. I have two young kids (5 and 1) the main targets for ads and the moment an ad for literally anything comes up in any form they will leave the room or close their eyes if they cant skip it.

>>106167979
>palestina, iran, china and russia
point me to the place where I mentioned any of these countries.

>>106167986
it just sounds like you taught your kids well. I don't think this is representative of the average.
ads on youtube are fairly close to television ads, so you would have to tell me how they differ, or argue that even tv ads are useless.
Then there's stealth marketing and astroturfing. Do you think that's useless too?

>>106165831 (OP)
Correct answer.

Someone showed the internet traffic trend lines for bots to the politicians.

>>106167819
Marketing budgets also take a greater and greater share of the cost structure. I think it is a sign of overproduction. Too much stuff that no one needs gets produced and not enough people to buy it.

>>106168079
>ads on youtube are fairly close to television ads, so you would have to tell me how they differ, or argue that even tv ads are useless.
the difference is that back when watching TV was the norm and not streaming through the internet you were incentivized to watch through or you would miss you show. When stuff like TIVO came in to play people bought it soleley so they could skip through the commercials and watch at their leisure. Stealth marketing and astroturfing are separate from forced ads on TV and on websites. Can forced ads have them? sure but that is not the issue. As I stated earlier

>I am not saying that all forms of marketing are snake oil but in the context of ads and the internet they certainly are

>>106167751
>Bots are used to convice advertisers that the ads that they paid for to be on said sites are actually doing anything other than costing them money.
like 20 years ago that worked maybe lol, botting your blog for google adsense money
however advertisers are well aware of bots now and don't take kindly to it

>>106168162
>like 20 years ago that worked maybe lol, botting your blog for google adsense money
>however advertisers are well aware of bots now and don't take kindly to it

They still pay for it regardless. Will they pay joe schmoe with his little blog on rural snail keeping? no. But they definitely will pay influencers with botted out channels under the premise that people see said influencers with lots of "followers" and might buy said product because its "backed".

i support whatever will accelerate the crash and burn. LET IT ALL COLLAPSE TOTAL ECONOMIC DEATH.

>>106165831 (OP)
>It's a counter-measure against bots.
>Bots do huge damage to FAGMAN through ad fraud, scalping and by hurting valuation of social media companies.

The biggest bots we have today are AI bots running around crawling the entire web at sites that constitute as DDOS attacks. FAGMAN is hardcore into AI. This does not work.

No, the age verification is just another method of locking down the internet, same shit that has been continuously ongoing since 2011 once the powers that be noticed that shit can be used to protest wall street.

>THE REAL REASON FOR CLOUDFLARE AND CDNS ARE THE DDOS ATTACKS
>"But everything worked fine for decades before these companies showed up even though teenager skids had armies of bot computers going back to the mid-90s
The real real reason: They wanted to force https on everyone so they could control who gets certs. Then pushed CDNs to have easy man in the middle attack on every website. Anything not playing ball is labeled "spooky unsafe website" by both major browser engines.

>THE REAL REASON FOR AGE VERIFICATION IS MUH BOTS
>but bots have been an issue for years and the same people pushing these laws are the same people running them
The real real reason is they need an excuse to change all first world countries over to digital ID+digital money. Which will be tied to the social credit system as beta tested in China for the last 10 years.

We aren't retarded. We know what's going on. We've known for years. Most people aren't buying it. No amount of lame propaganda and spam is going to convince anyone. The truth is faggots like you and the people you work for should have all been murdered by mobs of angry normalfags long ago.

>>106168312
>The biggest bots we have today are AI bots running around crawling the entire web at sites that constitute as DDOS attacks. FAGMAN is hardcore into AI
you're conflating botting and ai scraping

>the age verification is just another method of locking down the internet
big tech would be missing out on massive $$$ if that was it. They would have lobbied against it, but instead they promote it.

>>106168355
nowhere did I mention ddos attacks. read my post again. it's about ads.

>>106165831 (OP)
the bots are run by the nsa. you're a fucking retard.

