[HN Gopher] About communication safety in Messages
___________________________________________________________________
About communication safety in Messages
Author : komape
Score : 115 points
Date : 2022-07-28 08:41 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (support.apple.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (support.apple.com)
| raxxorraxor wrote:
| tobr wrote:
| Opt-in, on-device. Sounds very reasonable.
| notRobot wrote:
| Opt-in, _for now_. On-device, _for now_. Slippery slopes.
|
| Privacy erosion is gradual, that's why they keep getting away
| with it (well, that and "think of the children!").
| olliej wrote:
| Ok, so you couldn't be bothered reading the article and
| rather just slippery slope argument the feature blindly.
|
| It's an opt in feature, that's part of the parental
| controls settings, and it does all processing on device.
| Apple is not Google or Facebook, and has demonstrated that
| it has no desire to access your images or data.
|
| Your slippery slope argument is so pointlessly stupid it's
| equivalent to arguing that the addition of speed limits is
| a slippery slope towards not being allowed to drive. Eg
| meaningless to the point where it erodes the meaning of the
| term in contexts where it actually matters.
| vletal wrote:
| > Messages uses on-device machine learning to analyze image
| attachments and determine if a photo appears to contain nudity.
| The feature is designed so that Apple doesn't get access to the
| photos.
|
| LGTM
| seper8 wrote:
| This isn't written on the page linked. Where are you finding
| this?
|
| For other people who only read the comments and don't read
| source material:
|
| "Turn on communication safety to help protect your child from
| viewing or sharing photos that contain nudity in the Messages
| app. If Messages detects that a child receives or is attempting
| to send this type of photo, Messages blurs the photo before
| it's viewed on your child's device and provides guidance and
| age-appropriate resources to help them make a safe choice,
| including contacting someone they trust if they choose.
|
| Messages uses on-device machine learning to analyze image
| attachments and determine if a photo appears to contain nudity.
| The feature is designed so that Apple doesn't get access to the
| photos."
| unnouinceput wrote:
| So, a kid receives a message containing nudity. How does Apple
| knows that the viewer is a child and not an adult? Because the
| only logical answer I come up to this question is that Apple is
| using phone's camera to see who's using it at that very moment.
| Which raises the question of "isn't this an invasion of privacy
| from Apple?".
|
| Also, yeah, all the people working at Apple are all saints and
| they would never abuse this. /s
| wonderbore wrote:
| Have you ever bought a smartphone? You have to register to use
| it, you must enter your date of birth.
|
| Unless your parents are technologically illiterate, they will
| set it up as a device part of a family. That's how they know.
|
| This has its flaws, but that's what we got now.
|
| > using phone's camera to see who's using it
|
| Most definitely not going to happen. Even if it did, it's no
| worse than Face ID.
| angulardragon03 wrote:
| Please read the linked article before making baseless claims:
|
| > The communication safety feature [...] is available to child
| accounts signed in with their Apple ID and part of a Family
| Sharing group. This feature is off by default.
|
| In Family Sharing you can designate AppleIDs in your family as
| being child accounts. An AppleID is mandatory to use iMessage,
| so thats how Apple "knows".
| hericium wrote:
| That's so American. Ban every nipple and every inch of other
| "prohibited" body parts.
|
| At the same time in Europe you go to a nude beach and there are
| whole families with kids and literally nobody has problems with
| it. Clothing is optional. No one bothers nude people, no one
| bothers clothed ones.
|
| In Germany or Sweden you can get your [banned by Apple] out in a
| public place not designated for nudity per se and this just
| normal.
|
| But yeah, lets ban more normal/natural stuff.
| akomtu wrote:
| Puritanism is a distraction here. What Apple implements is a
| in-depth analysis of all messages between its users and not its
| users who happen to communicate with iphone users. The message
| scanner analyses not only text, but also images. This will be
| used to build more detailed user profiles for advertisers and
| spying agencies, domestic and foreign (Apple is on good terms
| with China).
| 4eleven7 wrote:
| People who go to a nude beach, opt in to a nude beach.
|
| People who turn on Nudity check, opt in to a nude check.
| buro9 wrote:
| Was in Valencia, went to the beach... it's just a beach.
| People were naked, it's just normal.
|
| It's not a "nude beach"... it's "beach".
| Erikun wrote:
| Europe is a big place, maybe that beach was that way but
| its definitely not the norm. Naturist beaches are usually
| separate or there is a section that that is for naturists.
| In Sweden (where I live), even topless sunbathing is
| unusual nowadays.
| raxxorraxor wrote:
| It wasn't just 10 years ago but now you see almost all
| people with phones on the beach and many opt out to show
| anything.
| tpxl wrote:
| Been to Gran Canaria recently (technically Spain), and
| every beach had topless women sunbathing (even the big
| city beach). Don't recall seeing fully nude adults
| though, as those beaches will be segregated IME.
| darkwater wrote:
| That's weird because in Spain - where nowadays topless
| sunbathing for women is absolutely normal in every beach
| - was "imported" by the first northern-European (legend
| usually say Swedish) tourists during late-Franco
| dictatorship.
| refurb wrote:
| That doesn't seem that special considering there are nude
| beaches in the US.
|
| I'm pretty sure "America is scared of naked bodies" is some
| internet folk tail that Europeans love to tell.
| carlmr wrote:
| >At the same time in Europe you go to a nude beach and there
| are whole families with kids and literally nobody has problems
| with it. Clothing is optional. No one bothers nude people, no
| one bothers clothed ones.
|
| At least the ones I've seen in Germany have a nude section and
| a non-nude section. It's usually not mixed.
| watwut wrote:
| By custom yes. By law, whole Germany is nude section. You
| have groups of nude people in public parks, right in the
| middle next to bike road.
| carlmr wrote:
| Topless, yes, but nude?
| watwut wrote:
| Yep, nude.
| Galaxeblaffer wrote:
| But you can still show your nipples at the non nude section
| Erikun wrote:
| Sure, but even that has become more uncommon than it used
| to be, in my experience.
| raxxorraxor wrote:
| You can also show your dick in non-nude sections. You have
| to be sensible of time and place but the likelyhood of
| someone complaining is very low if you do it near a lake or
| the sea. Pretty high when you do it in the city center or
| in church.
|
| At least it was common in the region I lived, there are
| more prissy places though. I wouldn't do it anymore when
| everyone has a smartphone though even if taking pictures
| will get you in huge trouble too.
| tomduncalf wrote:
| I think it's more about the potential for child abuse than
| prudishness
| shaky-carrousel wrote:
| A nude photo is as dangerous for a kid as a gore one. But
| they decided to go against the nude one.
| tomduncalf wrote:
| I would say a nude photo is probably worse because it could
| be indicative of some kind of grooming or other sexual
| abuse.
|
| This is an opt in feature so it's up to parents whether
| they think it's appropriate or not, but I think it's weird
| that people are getting mad at Apple for providing a
| secure, private way to do this when child abuse online is a
| real thing that happens and some parents may believe that
| it's appropriate to trade off some of their young
| children's privacy in exchange for some small degree of
| protection against that.
| [deleted]
| sph wrote:
| "Oh, think of the children!"
|
| Child abuse is a terrible problem, but big tech and
| politicians are using it as leverage to erode all of our
| right to privacy. What's next, let's monitor all text
| communication to stop perverts texting with your child? It
| will be hailed as another great step towards fighting
| paedophilia.
|
| The problem with the "child abuse" angle is that protesting
| against these changes turns everybody against you, because
| normal people don't have anything to hide. "Why do you hate
| the children?"
|
| We are losing all of our right to privacy with a massive
| applause.
| techdragon wrote:
| This is the major problem when trying to educate people
| about anything privacy related... Living in Australia I've
| watched the government basically grant itself the legal
| right to do whatever the fuck it likes with computers and
| communications over the last few years, and its been a
| horrible outright depressing journey.
|
| Once people internalise the "nothing to hide" argument they
| begin to reach for the question "what do you have to hide
| that makes you think this isn't ok" before they are even
| prompted with the usual arguments about it only being for
| finding drugs, guns, terrorists, pedophiles, etc
|
| The fact this is on device and off by default is _good_
| because that 's how this sort of customer feature should be
| built, like being able to install a DNS filter or other
| website filtering software. If you're worried, these
| options should be available to protect your children... but
| sadly its a small step from "these are available" to "why
| didn't the government make them turn it on before I bought
| it for my child and didn't turn it on before giving it to
| my child"
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| Explain which aspect of this feature involves an erosion of
| the right to privacy.
| ziddoap wrote:
| I'm not getting into the middle of the debate on whether
| or not this feature is good/bad, but I think this is a
| pretty easy question to answer.
|
| There is now a feature that scans every photo you
| receive. There previously was not something scanning
| every photo you receive. What used to be a conversation
| between 2 people is now a conversation between 2 people
| and an Apple blackbox (assuming you turn the feature on).
|
| As with most of these types of tech, the proponents of
| the "this involves erosion of privacy" aren't necessarily
| concerned with the exact implementation as described on
| release, but with how the blackbox works and how the
| blackbox (and the laws/regulations/obligations around it)
| will change in the future, and the inability to change
| the settings of the blackbox, effectively letting Apple
| become the touchstone for what is 'appropriate', even if
| it doesn't align with your view of 'appropriate'.
| aviramha wrote:
| While I understand the criticism - this is not the point of
| Apple. Unsolicited nudity is usually used for harassment. I
| assume that also in Europe sending unsolicited nude photos to
| adult and kids isn't okay.
| hericium wrote:
| Apple's new favorite reasoning for invigilation is kids'
| protection. Ban all knifes because someone can use a knife to
| harm a child.
