[00:00:00] Yes [00:00:58] I mean I guess we could allow non-NDA’d people access to your private information, if you want, good luck getting by the community [00:01:04] 16 with parental consent doesn’t alleviate all of this, but it does for some. [00:01:19] You do not want to NDAs like that they will immediately be thrown out in court [00:02:11] The way I understand it - a signed NDA with parental consent is valid (child actors, etc.), but allowing a minor to sign it themselves is not. [00:02:22] I think MHL used to require 16 for their NDAs? [00:02:48] They also have a battery of lawyers sign their NDAs in person and require very many levels of Identification requirements [00:03:03] MHL was also in the UK where their age of consent is alot lower [00:03:05] Also um Zppix - could you unblock me? Not sure why that happened. [00:03:17] No I can not [00:03:33] That’s true - though we inherently limit ourselves by setting it to 18. [00:03:38] Oh….kay. [00:03:49] No it is US law that agent of consent to sign contracts is 18. [00:04:19] [1/2] had discussed this in tech channel, in terms of functionality there are certain features of mediawiki that can be safely disabled without end user impact and the remaining PII would be IPs, email, socialprofile, abusefilter, checkuser [00:04:19] [2/2] - WMF is in the process of masking IPs in recentchanges table [00:04:39] IPs are very far from being private information [00:04:42] Again though, the parental consent item. It’s been considered in the past - look at how the WMF does things with their NDAs. They let stewards sign NDAs on Legalpad. [00:05:04] they also have a team of lawyers… they can afford to be taken to court [00:05:37] ok, then the only remaining item would be seeing email and anything a user saves into socialprofile [00:05:46] though under GDPR, email is listed as PII [00:06:13] Hashed passwords, emails [00:07:12] even if one knows what algorithm is used to hash, that takes effort to undo it if feasible [00:07:24] Effort does not equal impossible [00:08:00] at the same time, attract few malicious [00:08:01] [1/2] Doing a quick Google search, [00:08:01] [2/2] obviously not sufficient to determine legal viability, but parental consent NDAs are enforced regularly in the US. [00:09:02] Brandon, I’m telling you unless we invent in very expensive Identity verification services a Parental signed NDA will not hold up, I can go and say I’m so and so parent and I consent and not even know the person [00:10:08] But we don’t do identity verification as is - someone could sign an NDA pretending to be Joe Biden, but they might actually be Kamala Harris. Would we ever know the difference from our perspective? [00:10:11] I really have no interest in continuing to repeat myself, I looked into all this when we were still working on MHF [00:10:16] Point being we don’t do identity verification as is. [00:10:56] if KOSA gets passed, age verification might become a requirement though only impacts platforms with 10 million users a month [00:11:03] Difference is a minor in themselves cannot sign an NDA someone that is 18+ knowingly falsifying an NDA would not be something we would be 100% liable for [00:12:22] So unless you got the money to keep lawyers on retainer, 18+ it is [00:12:50] Now I’m going to enjoy my dinner [00:13:51] Will KOSA affect only US users or everyone? [00:27:03] The whole conversation is pointless because theres no way enough funds to go after someone for violating an NDA. [01:07:09] Some lawyers take cases on a contigency fee basis where you only pay if they win [01:07:32] Those are few and far between. [01:12:44] I still think you could find one, especially for an easy-win case where an NDA was violated for no justifiable reason [01:13:33] https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Special:RequestWikiQueue/43712 😭 [01:13:56] LMAO [01:14:01] That is the most gen alpha thing I have ever read [01:14:20] I am really curious what the WCs will think of this [01:14:22] not auto rejected, put in review [01:14:39] Well yeah there is no auto rejection [01:15:08] "The rizzler gyat of skibidi Ohio fanum tax pomni Jax digital circus" lgtm, approved [01:15:16] real [01:18:16] its gibberish/spam [01:34:15] lmao [01:35:58] I’m more worried about the other way around [01:36:26] hm? [01:36:52] @raidarr “Nah” 😂 [01:37:06] best response [01:37:19] "mid" would've been better [01:37:31] fr [01:37:49] probably [01:37:49] it would have been funnier to smack the gen a brainrot with the gen z brain rot [01:37:51] no cap [01:38:07] Well thank god I’m a Zillenial [01:38:12] should have called me i am a professional zoomer [01:38:24] then there's me, a millie [01:38:34] gwah? [01:38:38] Yeah you keep breaking out the nursing home [01:38:46] https://tenor.com/view/leonardo-dicaprio-clapping-clap-applause-amazing-gif-16078907558888063471 [01:39:02] No one can decide if 2000 is Z or Millienal, so I say I’m a Zillenial [01:39:11] ah lmao [01:39:36] pft i googled it and [01:39:46] https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/615786602454581249/1233231011974742016/WfMyEVz.png?ex=662c5761&is=662b05e1&hm=380a4228b3d6493060197a5bffa29b7cf078826eb44ef103960e0017e0c7eeb2& [01:40:13] i see your point 😂 [01:40:24] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zillennials [01:40:25] DuckDuckGo'd