>>106168365
>nowhere did I mention ddos attacks. read my post again. it's about ads.
No see you're the one with the problem. Since you're too retarded to understand the exact same fear mongering was used 10+ years ago to bring every website under control with a built-in mitm attack. Therefor, you are stupid and your opinion about anything shouldn't be taken serious.

We all know you fall into one of the following camps:
1) You're actually retarded. Therefor your opinion is worthless
2) You're paid to post this bullshit thread. Therefor, you are part of the problem and should be roped.

It's one or the other.

>>106165831 (OP)
The status quo just wants more control and less privacy. Half the bots are run by the same organizations

>>106168409
>n-no, you're stupid!!
not an argument. go away.

>>106165831 (OP)
the people demanding national ID to use the internet are the same people running the bots

>>106168424
I already made an argument. Which you were too stupid to understand. Your dumb opinion about google adsense is bullshit too. You obviously weren't around for the early days of it or saw many forums kicked out of the ad program for allowing open discourse. It was always just a way to censor and control discussion along with spying on users and herding them. Which is how they all ended up on social media in the first place.

THE PEOPLE FEAR MONGERING ABOUT THE BOTS ARE THE ONES RUNNING THEM. FUCKING RETARD.

>>106168449
You still don't understand that I'm talking about different bots.
>THE PEOPLE FEAR MONGERING ABOUT THE BOTS
literally NO ONE is doing that regarding ad bots.
>ARE THE ONES RUNNING THEM
nope, it's grifter startups/companies looking to promote their shitty business.

>>106168508
God you're so fucking dumb.

>>106168566
I accept your concession.

>>106168589
>entire thread tells you you're wrong
>I'm winning!!!
You are fucking dumb. You do not argue in good faith. Therefor, you are probably a glow nigger.

I say again: You have convinced no one. We know this is all bullshit.

>>106168601
>entire thread tells you you're wrong
at this point almost half of the thread is just you seething that you lost an argument.

too many retards who lack reading comprehension. read:
>Bots do huge damage to FAGMAN through ad fraud, scalping and by hurting valuation of social media companies.
and
>>106167145

night fags

>>106167979
mirai?

>>106165831 (OP)
my bots bad, your bots good, right?

>>106165831 (OP)

/g/:
>hardware attestation
>ID checks
>real people on real devices
>"OMG my heckin' privoocy!!11!"

also /g/:
>no hardware attestation
>no ID checks
>bots flooding the internet
>"OMG le ded internets theory!!1!"

why there are people like this?
i wonder what kind of porn do these people like to watch?

>>106168355
>Most people aren't buying it. No amount of lame propaganda and spam is going to convince anyone.
Correct until here. Access to the internet and hundreds of dollars a week in UBI is way too much incentive and that's assuming most goy cattle have any reservations in the first place.

>>106165831 (OP)
Wrong. There are other ways to identify bots that don't require a human's ID.

>>106168911
What?

>>106165831 (OP)
This may be the case but it will make government the only ones capable of legally bot scalping, so it really is about fighting a nuisance and making way to a monopoly on political opinion.

>>106171036
such as?

>>106165831 (OP)
>Bots do huge damage to FAGMAN through ad fraud, scalping and by hurting valuation of social media companies.
Do they? Meta (Facebook) just posted a second-quarter profit that beat expectations, its stock jumps into record territory.
https://www.barrons.com/articles/facebook-instagram-meta-stock-price-earnings-2d9e3b80
https://www.marketwatch.com/livecoverage/meta-earnings-results-stock-revenue-facebook-sales-outlook

>>106172445
how is that proof that it doesn't hurt them?
>>106167145

>>106165831 (OP)
I hate bots but I LOVE as fraud. I'd cum so hard if advertising was bankrupted hard.

>>106167819
It's not just snake oil, ifs actually harmful to society, prevents technological innovation, and makes everyone poorer. Imagine if the money spent on advertising was spent on research, product development, maming a better product and service. It indirectly kills people, because even medical technology would be better and save more lives.