|
| They wouldn't do it if it wasn't profitable in some way or
| another. But would they choose to give other reasons for
| their actions, there would definitely be more backslash about
| their snooping.
|
| People in general know that protecting the innocent is a good
| thing and Apple exploits this to push their agendas under the
| guise of children protection. Again.
| olliej wrote:
| ... you mean Apple provides a feature in its parental
| controls to allow parents to limit nudity being sent to
| their kids devices?
|
| Like yes: the explicit purpose of parental controls is to
| allow parents to place limits on what their kids can do on
| a device, and in America specifically protect them from the
| concept of people existing under their clothes.
|
| But I fail to see what Apple is doing here that you find
| offensive? Did you read the article and description of how
| the feature is enabled and works or did you just decide
| "Apple is evil and is choosing what I get to see"?
| dereg wrote:
| Do you realize the irony of saying that Americans are
| overprotectionists, using Europe as a comparison, when the
| EU may be the most sprawling, onerous, and protectionist
| regulatory state to exist on this planet?
| geysersam wrote:
| From the other perspective: democratically elected
| representatives banning harmful chemicals used in
| children's toys vs. private companies reading and
| censoring your conversations.
|
| Not all "protections" are the same.
| dereg wrote:
| I'm less trying to compare the two areas line by line and
| more pointing to the absurdity of ascribing Apple's
| actions to a national prudishness.
| knighthack wrote:
| Relevant trope: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main
| /ThinkOfTheChildr...
| [deleted]
| bambax wrote:
| Of course. "Think of the children" is the apex of
| hypocrisy.
|
| If the US (and American tech companies) cared at all about
| children, or human life in general, they would do something
| about guns.
|
| As a European, seeing videos on YT glorifying guns and gun
| culture is extremely shocking. I would let my kids run
| around naked all day, anytime, rather than letting them
| watch one video showing people firing an AR-15 like it's
| the most normal thing in the world.
| miki123211 wrote:
| If this feature were designed to prevent unsolicited nudity,
| it would be far easier to turn off. It probably shouldn't
| trigger for people in your contacts at all, and it should
| have an override button for everybody else. This is not the
| case, and the feature is even triggered when _sending_
| messages with such photos, so this is clearly not its
| intended purpose.
| watwut wrote:
| > It probably shouldn't trigger for people in your contacts
| at all
|
| Why? If you harass someone, you will put it into contacts
| so that it is easier.
| john_the_writer wrote:
| They mean on the receiving end. :)
| watwut wrote:
| So like, if someone harassed me, I have to remove that
| person from contacts and thus not have ability to
| identify that person?
|
| That is absurd too.
| dkersten wrote:
| Even on the receiving end, I could imagine someone
| sending dick pics or whatever after having already
| befriended the child, and already being in their contact
| list. Better would be a _"ignore for future messages from
| this person"_ button, but keep the warning for the first
| time.
| llbeansandrice wrote:
| RTFA
| drawfloat wrote:
| Isn't the feature opt-in?
| DrudgeCorporate wrote:
| According to what I read in the article, yes.
| GlumWoodpecker wrote:
| Start off by reading the linked article. The feature is
| opt-in, and has to be manually turned on. It only triggers
| on child accounts where this is enabled. It is designed to
| protect children from being taken advantage of by stopping
| both incoming and outgoing nudity.
| miki123211 wrote:
| No idea how one-child sending nude pics to _another
| child_ can be described as taking advantage of anyone.
| Who 's the perpetrator here? And while the feature is
| opt-in, it's opt-in by parents, and has no granular, per-
| message overrides when the child knows what they're
| doing. While a general dickpic content warning is a good
| idea, there should be a "see anyway" button.
| cassianoleal wrote:
| I'm sorry, I'm no happier about this feature than you
| seem to be, but...
|
| > there should be a "see anyway" button
|
| If you read the article and look at the pictures, "View
| photo..." is right underneath the blurred photo. It may
| not be called "see anyway", and it may not be a button
| per se, but it has the exact same effect.
| antman wrote:
| In Europe sending unsolicited pictures of guns would be a far
| far greater problem
| heavenlyblue wrote:
| Don't give them ideas
| lozenge wrote:
| So you're OK with your child receiving unexpected messages of
| erect penises? Because that's what this feature is actually
| about if you read past the headline. Not "banning" anything but
| putting users and parents in control.
| bambax wrote:
| Yes, I'm totally ok with that (I have three kids). What's
| going to happen? Will they faint? Die? They will probably
| laugh.
|
| In Rome there were statues of Dionysus sporting a huge
| erection everywhere. It wasn't a problem.
|
| In Italy today still, you can find postcards of him in the
| same position. (Granted, they are statues, not images in the
| flesh, but they're pretty realistic.)
|
| I would have a problem with an adult sending nude pictures of
| themselves to my kids. But I would confront them myself, I
| don't need Apple's help in preventing it from ever happening
| like it's a horrible risk.
|
| It's nothing. Really one of the least important problems
| ever.
| shultays wrote:
| You are OK with strangers sending penis pictures to your
| kids? At what point of you are not OK with sexual
| predators?
| bambax wrote:
| I don't welcome it. I'm just not terrified, as seems to
| be obligatory these days. It's quite literally the least
| of my concerns.
|
| I'm much more worried about my kids being glued to stupid
| games or "harmless" (but constantly updating) TikTok
| videos.
| ziddoap wrote:
| They literally wrote out " _I would have a problem with
| an adult sending nude pictures of themselves to my kids_
| ".
|
| How do you get "OK with sexual predators" from that?
| claudiawerner wrote:
| Firstly, why specify 'erect penis' as though that's where the
| line is crossed? Does the question only apply to parents of
| girls, since they're less likely to have seen a penis before?
|
| But yeah, I wouldn't mind all that much; it would raise a red
| flag for sure, given that many grooming operations work by
| starting out as raising children's curiosity, but I do not
| see any _inherent_ issue with my child seeing a penis (erect
| or not!).
| vincnetas wrote:
| you can extend this to everything. are you ok your children
| reciving gore pics, are you ok your kids receiving anarchyst
| cookbooks, are you ok your kids receiving comunist
| propoganda? are you ok your kids receiving any random messges
| from anonymous users? if not i guess just whitelist contacts
| your kid is allowed to interact. but i myself prefere to talk
| about world and explain how things work and what you can
| expect to encounter when growing up rather than growing your
| kid in petri dish. eventualy they will see errect penis :)
| jon-wood wrote:
| This strongly depends on the age of the child, and their
| maturity. I have an eight year old, who currently doesn't
| even have a phone. Once he does I will absolutely be
| whitelisting contacts, approving app installs, and turning
| on functionality to limit access to content unsuitable for
| a child.
|
| That's not to say I won't _also_ be talking about the
| world, and things they're likely to encounter. Those
| conversations are happening even now, he's not being raised
| in a petri dish, but equally I'd quite like to avoid
| throwing him directly into a vat of toxic waste unprepared
| if I can avoid that. Ultimate children are just that,
| children, they're not renowned for solid decision making
| skills.
| FBISurveillance wrote:
| I have a 5 y.o. daughter and two nephews: 6 and 11 y.o. I
| like seeing them grow in real world.
|
| There will always be perverts sending nudes to kids one way
| or another. Where I grew (before the internet) we've had
| them arrested near schools.
|
| Pretending the world is all unicorns and rainbows is not
| the way to raise your children IMO - the hard truth is
| going to hit them sooner or later. Talk to them, treat them
| as young adults, and explain what is good and what is not,
| and why.
|
| Fun story: I'm into crossfit semi-professionally and I've
| recently been very pleased to hear my 5 y.o. telling her
| friends that they should not eat that much fries and coke
| if they want to stay healthy and suggested they try fish
| and chicken instead.
| Glawen wrote:
| >Fun story: I'm into crossfit semi-professionally and
| I've recently been very pleased to hear my 5 y.o. telling
| her friends that they should not eat that much fries and
| coke if they want to stay healthy and suggested they try
| fish and chicken instead.
|
| I actually find it scary. I believe that children need to
| experience the maximum of stuff, and as a French they
| need to taste all the food, whatever unhealthy they are.
| Schools are a already pushing a lot of propaganda on
| children about saving the planet. I can see that the next
| step will be to tell them that meat pollute and they
| should be vegan to save the planet.
|
| My child is sometimes telling me things like this and I
| tell him that he is totally healthy and does not need to
| worry.
| deltarholamda wrote:
| >you can extend this to everything
|
| Doing nothing until you can do 100% of everything is not
| how anything works.
| djaychela wrote:
| How old are your kids?
| vincnetas wrote:
| to clearify apple feature looks reasonable to me. 4 and
| 7. ... and now im questioning my previous comment in my
| head about how certain i am about what i wrote :)
| heavenlyblue wrote:
| I think the more important question is how old are your
| kids?
| djaychela wrote:
| Between 15 and 23. It's easy to live in a utopian ideal
| where you say "We'll talk to them about all of this, and
| they'll be rational and see sense", but having spent the
| last 3+ years firefighting the impact of their
| spectacularly stupid behaviour (all 4 kids are above
| average IQ, but all of them have ASD diagnoses, all of
| them fall into the 'loud, confident and wrong' category)
| - a lot of which has involved impact with people whose
| opinions are along the lines of free speech absolutists
| mixed with 8chan lunacy - whenever I see people crowing
| about how terrible all these ideas are, I think they
| probably haven't spent sleepless nights comforting their
| child's mother because one of the kids has spent another
| night in a hospital, institution or police custody
| because of undue influence placed on them whether it's
| because of social pressure, or because they've been
| convinced by a nutter to send nudes and use that against
| them.
|
| I'm well aware you can't protect them from all these
| things, but a lot of people who have young kids seem to
| think that as soon as they get to school it'll all be OK.
| My experience has been that the games get harder and
| stakes rise drastically, to the point where I often
| consider that killing myself would be a logical way out.