>>106165831 (OP)
No it's not retard. They've already said why they want this many times and it's a multipurpose tool. It has nothing to do with bots, for starters, that's just a nice to have. What they actually want is to hold you accountable for what you do in the Internet. Members of EU parliament have said this time and time again, that the internet should hold people accountable as much as in real life. That is the primary reason, but the second is piracy. They believe piracy can be solved by tracking better what you're doing. The third is fighting disinformation, the ministers of truth, so that you are held accountable for what you are saying. UK is already doing that, so it's not a wild guess. USA is pissed off by that btw and we'll probably see retaliation very soon.

>>106174130
And how do you know products are available you retard? My god this place is full of stupid people. Do you think people are searching for products all the time? You could say ads are doing a shit job, and they are, but that's how they sell products.

>>106172393
Not the anon you replied, but Valve solved that problem by making you pay if you want to have an unlocked account. There's your way. Bots aren't willing to pay $5 just to spam shit. That's how.

>>106174135
>taking their word for it
lmao. Think about it, if it was only about governments looking for additional control, big tech would lobby them hard. If they didn't stand to get huge gains from eliminating bots, this new legislation would be very damaging to them, because they would suddenly become responsible by law for policing their users, and inevitably lose many. They have lobbied many times before and they would have done it again if it wasn't so beneficial for them. Your model does not explain this why big tech is promoting this, so it must be the other way around. Additional control is just a nice side effect for governments.
>piracy
that makes absolutely no sense. Piracy sites are already operating in a legal grey zone at best. These laws will not affect them.
Also, piracy is not as big of an issue as you think it is.

>>106174247
Yeah lets all listen to a random anon instead of what they are saying when they created this thing.

Besides, you are completely wrong. Big tech is not promoting this, they are not only against but also threatening to leave UK entirely. This is more work for them and doesn't solve crap, according to themselves, and this is Google, Uber, Spotify, etc. saying, not some chumps. They have implemented what they wanted, but not because they like it.

>>106174173
Okay sure that's a way, but corpos would get more cash by continuing to provide their services for free in exchange for being able to milk their users like cows as they have already been doing for a while.

>>106174298
I suppose they would, or not, it really depends. YouTube tried with premium but they were retarded and made too expensive with zero perks. Why would anyone pay for that shit? Valve simply forced it to happen and they too would maybe gain something from free accounts. I think it's more that nobody tried for real rather than they don't want to.

>>106174284
>Yeah lets all listen to a random anon instead of what they are saying when they created this thing.
all I'm asking is for you to use your brain instead of taking whatever they say at face value.

>Big tech is not promoting this
google was literally developing apis for age verification before all of this even became a thing. and the eu age verification app has a google api dependency.

>>106174329
The EU age verification is not the same thing at all as the UK one. The difference is it doesn't track, supposedly, depending on your government implementation.

Either way, no shit Google has been implementing this before it rolled out. No it doesn't have Google API dependency. We already have that shit here in my country and it's local government only dependency. Most EU members have that for public services and none depend on Google. And you can say all you want like "oh but have you checked the code hurr durr" and the funny thing is yes, I've worked for a company directly involved in digital ID. Each government does it differently, and only the OpenAPI is common.

Bots are not a priority and corpos don't want this shit. Why would they? It's just there being annoying. I can also tell you that corpos don't mind the EU version as much as the UK version, so that crap probably won't have as much backslash. Now with UK backslash that could change. There is also another controversial EU law that wants to spy messages, and that's another corpos are telling is totally retarded and a giant security hole. How does that have anything to do with bots?

>>106174387
>Bots are not a priority and corpos don't want this shit. Why would they? It's just there being annoying
Okay, so you don't even understand my point. Why even reply? I have already explained it in the op and also here >>106167145

>>106174444
Or we're not going to agree and you stubbornly can't accept that. Never heard of agree to disagree?

>>106165831 (OP)
Na, this is par the course of Problem/Reaction/Solution, the same excuse control freaks gave to implement the Patriot Act and all that followed. They've got thinktanks scheming for years what would be convenient to the 1% in control and those wishlists are are cherry picked for execution when the right type of emergency "comes along."

>>106174459
I can agree to disagree. I'll even concede that I don't have an answer for your point about the eu message spying proposal. But you just ignored my argument about why bots massively hurt big tech like almost every other illiterate retard in this thread.

>>106174493
Age verification isn't going to solve that. Bots can simply spam not age verified content or age verify with AI. There are many ways to circumvent that. Also in EU version your account in Google isn't tied to the ID, they only know your are an adult, supposedly. You can imagine that with that bots will still exist.

>>106174519
The fact that it's ineffective is another question. That also means it won't be useful for 1984 style shit, or for anything really.
It can be made much more effective by requiring valid IDs though.

>>106165831 (OP)
Targetted advertising was always 1984.
>muh ad fraud
Banner ads should be treated as real estate, like billboards, not on a per-click basis. The value of the "real estate" is equal to how much it improves profits.
Same thing for video ads.
>hurting valuation of social media companies
Valuation is hurt because ad spending is pro-cyclical.
Big companies want minimal advertising if they can get away with it. Ads tend to be loss leaders caused by prisoner's dilemma.
That's the economic truth.

>>106165831 (OP)
Big corp doesn't give a shit about bots; Facebook is even actively encouraging bot activity as a means of increased engagement.
I'm not going to produce a more detailed reply because you're both stupid and obstinate, and thus not worth talking to in length.

>>106174608
you can't extract value from bots, dumbass. Maybe think for a few seconds next time before you type your stupid response.

>>106174594
>Big companies want minimal advertising
anon, do you know how google makes its money?

>>106174652
Anon take an economics course.
Google got sued for fraudulent second-price auctions, stealing all consumer surplus from advertisers.

>>106174582
Yes but it's even less effective than you may think. In EU you do need to have a valid IDs but you can tell which information you will give so in reality the Google account does not know your ID, only your if you're an adult or not. That's why it's still possible to make bot accounts using a valid ID, just create many accounts. EU mechanism doesn't solve bot problems at all, only age verification.

There's a few catches though:
- Google may request more than age verification and if you're fool enough you will accept.
- You're trusting only your age verification is given. The applications are opensource but who knows? It's the government.
- You are trusting the age verification app isn't storing who requested your age. Same problem as above, but the other direction.
- This whole system can be expanded for other purposes later, like what you're mentioning.

Point being the UK system could be used for bot detection, but the EU system cannot.

>>106165831 (OP)
It's to punish teenagers for supporting Palestine
If you believe anything else reddit is down the hall and to the left.

>>106165831 (OP)
>Bots do huge damage to FAGMAN

>>106175852
I'm not about to take an entire course in economics just to understand what you're saying. Explain yourself. If you can't argue cleanly to a layman then that usually means you're just as confused yourself.

So, google got caught trying to extract even more money out of their customers. Big surprise. They're still fundamentally an ad company; it's not that they do ads in addition, it's literally ALL they do. It doesn't make sense for them to want "minimal advertising if they can get away with it".

>>106176414
>Point being the UK system could be used for bot detection, but the EU system cannot.
The ability to verify age implies the ability to detect bots. There's no system that can avoid this. If your system cannot detect bots (which by the way aren't human and thus aren't of age), then your system can't verify age.

>>106178604
That's not how it works at all. Bots don't popup like grass. They're accounts created manually and then used to spam comments online. You can't comment if you don't have an account.

You absolutely can verify age and have zero protection against bots. All you need to verify age is have an trust source. That's really all there is to it. A trust source guarantees you really are who you say you are, but not to Google, and tells Google if you're an adult or not, without telling if you're a real person or not.

Bot protection with a trust source would require knowing how many accounts you have, with a key, that would identify you, and either the trust source or Google would have that information. That is exactly what EU does not want to happen. EU does not want Google to link your ID with an account.

If you mean they have the skill to detect bots, yes there are ways to slow it down to the point of not being worth making bots like captchas, text analysis, post speed, and payment wall. There's no need to give the ID.

>>106167751
>useless ads that no one wants to see. The whole marketing industry is a bubble just waiting to burst and
Normies literally loom at ad and buy things. It works which is why it happens

>>106165831 (OP)
>The REAL reason for age verification
jews

>>106180287
The issue is that you could pay some third party to verify your account for you. To prevent that, there needs to be a way to limit the number of accounts that can be verified with one id. Such a system is also a way to stop bots. There's no way around that.