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| Teenagers have sex and experiment. Just teach them about
| birth control and "no means no" and everything will work out.
| codedokode wrote:
| It is not OK that children have access to adult phones and
| adult Internet.
|
| Apple should fix this by creating a kid mode, where the user
| can only contact people approved by parents and visit sites
| approved by parents or conforming to kid safety requirements.
| In this case the children will be perfectly safe.
|
| Why Apple doesn't do it? I guess because it is unprofitable,
| it requires major investments and doesn't promise any
| returns.
|
| Kids must be banned from the Internet completely instead of
| trying to patch different issues here and there.
| jon-wood wrote:
| They do. iDevices can be setup with a managed Apple account
| which allows whitelisting contacts, accessed websites, and
| permission to be granted before installing apps.
| lostlogin wrote:
| Have you used it? It's really horrible. It said I could
| share Apple Music with my family, so I gave my father
| access. Now I pay for all his purchases.
|
| I required approval for a child's app purchases. The
| notification is dismissed when I try to get password from
| password manager.
|
| Shared photo albums? In a family? This is looks to be
| getting some attention now, rather belatedly.
| watwut wrote:
| Nah, opt in feature like this is better. Because it is
| actually useable for parents. The all in everything locked
| kids modes are too much of annoyance for everyone involved
| to be used.
| codedokode wrote:
| Maybe the locked mode for children should be required by
| the law because many parents are too lazy or not
| competent enough to setup a phone properly for their
| kids.
| watwut wrote:
| Nice try, but no. If you create ridiculous hurdles,
| people won't use it.
|
| Meanwhile, the opt in button for this is simple, clear
| and easy.
| freeman478 wrote:
| This exists already as part of Family Sharing.
|
| You can do everything you said when you manage your kids
| accounts (manage contacts, whitelist internet websites,
| define appropriate content ratings and so on.
| codedokode wrote:
| This is not enough because in reality (I guess) most
| parents do not bother with setting this up (or don't know
| how to do it) and as a result kids stay unprotected.
| Maybe there should be a law requiring to setup such
| settings and a one-click option to switch to restricted
| mode without having to toggle every checkbox.
| john_the_writer wrote:
| Way easier.. full parental control, no phone for the
| kids. 100% effective.
|
| I got my first phone at 35. I figure my kids can wait a
| bit.
| lostlogin wrote:
| > You can do everything you said when you manage your
| kids accounts (manage contacts, whitelist internet
| websites, define appropriate content ratings and so on.
|
| Have you tried? It's a dumpster fire.
|
| Child requests app purchase > I get notification > It
| wants my AppleID password > I go to password manager to
| get password, but this dismisses the notification.
|
| I believe it's getting a bit of love this OS cycle, but
| it's hopeless currently.
| jrmann100 wrote:
| These features exist! Apple includes parental controls
| under "Screen Time" and they works very well. You can
| whitelist contacts and websites, and even extend them
| remotely, as an administrator of a child's device.
|
| For restricting access to the internet:
| https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201304 For restricting
| access to contacts:
| https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/set-up-screen-time-
| fo...
| tommica wrote:
| If a parent is worried about something like this, then
| wouldn't it be smarter to go for a phone that has no image
| sending/receiving possibility?
|
| Or if they are no longer available, shouldn't there be a
| parental control of a white-list of contact numbers that can
| show more than just the text in the message? This automatic
| filtering seems like a slippery slope.
| ziml77 wrote:
| Who's banning anything? This detection is on option for parents
| on devices that they already have control over. And all it does
| is blur the image so you have to tap to reveal it as well as
| include a link to support resources if the child didn't want to
| see the nude photo.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Children sharing nude photos of themselves, or being sent
| unsolicited nudes, is not normal / natural.
|
| As an adult you can just turn this feature off, if you use
| messages for this kind of thing.
| ilikehurdles wrote:
| Photos are not natural. From that basic fact you can extend
| any activity surrounding them to be unnatural.
|
| Kids seeing themselves or each other nude is pretty normal.
| Kids are curious. That being said, luckily none of the
| awkward curiosities we entertained when I was a kid had any
| chance of ending up on some kind of iCloud permanent record,
| so maybe this is for the better.
| adrianN wrote:
| Children taking photos is not natural.
| Hackbraten wrote:
| Taking photos is not natural.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| dereg wrote:
| Kindly provide your analysis showing a correlation between
| revenge porn and nude beaches.
| vletal wrote:
| It does not _ban_ anything, it provides opt-in warnings to
| protect kids from obtaining or sending nudes.
| petre wrote:
| sschueller wrote:
| Sadly the same doesn't appear to apply to violence. America has
| no issue with it at all. On German television most movies will
| be cut for violence if they are aired during the day.
|
| I remember being double ID checked to go see "American Pie" the
| movie in Boston. There is only a few topless scenes, that is
| it...
| cato_the_elder wrote:
| Different countries have different cultures. That seems
| alright to me.
| Comevius wrote:
| A culture that sees mass shootings as normal, but nipples
| as problematic does not seem all right to me. A culture in
| which people are fighting in courts for their right to
| nudity, a culture in which every bit of a woman's body is
| though to be for sex is not normal. Murder on the other
| hand should never be normalized, it should be a taboo.
|
| And no, differences shouldn't be always tolerated, there
| are universal human values. Killing and torture is bad.
| Period.
| cato_the_elder wrote:
| > A culture that sees mass shootings as normal
|
| That's just muddying the water by bringing up an
| irrelevant issue. We are talking about displays of
| violence in movies.
| Comevius wrote:
| The average American watches 5 hours of TV each day, 2/3
| of the shows are about physical violence. The
| entertainment industry is a propaganda for the gun
| industry because people feel that violence is everywhere,
| and that guns are needed for protection.
|
| Research on the effects of viewing violence found a
| desensitizing effect, especially for children. People
| become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others
| and more fearful of the world. This effect is much less
| pronounced for video games, which tend to not dramatize
| violence.
|
| There is a reason we try to curtail violence in the media
| in Europe. When you engage with a fantasy many hours a
| day, it becomes your reality.
| cato_the_elder wrote:
| > The average American watches 5 hours of TV each day
|
| That's an overestimate, it's probably closer to 3 hours
| per day [1]. Also, if you exclude the elderly (like +55),
| it probably becomes significantly less.
|
| > people feel that violence is everywhere
|
| It really is though. Right now, there's a war going on in
| Europe. Curtailing it wouldn't make it go away.
|
| > Research on the effects of viewing violence found a
| desensitizing effect, especially for children.
|
| Like the vast majority of social sciences, that area is
| full of low-quality studies.
|
| [1]:"In the 2013-17 period, the U.S. civilian
| noninstitutional population ages 15 and older spent an
| average of 2 hours 46 minutes per day watching TV."
| (https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-7/television-
| capturing-a...)
| [deleted]
| bambax wrote:
| No. Images of school shootings can't be shared on social
| media. Why not? Wouldn't it help to show what guns are
| for?
| cato_the_elder wrote:
| This verges on trolling. I'm sure as you know, guns are
| mostly used in wars, not school shootings.
|
| > Why not?
|
| Privacy of the victims?
| bambax wrote:
| Guns owned by individuals in the US are not used in wars.
|
| We could blur faces if that's really the one problem
| preventing sharing gore images of school shootings.
| Somehow I doubt that's the reason though.
| mgdlbp wrote:
| Regardless of the specifics of the culture, this diversity
| is lacking in the corporations of the Western internet.
| tommit wrote:
| Yes, obviously that's alright. It's nonetheless also
| alright to wonder about or even question the reason behind
| those different cultures.
|
| As a European, it's just really, _really_ strange to see
| how everything war, gore, death and guns seems to be
| alright for the kids overseas, but don 't you dare show a
| nipple or say a bad word. I respect your culture, even like
| lots about it. But sorry, that's weird.
| cato_the_elder wrote:
| Right, but there seems to be a strange belief that the US
| in particular shouldn't have its own culture. My
| objection is to that. That's kinda American
| exceptionalism at its worst.
|
| Europeans have their own share if strange cultural
| phenomenon, BTW. E.g. apparently they don't feed their
| guests in Sweden. [1]
|
| [1]: https://nypost.com/2022/05/31/countries-where-
| feeding-house-...
| tommit wrote:
| I don't think anyone feels like the US shouldn't have its
| own culture -- definitely not more so than other places.
| If anything, the US injects its culture _everywhere_ ,
| due to entertainment being a primary export. And most of
| it is completely fine. People may shake their heads at
| certain things, much like you guys shake your head at the
| thought of not feeding your guests. But that's fine.
|
| It's just that (sorry for using such a provocative word)
| the entire war/gun-fetishism is weird af for most
| outsiders. The way I see it, it's at least equal parts
| culture and excessive lobbying/brainwashing. And it shows
| in things like being fine with exposure to violence from
| a young age. Contrast that to people freaking out at
| nudity, and it makes for a silly juxtaposition.
| cato_the_elder wrote:
| > I don't think anyone feels like the US shouldn't have
| its own culture
|
| I disagree with that. The "America as merely an idea"
| sentiment is quite popular. [1]
|
| > It's just that (sorry for using such a provocative
| word) the entire war/gun-fetishism is weird af for most
| outsiders.
|
| Children in Europe don't play with toy soldiers or guns?
|
| [1]: E.g. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K19IFoKNYSI
| tommit wrote:
| I don't understand how the video relates to anyone
| thinking you shouldn't have your own culture. If anything
| that video claims that "leaving no one behind" and
| "decency and compassion" are what makes America America.
|
| > Children in Europe don't play with toy soldiers or
| guns?
|
| Occasionally for sure. But it's just on another level in
| the US. I can't pinpoint it, but I've spent years in
| America and visited a lot of toy stores :) we simply
| don't have aisles full of nerf guns and shit over here.
| You'll find them, but overall the topic is much, _much_
| less romanticized.
|
| And in the context of movie ratings, every war/gory
| movie/videogame will be rated 16/18+ in most parts of
| Europe. I know, because I used to get some Star Wars
| shooters for Xbox rated Teen while on holiday in the US a
| couple years before I would've been able to get them in
| my home country :)
| cato_the_elder wrote:
| > If anything that video claims that "leaving no one
| behind" and "decency and compassion" are what makes
| America America.
|
| Well, I kinda think those claims are mostly lies. We all
| know that Americans are not well-known for their
| compassion.
|
| American culture used to emphasize frankness, family
| values, freedom, and individual responsibility. Now, it's
| rulings class has decided these cultural values interfere
| with their interests. So, they have decided to pretend
| these don't exist.
|
| > And in the context of movie ratings, every war/gory
| movie/videogame will be rated 16/18+ in most parts of
| Europe.
|
| Interesting, are those ratings taken seriously?
| tommit wrote:
| That's funny. Frankness is not a trait I would have
| thought is very American. If anything, you guys are a bit
| too polite at times it seems.
|
| I don't know if it's just the ruling class that has
| decided this change. I applaud everyone who keeps up
| "family values", but I will absolutely vote for shutting
| that shit down as soon as it's a front for "white man,
| breadwinner, white woman, housewife, two children --
| everything else is worth less".
|
| Unfortunately, a whole lot of those who were meant to
| keep up those values used them to suppress others.
|
| I claim that it's possible to be progressive and still
| keep your culture intact. Family values can still be
| emphasized, but why not simply include all families, no
| matter how quirky they may come?
|
| In any case, I applaud many things in your culture. I've
| always had a great affinity for the US. No country is
| perfect, and all will find some aspect about another
| culture they find strange. What's important is to keep an
| open mind, and not cling to traditions for tradition's
| sake.
|
| > Interesting, are those ratings taken seriously?
|
| It depends on the guardians, of course. I know I was not
| allowed to play games rated 16+ before I actually turned
| 16. I know friends of mine who played CS when they were
| 12. We all turned out okay.
| bambax wrote:
| It would be alright if one country didn't try to force its
| culture, prejudice and superstion on all others, because
| it's economically dominant.
|
| I don't care if the US are obsessed with nipples. I find it
| ridiculous, but also kind of funny.
|
| But when this obsession prevents people from sharing art on
| US controlled systems and services, then it's incredibly
| annoying. (It's not the most pressing problem in the world,
| sure, but it's grating.)
| deepdriver wrote:
| In America you need photo ID to buy beer, purchase tobacco,
| or see a nipple in a movie theater, but not to vote. We're an
| odd country.
| gambiting wrote:
| Wait, you don't need an ID to vote? How do people vote
| then? Like.....I'm really struggling to imagine how that
| works.
| woodruffw wrote:
| In the US, your voting district maintains a voter roll,
| which in turn is updated based on voter registration.
| Registering to vote means proving that you're eligible to
| vote, and your name and information is checked against
| the voter roll when you _do_ vote.
|
| In other words: in many places, you don't need to present
| an ID because you've already been identified. But it's a
| big country, and that's not the case everywhere: lots of
| states and municipalities do require you to present an
| additional ID, or at least to present your voter
| registration (and just your name and address).
| deepdriver wrote:
| It's actually a bit more complicated. My state doesn't
| require ID to vote, but some do. Some require a full
| photo ID and others don't. Photo ID is optional at the
| polls in about half of US states:
|
| https://www.usa.gov/voter-id
|
| Where I live you just show up at the polling place, sign
| on the line next to your name and address, and that's it.
| Separately, here's how to vote without ID in California:
|
| https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_ID_in_California
| AdamH12113 wrote:
| You have to register to vote in the US. Your name and
| signature are already on a list at the polling place. You
| can bring your voter registration card.
| refurb wrote:
| You pinky promise that you're eligible.
| bigDinosaur wrote:
| You don't need an ID to vote in Australia either. It
| works fine. What's hard to imagine? You get checked off
| on a list which includes all enrolled voters for that
| electorate.
| gambiting wrote:
| Yeah and how do they verify that you are who you are? You
| come to a polling place, say you are X, and they
| just.....trust you? That's the part that's hard to
| imagine for me.
| sveiss wrote:
| Yes. You're ticked off a list, so that you can't vote
| twice, and that helps spot anyone who does attempt to
| impersonate another voter.
|
| It's not 100% foolproof, but it turns out voter fraud by
| impersonation is very rare, so it's good enough.
|
| When you think in terms of "make sure every vote we count
| was legitimate", then "not completely foolproof" becomes
| a solid argument for voter ID.
|
| Instead, if you take a wider view and think in terms of
| "getting the best quality estimate of the will of the
| voting population", the argument against requiring ID (in
| the US at least) is that it would distort the results of
| the election far more than a tiny amount of undetected
| impersonation fraud does.
|
| This will vary by country. In the US, there are barriers
| to getting ID for some groups (you need to go in person
| during business hours, pay and wait an unknown amount of
| time, and this needs to happen weeks ahead of election
| days; this is a barrier to someone without transport
| juggling multiple jobs and childcare, for instance.)
|
| Other countries see the trade off differently, or use
| different fraud prevention approaches. For example, I
| know India uses indelible ink stains on fingers to
| prevent multiple voting, and in the UK, there is no ID
| requirement (yet) but the ballots are serialised and the
| secrecy of the ballot can be broken to investigate fraud
| allegations. Neither of these approaches would be
| culturally acceptable in the US.
| anko wrote:
| it's compulsory to vote. If people start rocking up and
| it says they have already voted, it will be caught pretty
| quickly.
|
| Australians are also fairly trustworthy
| deepdriver wrote:
| I don't know about Australia, but in America our lack of
| voter ID has led to contention in the past:
|
| https://www.jstor.org/stable/27550168
|
| Personally I think voter ID makes sense even if only to
| quash allegation of voter fraud. Voter ID enjoys
| overwhelming (>80%) bipartisan support from regular
| Americans. The main obstacle to new voter ID laws is the
| Democratic Party establishment. They calculate a marginal
| decrease in electoral margins if new voter ID laws were
| to be enacted. Of course then they wind up faced with
| fiascos like January 6, but politicians are nothing if
| not short-term planners.
|
| https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/25/politics/voter-id-
| election-la...
| tzs wrote:
| > The main obstacle to new voter ID laws is the
| Democratic Party establishment.
|
| Propose voter ID laws that include provisions to make
| sure that it is easy and free for eligible voters to
| obtain the necessary ID and Democrats won't object.
| frenchy wrote:
| > They calculate a marginal decrease in electoral margins
| if new voter ID laws were to be enacted.
|
| So what you're saying is that voter ID will result in
| some citizens not voting. Personally, that seems like a
| fair reason to oppose the measure.
| [deleted]
| bdorn wrote:
| This is only true for 15 states. And half of those require
| you to return with an an ID for your vote to count.
| deepdriver wrote:
| I didn't realize it was so few. My own state doesn't
| require voter ID. However it looks like the states that
| require ID tend to be smaller, and many larger states
| don't require it. 41% of the US population live in states
| like California with no voter ID laws, with an additional
| percentage in states where a photo ID (as opposed to a
| bank statement or utility bill) is optional:
|
| https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jun/13/nikki-
| hale...
| cato_the_elder wrote:
| > That's so American.
|
| Not sure if I see anything particularly wrong with that. Apple
| is an American company.
| sph wrote:
| Not all their customers are.
| olliej wrote:
| And you don't have to navigate through multiple layers of
| settings to turn the feature on if you don't want to?
| cato_the_elder wrote:
| This is opt-in, they can choose not to use it.
| refurb wrote:
| Then don't buy Apple, go and buy a mobile phone from a
| European maker.
| alexruf wrote:
| As an European I agree. I am a bit afraid of this new feature
| since I might not agree with Apple what falls into the category
| of sensitive content and what I would consider as ok. In fact
| there is a big cultural difference. For me personally a nipple
| or even a fully exposed breast is not a problem (we even have
| that on public TV), whereas explicit shots of genitals I would
| agree fall into a category which should be censored.
| rmbyrro wrote:
| From studying history, I have the impression the normalization
| of nudity in public started after WWII in Europe.
|
| Could it be that the precarious conditions (families disrupted,
| lack of intimate space, moral degradation) to which the
| populations there were submitted during the war shaped this
| culture?
|
| If yes, what does it tell about the value of this culture?
| shultays wrote:
| How one can compare "going to a nude beach with a kid" with
| "sending penis pictures to a kid"?
| llbeansandrice wrote:
| I'm floored this is at the top of the comments. But I guess
| "I didn't read the article. America bad." is what gets
| upvotes.
|
| I have a feeling that sending nudes to a child's phone isn't
| exactly lauded as "natural" in Europe. Of course I'm a prude,
| unnatural, and I guess violent American though so what do I
| know.
|
| Not to mention it's an opt-in parental control feature for
| children's accounts.
| dt2m wrote:
| You raise a great point here. I'm born and raised in Europe,
| still live here now, but I've spent a great deal of time in the
| US, and the differences in how we perceive children might be
| the biggest gap between the two cultures.
|
| I much prefer the European view of children being raised as
| young adults, seeing the world for what it is, rather than the
| American idea of creating a puritan parallel society scrubbed
| of all the "bad" things.
|
| Looking back on this I've found that the European model raises
| better critical thinkers - partly due to the school system as
| well - and you end up with a more sustainable parent-child
| relationship when the children are grown.
|
| In a world where US culture basically shapes the design of the
| tech products and social media we all use, this scares me.
| deepdriver wrote:
| The German band Rammstein made a song about this feeling,
| with a great music video:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr8ljRgcJNM
| renewiltord wrote:
| I certainly prefer the non-Bowdlerized world for children,
| myself, having grown up as such. But if there is any thinking
| superiority to that technique it appears to not be in action
| considering that California (not unique in America in
| cultural puritanism) outperforms most comparable European
| countries. It certainly beats Germany at innovation, maternal
| mortality, income, and wealth and has comparable gross
| product, and life expectancy.
|
| Considering that Californian children are no less sheltered,
| I find it hard to believe that this effect on thought is
| meaningful.