>>106165831 (OP)
>The real reason for age verification
It's digital ID, simple as that. Saying nigger online will get you sent to jail for 10 years.
Why do you think the EU is so focused on trying to take down encrypted messaging?

>>106165831 (OP)
just rangeban russia and india address blocks, problem solved

>>106165831 (OP)
Ok, this is what i wrote yesterday and got flamed with "Retard". Now someone makes a thread about it, hopefully this time he understands it better.

>>106180647
And then you open a can of worms because google or whatever company you gave your ID knows everything you do and it's not by flimsy identifications like IP address (which is typically dynamic) or other identifiers like photos or your real name if you gave it. That's exactly what EU wants to prevent. Germany in practicular would reject that approach. As I said, age verification does not stop bots and neither was intended to. The only purpose if to guarantee your age. Btw this is not an hypothetical system, that already exists in my country. You have a system with your data, and it gives only the information that you allow. It's used in public institutions to pay taxes or whatnot. It's sort of like android permissions, you only give what you want. Yes you can pay someone to verify your age, it's not intended to be perfect. That's the EU system. The UK system is different.

>>106181270
Because it doesn't make any sense to stop bots and neither was intended to do that. See >>106181308. Governments don't give a crap about bots, they want to end piracy, control the narrative, and know what you were doing in case of investigation. Of course not everyone has good intentions, and wants to spy, censor, and all of that. EU age verification doesn't stop bots at all, it's ineffective for that by design. However EU also has proposed law, that wasn't approved yet, to mandate middle man decryption of messages. So you can say they care about privacy with age verification but don't give a crap or are naive about messaging.

>>106181308
>And then you open a can of worms because google or whatever company you gave your ID knows everything you do and it's not by flimsy identifications like IP address (which is typically dynamic) or other identifiers like photos or your real name if you gave it.
This is not necessary by any means. What you do is hash together a personal identifier with a website identifier. This creates an identifier which is unique to a person for a given site, but cannot be traced back to a person (modulo the secrecy of their personal identifier), and cannot track them between sites.
There are simpler solutions. Since it's a third party doing the verification, the third party could keep track of how often/with which sites someone has verified and rate limit that. Point is, without such a system people wouldn't even sell verification, they would give it away for free.

>>106170556
You know we don't have bot problems in the pediverse, nor do we have ID checks. All you need is to specify a reason for joining when you join a server, and that reason gets checked by the server admin. There is typically something that needs to be included in the join reason which is specified in the site rules.

>bots get better
>Meta etc. add their own bot users to their own platforms to boost engagement
>world implements ID checks (WE ARE HERE)
>normies assume everyone online is real now
>Meta etc use the now overwhelming majority of bot accounts (whose accounts are now older than the ID checks, making idiots believe they can't be bots because, cmon, that'll be their reasoning) to say whatever they want and the normies will believe it's the majority opinion of real people
>it stops being just normies who believe it
and that's not to say anything of control of access to "18+" information such as sanitizing war coverage or access to "sensitive or potentially triggering topics". I feel like an ultra-schizo lately...

>>106181519
EU does not allow third parties to store sensitive information for identification purposes. You're not allows to have any ID that links to the real you as primary key or to be indexed. Such system would theoretically work but it would probably be rejected in EU.

It can be tracked back if you know the person ID, company ID, and the hash algorithm. You may think nobody has patience for that but you'd be wrong. Hackers would see this has an attack vector.

EU logic is simple, if the information does not exist, it can't be tracked. Your system allows tracking, even if it's somewhat protected. EU system doesn't allow tracking because there's no tracking, supposedly. A rogue government could change the system and that was one of the criticisms. The other is phishing.

Nice try from a technical perspective, but not allowed in the real world, unless you're UK.

>>106181571
Your ultra-schizo logic is good logic. These verification systems only go one way, not both ways. Nothing is preventing companies from making fake accounts because verifiers don't check if accounts are linked or not. It wouldn't even be feasible for verifiers to challenge all accounts authenticity.