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| > maternal mortality
|
| it does not
|
| it's 11.7 per 100,000 in California and 7 per 100,000 in
| Germany.
|
| Despite similar spending per capita in healthcare.
|
| > Considering that Californian children are no less
| sheltered
|
| They come from families that on average are a lot more
| wealthy than the average German family and live in a much
| more pleasant weather.
|
| Bit apples to oranges.
| renewiltord wrote:
| The 11.7 is the PRMR measure from CA-PMSS, which is far
| stricter than the definition used in Germany. The
| corresponding rate using the same definition as in
| Germany was ~6 / 100k in California.
|
| Easy mistake to make, though, since you have to be aware
| of definitional differences.
|
| A start to that is here: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs
| /CFH/DMCAH/surveillance/CDPH...
|
| But you'll have to go read the guidelines to read the
| difference.
| allendoerfer wrote:
| While we are comparing irrelevant metrics to the discussed
| topic: Germany beats California at World Cups but loses out
| to it at World Wars.
|
| Turns out a country can be superior at one thing without
| being superior at all the things.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Sure, I was asking if it was worth the better critical
| thinking if it didn't lead to better life outcomes. It
| looks like, if there is better critical thinking in
| Europe it's not leading to better life outcomes. So that
| means one of two things:
|
| * better c-t does not lead to better l-o
|
| * the c-t is worse
|
| If you feel that World Cups are a better measure than
| maternal mortality rate, then have at it. The measures we
| choose are arbitrary, so we can just lay them all out.
| I'm happy to accept relevant metrics if you have them to
| show. Personally, I think a society with better critical
| thinking overall would be able to, given resources,
| reduce the number of dying new mothers but if you believe
| there is no relationship I am happy to just accept
| metrics you offer.
| feet wrote:
| The US is number one is prisoner population, go USA!
| geysersam wrote:
| Perhaps critical thinking is detrimental to GDP ;)
| cassianoleal wrote:
| Indeed. Could it be that this is because GDP is not the
| main measure of happiness, or perhaps even one at all? I
| wonder. :D
| feet wrote:
| Money is the end all and be all for some people. It's an
| incredibly harmful ideology that not only hurts citizens
| but also the environment and ecosystem
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| California is a part of the US last I checked or did you
| guys finally secede?
| renewiltord wrote:
| Picked an appropriately sized thing to compare
| considering the variance in US-state laws and EU-nation
| laws causes whole-US and whole-EU comparisons to be
| noisy. Also I live in Cali and know it better than I do
| the rest of the US.
| mgdlbp wrote:
| Observe the Netherlands' attitude towards sex education and
| compare, for example, a quantifiable outcome such as
| teenage birth rates.
|
| There is a solid case that the US morality is _harmful_ to
| children.
|
| To girls in particular, even, but this aspect of feminism
| does not seem popular today.
| tintedfireglass wrote:
| A lot of that can be attributed to the best people from
| around the world emigrating to California and not culture
| and education of Californians
| renewiltord wrote:
| Flattery will get you nowhere, mate! :)
|
| But I do think that being an attractive immigrant
| destination is a thing to aspire to.
| beardyw wrote:
| Many Europeans live happy and fulfilled lives and die
| peacefully never having innovated or become wealthy.
| Perhaps that's not a European measurement.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Right, but the US is happier than most European countries
| by the last measure I saw
| https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2022/happiness-
| benevolence-... (comparable to Germany, better than
| France) and when you take a state like mine (California)
| it beats all but the Scandinavians, which, sure I grant
| you they seem to have a good and happy society.
|
| So, if you take Germany, Californians are:
|
| - happier
|
| - more wealthy
|
| - more innovative
|
| - have fewer mums die
|
| Now, either this means this better critical thinking
| described isn't manifesting into any life outcomes, or
| (and perhaps this is a question worth asking), it isn't
| better after all.
| beardyw wrote:
| Perhaps Europeans need to study the stats.
| McSwag wrote:
| America is a wage slave factory. Much like we can't make the
| cake and eat it too. We can't produce both a world of
| critical thinkers and a world dominating nationalistic war
| machine.
|
| While I'm at it with the sweeping exaggerated
| generalizations, Americans are raised to both hate our
| parents and hate our children because it makes better wage
| slaves. Go ahead and downvote me, make my day.
|
| Disclaimer: Another round of shots, bartender!
| feet wrote:
| You're absolutely correct. The american system is captured
| by those with capital and what those with capital want is
| obedient wage slaves.
| baby wrote:
| The US is very religious
| dotancohen wrote:
| Gasp0de wrote:
| "I'll not call homosexuality bad, but bad things, including
| homosexuality, are being promoted to children"
| dotancohen wrote:
| I do not understand what you are quoting.
| mpol wrote:
| It's not quoting, it's paraphrasing. The comment was very
| suggestive in that homosexuality is bad. If that was not
| what you meant, you might have chosen less suggestive
| text.
| dotancohen wrote:
| I specifically said that homosexuality is controversial.
| You and I might be accepting of same sex couples, but
| there is no doubt that there exist people with, justified
| or not, different sets of morals. My post was very clear
| in labeling the glorification of violence as bad.
| westmeal wrote:
| To be honest I also read it like the previous guy did but
| I understand what you mean now.
| lultimouomo wrote:
| I believe for a large part of the world homosexuality is
| far less controversial than homophobia, and thus it makes
| sense that Disney would want to showcase same-sex couples
| to declare loudly that they are not homophobic. Whether
| this is sincere or opportunistic it's open to judgement;
| one could cynically notice that the large part of the world
| that really doesn't like homophobia is a very high
| potential market for Disney.
| sampling wrote:
| I'm struggling to understand what exactly is "bad" about
| homosexuality? Why does a consenting same sex relationship
| between two adults need "scrubbing" from Disney?
| dotancohen wrote:
| I said that homosexuality is controversial, not bad. That
| means that though you and I may be accepting of it, many
| others many not be.
|
| I believe that my post was clearly calling out
| glorification of violent behaviour and drug use as "bad".
| drewbug01 wrote:
| What you wrote certainly calls homosexuality
| controversial, but then immediately includes it in a list
| alongside violent behavior and drug use. Rhetorically,
| that equates it with the "bad" things.
|
| Unless, of course, you're trying to state that violence
| and drug use is "controversial." But that isn't clearly
| implied; you have to read much more into it in order to
| come up with that interpretation.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| ctoth wrote:
| I was trying to figure out "good multiplications" and I
| think what you meant is "good products." and this is a
| lovely mistake to make since multiplication is taking the
| product of something. Anyway, nothing useful to add just
| was trying to figure out where that phrasing came from
| and was delighted.
| etrautmann wrote:
| What a weird and narrow perspective.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| > In a world where US culture basically shapes the design of
| the tech products and social media we all use, this scares
| me.
|
| This is a key point. Today we are all so progressively aware
| of "cultural hegemony" and wallow in the shame of
| colonialism. But we don't see its new and more powerful
| forms.
|
| The prevalence of digital technology means that companies
| like Apple and Google imposing their values is a real
| problem. And let's be clear, these _are often_ very parochial
| values.
|
| It could be said that Europe's digital split with US is only
| about things like privacy and data control on the surface.
| Underneath are more subtle cultural forces at play.
| refurb wrote:
| Are you saying Europe is cool with 11 years olds sending
| topless pictures to boys in their class?
| ksec wrote:
| Finally people are getting it!
|
| And it isn't just nude or iMessage either. Tim Cooks' Apple
| have been forcing their American culture / political stuff to
| the rest of the world for quite some time.
|
| Part of the reason why I wish I could move away from Apple.
| Unfortunately Microsoft or Google doesn't seems to be competing
| and they aren't that much different either.
| dgiol wrote:
| Exactly, I wish European mobile makers had adapted faster in
| the late 2000s.
|
| We most likely wouldn't have to deal with the cyber moral
| police, and total lack of privacy we deal with now (which this
| is part of)
| Lloydksk wrote:
| The safety of apple is absolutely horrible. Sometimes you can
| get banned or scammed. If apple does nothing about it the whole
| community will be gone. Its a Seruis point.
| [deleted]
| baobob wrote:
| I think you need to qualify "in Europe", as a European it is
| certainly not true of any place I ever lived "in Europe".
|
| That aside, it would be nice if we could survive just a single
| thread about a child protection feature without endless
| absurdist arguments and strawmen being offered.
|
| I appreciate the reply to this comment indicating nudity is
| often unsolicited. That's very true. A productive thread
| regarding a feature like this might include discussion of how
| to limit its scope, or how it might be safely extended to other
| kinds of harmful content a child might want to avoid. A
| pointless thread might be one where the heart of the tech
| industry continues to ignore the fact many new parents ban all
| unsupervised Internet and new media usage for their children
| well into their teens due to problems like this remaining
| unsolved for decades now, and the industry being utterly
| incapable of having a sober conversation about it.
| bambax wrote:
| Why do children need to be "protected" from nudity? What's so
| special about nudity?
|
| The reason people try to control children's access to tech
| and social media isn't because they might see a nipple (lol)
| but because it's addictive and prevents them from doing
| anything else.
|
| If we realy want to "protect the chidren" we should start by
| dismantling FAANGs.
| baobob wrote:
| This is precisely what I meant by pointless: outside of
| 20somethings and certain locales (particularly large
| cities), alternate lifestyles exist where parents simply
| may not want this for their children.
|
| I'd suggest arguments for or against any particular culture
| or lifestyle, or attempting to deny they exist, exceed the
| scope of discussing the feature itself.
| true_religion wrote:
| They don't need to be protected from nudity in and of
| itself. However if they are talking to an adult or a
| stranger randomly messages them, it would be nice if the
| device blurs pornographic imagery.
|
| If they are looking for porn themselves (e.g. are of the
| age to care for such things), they can download it
| themselves via Safari.
|
| But generally speaking there's no need to trade this stuff
| on iMessage.
| john_the_writer wrote:
| I don't let my kids on the net unsupervised not because of
| things like this, but because of social media and scammers.
| Honestly, I'm more worried about them getting a call to fix
| their computer because it "has viruses" than anything else.
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| > I think you need to qualify "in Europe", as a European it
| is certainly not true of any place I ever lived "in Europe".
|
| Nudist beaches or naturalists' resorts are everywhere in
| Europe, even where it's less obvious, like in the former
| communist block.
|
| EDIT: if we are talking about kids nudity, like changing them
| in the open, in front of everybody, that's never been an
| issue in my almost 50 years on this Planet as European living
| in Europe.
| gambiting wrote:
| UK is definitely on the American side of things in this.
| Lived here for a long time now and there's definitely a lot
| of that "oh no a child might see a nipple, how awful". But
| yeah, in Germany, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Spain,
| maybe even France - people would care a lot less. Especially
| in Czech Republic and Slovakia - you go to a public swimming
| pool, people just change in the open, children included, no
| one minds or cares.
|
| (obviously that's just my own travel experience, I don't
| doubt there are places in all of those countries where that's
| not true)
| bambax wrote:
| The UK made it very clear they don't want to be part of
| Europe. Which is fine by me.
| gambiting wrote:
| They are though, whether they want to or not. If someone
| says "in europe people do X" then "europe" includes UK.
| ryandvm wrote:
| The UK is culturally isolated, geographically isolated,
| and politically isolated. They are about as European as
| Mexico is North American which is to say it's technically
| true, but practically false.
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| > At the same time in Europe you go to a nude beach and there
| are whole families with kids and literally nobody has problems
| with it.
|
| Well ok: if you specifically go to a nude beach, I'd expect
| you'd see naked people and nobody going there having any issue
| with it. That's why it's called a "nude beach" right?
|
| But they're not common. In France where I go the most often,
| out of 8 kilometers of beaches on the district, there's like
| 100 meters (1/100th of the coastal area) where nudism is
| allowed. And it's not even on a beach: it's all rocks. The town
| hall picked that one spot, far away from the beaches, to
| isolate the nudists. It's tiny. There may be a few famous
| nudists spots around the country but they're not common.
|
| Still France: there are only two cases I can think of where a
| woman showing its nipples in public is considered normal and
| that'd be monokini on the beach (but not full nudism) and
| breastfeeding. You don't see women walking topless in the
| streets.
|
| Monokini on the beaches is allowed everywhere in France as far
| as I know but it's way less common to actually see women in
| monokini than it used to be when I was a kid in the eighties.
| Glawen wrote:
| I'm in Italy on the beach right now and I'm stunned because I
| did not see yet a nipple. I didn't know they were prude. On
| the beach in France I would see nipples everyday.
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| _But yeah, lets ban more normal /natural stuff._
|
| Quite literally nothing has been banned here.
|
| I struggle to believe that you read and understood this article
| before sharing this view. This is an opt-in feature,
| specifically for use with the existing parental control system,
| that enables pretty light-touch and overridable prompts if a
| child receives something that looks like nudity. It's _clearly_
| targeted at unsolicited nude pictures being sent to children,
| and differential cultural views on public nudity have
| essentially _zero_ relevance to that.
|
| Now instead of an interesting discussion about this feature--
| why it might be good or bad, the privacy or social implications
| of it, and so on--we just have a chain of fucking nonsense
| comments unrelated to it.
| badrabbit wrote:
| A lot of women getting dick pics would appreciate banning that
| for sure. I see no problem with this so long as the policy us
| recipient controlled.
| throwawaylinux wrote:
| Whenever the conversation veers this way, there's always people
| pipe up to talk about how _American_ it is to have any concerns
| about nudity, and that this is portrayed to be a bad thing.
| Which seems extremely European or western centric.
|
| Having issues with nudity is absolutely not "American". Nor are
| Germany or Sweden moral compasses by which everybody else
| should strive to live like.
|
| Look around the world, there are many countries and billions of
| people around Africa, China, South East Asia, the Middle East,
| that are as "prudish" if not massively more so than USA. Even
| with a European or western-centric myopia, does it really hold?
| How about Poland or New Zealand?
|
| In any case, I don't see what the point is. USA is overall not
| as liberal with nudity as some European countries. So what?
| Germany has blasphemy laws and laws punishing people who talk
| about things, is that normal or natural?
| olliej wrote:
| Ah yes, it's very American to ban nudity.. oh, sorry, we must
| have read different articles as this is an opt in feature in
| parental controls.
|
| I don't see anything about Apple banning nudity, where are you
| reading that?
| DSingularity wrote:
| Nobody bothers clothed people? What about France?
| Akronymus wrote:
| Or how in europe, the sauna is nude and people WILL bother you
| for going in with swimwear.
|
| In the US it is the opposite.
| Kalanos wrote:
| this catches child predators. duh
| Erikun wrote:
| "Messages now includes tools that warn children and provide
| helpful resources if they receive or attempt to send photos that
| may contain nudity. [...] Messages uses on-device machine
| learning to analyze image attachments and determine if a photo
| appears to contain nudity. The feature is designed so that Apple
| doesn't get access to the photos."
| HidyBush wrote:
| >naked photos and videos show the private body parts that are
| usually covered by underwear or bathing suits
|
| sweet, now the iPhone (which a child shouldn't use in the first
| place) is nannying the kid and doing "the talk" instead of the
| parents.
|
| how soon until your phone makes your son sit trough an entire
| sex-ed class on his first NSFW internet search?
| wonderbore wrote:
| > how soon until your phone makes your son sit trough an entire
| sex-ed class on his first NSFW internet search?
|
| I wish I received that the first time I looked for NSFW content
| (at 11). I'm totally fine with this kind of warnings for kids.
| jrmann100 wrote:
| Being comfortable with sexuality and nudity is distinct from
| sexual harassment, and I think this feature is fundamentally
| designed to prevent the latter.
|
| Some nude content is wanted or warranted by the user, and some
| of isn't. Apple isn't blocking this content, only optionally
| hiding it--almost identically to Reddit's NSFW feature for
| mature adults. The "Ways to Get Help" might overstep the bounds
| for some situations, but it might also prevent others from
| getting worse.
|
| Often, children are uncomfortable with sharing about being
| exposed to uncomfortable content. While that may be a fault of
| parenting, it doesn't make this tool any less useful.
| dereg wrote:
| This is the least charitable perspective you could adopt. If
| you looked at the prompts, it's clear that this system is to
| help initiate a healthy conversation with your parents/trusted
| entities about how to deal with and understand these types of
| photos.
|
| 1:1 conversation couldn't be more different from NSFW internet
| searches. A malicious party can use coercive tactics to have
| the child send them compromising photos.
| HidyBush wrote:
| I am tired of being charitable to these companies.
|
| Children shouldn't drive cars, they shouldn't do drugs and
| they shouldn't use smartphones.
|
| Would you be fine with a beer company making a "safe" version
| of beer for kids so they get hooked and once they turn 21
| they switch to the real stuff and become alcoholics?
|
| Making these devices more "child friendly" is the wrong
| solution to the problem. Actually, it's the absolute BEST
| solution if you are Apple and want to calm the parents down
| and sell more phones and services at the same time.
| Unfortunately I'm not Apple and my objective regarding my
| kids is not to maximize profits and push complex technology
| to people down to the last semi-conscious toddler
| lostlogin wrote:
| Is there anyone alive that had their first drink at 21?
| dereg wrote:
| There's no censorship/prohibition of content going on,
| unless you consider opt-ins censorship. I do not.
|
| I'm curious about how you feel about Google Image's
| SafeSearch being turned on by default. Is it also worthy of
| such ire?
| varispeed wrote:
| They'll call it "Parenting as a Service"...
| threeseed wrote:
| Not sure what reality you're living in but almost all kids in
| high school have phones.
|
| This feature is targeted firmly at that demographic who
| generally aren't going to listen to what their parents say on
| this matter. But whom will suffer the worst if their photos are
| spread around the school.
| Claude_Shannon wrote:
| Well, Discord once thought that my message containing a
| breadboard was nudity.
|
| I fully expect similar things to happen here.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Discord's detector is a bit weird, yeah, but it can be turned
| on or off by the server administrator. I turned it off because
| we don't get much abuse and we got some false positives.
| raxxorraxor wrote:
| Did you put the male plugs into the female sockets? Perhaps it
| was even pornographic material instead of just nude pictures.
| napolux wrote:
| well, a breadboard is actually naked... :P
| Claude_Shannon wrote:
| I guess I cannot argue with that :D
| heavenlyblue wrote:
| Dirty you sharing photos of electronics without the cover
| kevincox wrote:
| It would be interesting if you could opt into this for all
| conversations. I know people who get a high enough amount of
| unsolicited dick pics that they would consider turning it on. Of
| course the controls and messaging would probably need to be
| different (for example add "Always allow from this sender" and
| less emotional support)
| dusted wrote:
| 'murican led neo-puritanism ftl..
|
| I don't own any iDevices but it kinda bothers me that the world
| seems to close in on itself while at the same time breaking its
| own back bending over backwards to include _EVERY_ONE_[1].
|
| [1] Except the ones who are wrong.
| ezfe wrote:
| It can't be turned on for people 14 years old or older, and
| it's opt in for 13/younger
| AndrewDucker wrote:
| Very few people seem to have actually read the post.
|
| Apple aren't banning anything. They're detecting nudity, and
| asking you if you're sure. And that's only if you've turned this
| on!
|
| I can think of several women I know who would quite like to have
| had a warning about incoming nudity before it appeared.
|
| More information is better than less. I don't see a problem here
| at all.
| kemayo wrote:
| Yeah, I'm actually surprised that there's not a way to turn
| this on for non-child accounts. I've _definitely_ known people
| who 're in the dating scene who'd like to have a choice before
| seeing a nude picture from someone who has their number.
|
| For that matter, I could see the appeal of just the blurring
| feature in general. Checking your texts in public might be a
| risky proposition even if the photo is totally _wanted_.
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| I used to backup all family photos taken by my wife/kids to my
| NAS until one day I browsed the gallery looking for something and
| found a nude full frontal my daughter (17) received from her
| boyfriend.
|
| I said nothing - stopped the archiving and deleted everything
| except for my own photos.
|
| They deserve their privacy and do whatever on their devices
| without snooping - if we go away on vacation I now ask them if
| they want to share any pics they want so I can keep it.
|
| Apple is turning out to be big brother.
| fastball wrote:
| Doesn't this check only happen on the user's device?
| teekert wrote:
| I think you did the right thing. But still, I think it could
| also be used as moment for education. For the boyfriend: "You
| have 0 control over where the image ends up when you send it to
| someone, perhaps even before you send it." For the Daughter:
| "You are in possession of nude material from a minor. This
| carries some risk, you should be aware of it."
|
| But I get the struggle, I also turned of logging in my AdGuard
| home instance, at least for my wife's phone. But it was also a
| lesson for her when I jokingly told here the website she was on
| right now... The ISP and Google probably know this too. And, I
| can find it in my Router without AdGuard, and that Router can
| be hacked. It's also a good time for education imho.
|
| Modern tech is so interesting. When I can't get a hold of my
| wife I sometimes find myself checking the hallway's motion
| sensor, seeing it just registered movement, the unify network
| reports to Home Assistant that indeed her phone is connected
| right now. Ah, gas usage, bathroom lighting and moisture
| sensors indicate she's taking a shower (boy it seems to be a
| long one, 0.4 m3 of gas!). I'll just wait 10 min and if she
| doesn't pick up I'll flash some lights or let the Sonos speak:
| "Pick up your Phone". Yeah it's pretty creepy but sometimes I
| don't even think about it... But writing it down like this I
| could write a "state" sensor for my wife that could, with high
| probability, tell me what she's doing and log it.
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| We had that talk about the Internet with my kids due to some
| incidents at school and that made the news but fortunately
| NOT (oops corrected) involving them - racist remarks on
| Facebook - oversharing of details - stalking - posting bikini
| photos on Insta - accepting friend requests from only people
| they know - privacy settings - cover your laptop camera -
| don't click links you receive - spam - the usual.
|
| Friends of ours came to me how to deal with nude photos taken
| by their underage daughter sent to her boyfriend - told them
| to contact the parents and go to his house immediately -
| watch him in the act of deleting the photos.
|
| Fortunately he was not stupid to share it with his mates.
|
| Also told them kids do stuff without thinking through the
| consequences and not to be too hard on them - think she only
| lost phone privilege's for a week.
|
| I do have a IP camera in the house but it is angled and to
| watch our parrot when he is on top his cage and alert us if
| he decides to take a walk.
| dereg wrote:
| "Big brother" is not what's happening here. At no point does
| Apple inform a parent if their child is sending or receiving
| nude photos. It merely provides a prompt that gives them the
| bare minimum information to understand the decision they're
| about to make.
|
| Microsoft Outlook sends me a prompt when I forget to attach
| something to an email. Something like "Hey it looks like you
| forgot to add an attachment, would you like to proceed?" The
| prompt gives me two choices, cancel or send anyway. Similarly
| to the nudity check, Microsoft scans the content of your email
| to understand if you intended to send an email with an
| attachment or not. Would you consider this to be "big brother"?
|
| This isn't just a feature for children. Adults can turn this
| feature on to prevent themself from ever accidentally sending
| nude pics.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Checking for the _presence_ of contebt is compketely
| different from _checking and reading_ of said content.
| dereg wrote:
| In this case, it's exactly the same. Microsoft (and Google)
| is reading the content of your email, searching for words
| or phrases that may hint to the fact that a file should be
| attached. If it believes that you're erroneously sending an
| email without an attachment, it'll send you a confirmation
| prompt.
| hef19898 wrote:
| I never saw it that way... But you are right, how would
| Outlook know that I want to send an attechment without
| reading my email in the first place. Still hope Outlook
| isn't reading the attachment so...
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| I presume they use that Microsoft technology to check for
| presence of too much skin tones in the shape of a human
| body ???.
|
| The problem is if the ML flags something and forward it to
| a human (even anonymized) to decide on for quality control
| purposes - that is why Alexa,Google and Apple smart
| speakers are banned in my house.
|
| I only allow dumb bluetooth speakers.
| afiori wrote:
| At least once upon a time the attachment check was
| essentially a search for the string "attach" in the email
| body.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Well, we have an Alexa. It is always unplugged except
| when someone wants to listen to music using it. Agree so
| that a Bluetooth speaker would do the same thing, worth
| thinking about.
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| Think a nude is rather different issue from a missing TSP
| report.
| agilob wrote:
| >I said nothing
|
| I think she deserves to know it leaked outside of her assumed
| "comfort zone"
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| Let sleeping dogs lie and she is now 22.
|
| There was no malice intended by me and I learned a life
| lesson regarding privacy - I expected for myself but did not
| even think about granting the same to my kids.
|
| So I don't log internet activity - no net nannies - just use
| Unifi WiFi to make sure bandwidth is distributed fairly to
| all devices and to block spam/ads via Piehole.
| ziml77 wrote:
| You made the right choice to not say a word about it.
| Absolutely nothing good would have come from telling her.
|
| And it's wonderful that you learned a lesson about the
| privacy of your children. I'm positive there are many
| parents who would have freaked out and gone further in
| violating their child's privacy and autonomy.
| sdwolfz wrote:
| M-x story-mode.
|
| When you are together with a significant other, sometimes you
| video call them, and sometimes they're in the bathroom, or
| shower, when they answer (what are they supposed to do, not
| answer a call from their beloved?). And during these calls they
| tease eachother, shift the camera in a non conventional angle,
| private parts exposed. Or they send naughty pictures to
| eachother, starting small scale, maybe escalating a bit.
|
| All of this is normal, natural, playfully, I would even say:
| innocent fun. Nobody plans for it, maybe not even asking each
| other to do it, it naturally evolves with the relationship,
| partners doing it out of their own free will. Adults do it,
| teenagers do it. Again, it's normal!
|
| Whenever this happes through a system that is not fully E2E
| encrypted, those pictures/videos get stored, analysed, accessed
| by employees, or even 3rd party contractors that label them for
| text to speech ML purposes.
|
| My advice, use Signal (since it's always e2e encrypted) to avoid
| the creepy 3rd party eyes, and carry on with your life.
|
| As for the presented "nudity filter" and it's functionality...
| you can't stop a determined teenager from doing what they aim to
| do. Assume they're smarter and more tech savy than you are, and
| this will just be a barrier they will find a way to overcome.
| Better to keep them safe (give them Signal e2e encrypted) rather
| than giving them prohibition (this never worked, and it most
| likely never will).
| theshrike79 wrote:
| Unless your significant other is a literal child and marked as
| such on their iCloud account, this'll never affect you in any
| way. No data is sent to anyone anywhere.
|
| > Messages now includes tools that warn children and provide
| helpful resources if they receive or attempt to send photos
| that may contain nudity.
|
| > Messages uses on-device machine learning to analyze image
| attachments and determine if a photo appears to contain nudity.
| The feature is designed so that Apple doesn't get access to the
| photos.
| pdpi wrote:
| If they're going to do this at all, "It's your choice but make
| sure you feel safe" is probably the right tone to hit here. It's
| all carefully worded to remain non-judgmental while still saying
| "We've got your back if you don't feel comfortable".
|
| Also, I have to respect that it's an opt-in feature by the
| parents/guardians, but the feature still allows the kid to view
| whatever the image was without actually alerting the parents. In
| a way, _that_ tradeoff is the best-case scenario for this sort of
| automated scanning -- it allows parents to put safeguards in
| place while still giving kids their privacy and not blocking
| anything. Curious to see if that becomes leverage to normalise
| scanning in general.
| [deleted]
| selimnairb wrote:
| Why does my phone care that my preferred attire for writing
| iMessages is none?
| ezfe wrote:
| It doesn't unless your 10 and your parents turned the feature
| on
| Gareth321 wrote:
| I don't love it but at least it's not that disastrous on-device
| "CSAM" scanning they were planning to roll out with this. That
| must have been one of Apple's biggest blunders in history.
| _Apple_ announcing they would scan _our phones_ for government
| banned content. Pants on head crazy.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| Didn't we have yet another thread on Google scanning all the
| files in your Google Drive just the other day?
| izacus wrote:
| What does Google have to do with any of this? Isn't Apple
| supposed to be better at privacy than Google?
| GeekyBear wrote:
| What does Google have to do with scanning all a customers
| data? It's something they have already been doing for
| years.
|
| For instance, this article from 2014:
|
| >Google scans everyone's email for child porn, and it just
| got a man arrested
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2014/8/5/5970141/how-google-
| scans-y...
| threeseed wrote:
| > Apple announcing they would scan our phones for government
| banned content
|
| Until you realise Apple has been scanning your iCloud photos
| for government banned content for years.
|
| And that the on device option was better for your privacy not
| worse.
| gambiting wrote:
| >>And that the on device option was better for your privacy
| not worse.
|
| No it wasn't. Previously pictures weren't scanned directly on
| my phone, then they were about to be. That was a downgrade of
| privacy, not an improvement. The fact that it was only going
| to be applied to photos due to be uploaded to iCloud is
| irrelevant - you are still using my own device to scan my own
| photos, and if it fails some completely opaque check that I
| have no control over, you will report me to law
| enforcement(who will then do god knows what). Not to mention
| that during the analysis process my pictures will be shown
| directly to a human in a centre somewhere who will judge them
| if they are legal or not. Again, I'm really struggling to see
| how this is an improvement in privacy.
|
| >>Until you realise Apple has been scanning your iCloud
| photos for government banned content for years.
|
| Source? Apple has maintained for years that they _don 't_
| scan pictures already uploaded to iCloud, since they are
| encrypted and Apple doesn't have access to them.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| >Previously pictures weren't scanned directly on my phone,
| then they were about to be. That was a downgrade of
| privacy, not an improvement.
|
| Absolutely not true.
|
| When you scan on the server, like Google does, that
| information is open to abuse by anyone who issues a
| warrant, and I wouldn't be willing to bet that the warrant
| is a hard requirement.
|
| >Google's Nest Will Provide Data to Police Without a
| Warrant
|
| https://petapixel.com/2022/07/27/googles-nest-will-
| provide-d...
| gambiting wrote:
| >>Absolutely not true.
|
| Which part isn't true? Pictures aren't scanned directly
| on the phone anywhere, that's true of both Android and
| iOS. Apple's implementation would change that, again,
| making their privacy implementation worse not better.
|
| >>When you scan on the server, like Google does
|
| I don't see how that's relevant. Apple wasn't scanning on
| their servers(at least that's what they say publicly, I
| don't doubt that NSA has access to the data anyway).
| GeekyBear wrote:
| Apple designed their system so that they don't have
| access to the scan data or the scan results.
|
| Google is scanning everything in your Google Drive on
| server, and that data can be accessed and abused by
| anyone willing to issue a warrant.
|
| Google's system is worse for privacy.
| gambiting wrote:
| >>Apple designed their system so that they don't have
| access to the scan data or the scan results.
|
| That's explicitly not true - your phone would scan the
| photos, if it failed the scan, then the photo would be
| uploaded to their verification centre where a human would
| look at the pictures in person and decide to forward them
| to law enforcement or not. We can argue whether the
| "verification centre" is Apple having access to scan
| data/results, but I feel like that's splitting hairs.
| It's a downgrade for the privacy that you used to have
| with Apple, not an improvement.
|
| >>Google's system is worse for privacy.
|
| I have zero idea why you keep bringing Google up. I'm
| saying that Apple's proposed system is a downgrade of
| their privacy implementation, not an improvement. What
| google does or does not do is not relevant to that
| argument.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| > That's explicitly not true - your phone would scan the
| photos, if it failed the scan, then the photo would be
| uploaded to their verification centre where a human would
| look at the pictures in person and decide to forward them
| to law enforcement or not.
|
| You seem to be discussing the system Apple never
| implemented.
|
| I am discussing the system that has just been announced.
|
| Yes, in the system just announced, it's an opt in
| parental control where Apple has no access to the images
| being scanned and doesn't know the scan results, while
| Google is busily scanning all the contents of everything
| in your Google account.
|
| How do Google customers opt out of that?
| gambiting wrote:
| >>You seem to be discussing the system Apple never
| implemented.
|
| What gave it away? The fact that I originally replied to
| the comment which was discussing that never released CSAM
| scanning system?
|
| >>I am discussing the system that has just been
| announced.
|
| So as I suspected, you are arguing against an argument I
| have never made.
|
| >>How do Google customers opt out of that?
|
| How do I opt out of you asking about Google if literally
| no part of my argument was about Google?
| randyrand wrote:
| Dont have time to look for a source, but iCloud Photos are
| encrypted with keys that Apple _does_ have access to. They
| hand it over for law enforcement.
| gambiting wrote:
| Right, but they don't actively scan everything uploaded
| to iCloud, is my understanding - they will decrypt your
| iCloud storage when asked, but they don't scan the
| contents by default. At least that's how I understand it.
| threeseed wrote:
| Jane Horvath, Apple's chief privacy officer, said at a tech
| conference that the company uses screening technology to
| look for the illegal images. The company says it disables
| accounts if Apple finds evidence of child exploitation
| material, although it does not specify how it discovers it.
|
| https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/01/08/apple-
| scan...
|
| And of course the whole issue with backups not being
| encrypted.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| Every major cloud provider scans their hosting for CSAM
| automatically. It's the cost of doing business. Either you
| do it or the feds do it for you. The automated way is a lot
| cheaper and easier.
|
| If Apple could do it on-device reliably, they could encrypt
| their storage and there would be no "think of the children"
| -reason to allow government agencies access to the files
| anymore.
| gambiting wrote:
| Again, as I said in my other comments - Apple has
| explicitly said many times that they don't scan your
| icloud photos by default, because they are encrypted
| already. They will hand your encryption keys to law
| enforcement when presented with a warrant, but by default
| nothing is scanned.
| Gareth321 wrote:
| Apple can scan whatever it likes on their servers. That is
| _worlds_ away from scanning content on _my_ phone. How on
| earth can you claim that is better for privacy? It 's the
| exact opposite.
| kemayo wrote:
| Their proposed system was to scan stuff on your phone as
| part of the upload-to-iCloud process. I.e. only stuff that
| was about to be on their servers (where it could be
| scanned) anyway would get scanned, and you could thus
| completely opt out by turning off their iCloud Photo
| Library stuff.
|
| To me this winds up feeling totally fine as a trade-off,
| particularly if it wound up paving the way for actual end-
| to-end encryption of the photos, though I see that it
| bothers some people.
| ezfe wrote:
| 1) _CAN NOT_ be turned on for people over 13 years old 2) Opt-in
| 3) Just puts a warning over sexual photos, doesn 't block
| anything
| cft wrote:
| That means they have not given up on the whole direction of on-
| device image scanning, the idea of clandestinely reporting your
| device images [1], that they (temporarily) abandoned due to a
| backlash. There must be an internal censorship struggle within
| Apple, and it's unclear which group will win. I personally
| skipped their M1 laptops when the news of [1] came out. Was
| waiting for M2 14" pro after they abandoned it, but now will
| probably go with an XPS13
|
| 1. https://www.macrumors.com/2021/12/15/apple-nixes-csam-
| refere...
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| st-keller wrote:
| Why is nudity such a big thing? Sorry, but I don't get it. Maybe
| i do not understand this, because i am german? My children (as
| they were little) got in contact with content that distrubed them
| a lot. The most troubling of them videogame- and movie-previews
| with violent and gruesome content, that got to them were the
| enviornment was somehow unconstraint. Sometime they could'nt
| sleep! Darn - i myself really hate that stuff i have to look at
| everyday - and i am 52! Maybe nudity is a problem - ok - do
| something against it! But the other stuff - we don't care?
| Really?
| kemayo wrote:
| This feature isn't really aimed at nudity-in-general, but
| rather at specifically sexual targeting of minors. The scenario
| it's most totally thinking of is "a creepy older person tries
| to trade naked picture of themselves with your 8 year old".
| Though also "before you share this picture of yourself with
| your boy/girlfriend, think for a second first".
|
| Can't speak for Germany, but in the US there's been a lot of
| furor around school-aged people having some pretty severe
| troubles after nude photos they shared with a partner got
| shared more widely -- suicides, etc. We could certainly argue
| that the fact they're facing trouble because of such things is
| itself a symptom of a problem in American society, but a first-
| level solution of warning people before they get into the
| situation seems like something Apple can do, whereas broad
| cultural changes are outside their power.
| olliej wrote:
| So it's an opt in part of parental controls - if parental
| controls are involved we're already talking about devices that
| are under the control someone's parents.
|
| The analysis is done on device, and no data is sent to Apple, and
| no data is decryptable by Apple (presumably this also applies to
| SMS but SMS is unencrypted and routed through carriers).
|
| If the device does decide that a message contains nudity it blurs
| the image and provides "age appropriate prompts" which sounds
| like suggestions to contact their parents.
| iammjm wrote:
| USA ad 2022 is still so puritan it blows my mind. Nipples seem to
| frighten people more than semi automatic guns
| ezfe wrote:
| Yes, the opt-in, 13 year old/younger only feature that just
| warns kids before their nudes get sent around school is
| puritan.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-28 17:01 UTC)