it and it said that 2000 kids are Gen Z [01:40:46] Yeah each university says something different [01:40:56] Thus Zillenial was born [01:44:59] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zillennials [01:45:18] Uh I just posted that 🤣 [01:46:51] What is the other way around? [01:47:15] Also I have a feeling that if KOSA actually passes, there will be constitutional challenges to the law [01:47:33] There have been a lot of similar laws that got struck down [01:48:11] to a degree its trying to match europe so that the constant data transfer agreements don't keep getting killed in court [01:48:19] Well if he said we couldn’t afford to go after people for violating NDAs, the opposite would be people going after us for the things people do that violated it [01:48:30] Ah [01:48:38] I think there could be a defense to that though that like [01:48:39] You didn't do it [01:48:42] I thought that was pretty obvious sorry [01:48:44] One employee did [01:48:52] That’s not how the law works [01:48:56] Lol other people would probably understand [01:49:05] Can a company really be held accountable for the actions of one employee? [01:49:08] Yes [01:49:12] Very much so [01:49:18] Even if it breaks the employee's (or volunteer's) contract? [01:49:19] that's why use of checkuser allows logging a reason why [01:49:26] Yes [01:49:35] requires actually i think [01:49:40] employer is responsible for actions of employee, employee would be terminated at that point [01:49:49] [1/3] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/employer-liability-employees-bad-acts-29638.html [01:49:50] [2/3] > Under a legal doctrine sometimes referred to as "respondeat superior" (Latin for "Let the superior answer"), an employer is legally responsible for the actions of its employees. However, this rule applies only if the employee is acting within the course and scope of employment. In other words, the employer will generally be liable if the employee was doing his or her [01:49:50] [3/3] job, carrying out company business, or otherwise acting on the employer's behalf when the incident took place. [01:50:12] why do lawyers love latin [01:50:13] Now based what actions you take after said violation, you could have a legal argument and such but still you would need a legal team [01:50:34] I dont trust that source [01:51:04] I do however trust the tons of law and business books I read back when I was setting up MHF [01:51:34] see https://discord.com/channels/407504499280707585/1232890990927417345 [01:52:04] erm guys i think he knows what hes talking about [01:52:10] a parent page and implement content warnings for minors are probably things MH should do [01:52:14] [1/5] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/respondeat_superior [01:52:15] [2/5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior [01:52:15] [3/5] https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/personal-injury/respondeat-superior/ [01:52:15] [4/5] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=respondeat+superior [01:52:15] [5/5] I can find a lot of sources for this doctrine [01:52:17] Why? [01:52:22] Content warnings already exist [01:52:26] I see no benefit to "a parent page" [01:52:42] Pretty sure it'd be actually pretty bad for my privacy to tie my parents' real names to my account actually [01:52:52] mainly cause they wouldn [01:52:54] [1/2] that's what the bill says and it goes a lot more in-depth [01:52:54] [2/2] the current method of content warnings would be insufficient per the bill [01:53:02] Yes I too know about doctrines from checks notes the 1800s [01:53:10] erm what [01:53:16] The law will be challenged probably [01:53:20] 😂 the hell they cooking [01:53:30] https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/615786602454581249/1233234469801033779/Screenshot_20240425-195308.png?ex=662c5a99&is=662b0919&hm=1f78d5c0c059d1b1b9257eeacbe47cfc752a5fbf179aab4a9259a10f9c794cef& [01:53:49] Cmon discord legal talk is alot more interesting [01:54:40] [1/10] > disable ability of users to provide real name, nickname, gender in special:preferences [01:54:40] [2/10] > implement content warnings for minors [01:54:41] [3/10] > craft Parent Page policy [01:54:41] [4/10] > policy to comply with independent auditors and qualified researchers [01:54:41] [5/10] > age verification system [01:54:41] [6/10] The 1st is not practical because your username could be considered a nickname [01:54:42] [7/10] Click to reveal images sounds doable [01:54:42] [8/10] I do not know what Parent Page is but if it requires me to tie my parents to my account I am definitely not doing that [01:54:43] [9/10] Auditors sounds fine [01:54:43] [10/10] Age verification is an absolute no [01:54:45] [1/3] its only passed senate committee [01:54:45] [2/3] the part that would get challenged is age verification, several large platforms already use content warnings that hide sensitive so that would be upheld [01:54:46] [3/3] Please read the bill before discussing further. I have read it, its straight forward [01:55:01] I read it a year ago or something [01:55:10] The bill isnt that old… [01:55:15] And yes I do not have an issue with content warnings [01:55:17] yes i is [01:55:18] a parent page is simply a notice for parents, nothing to do with tying parents to your account [01:55:23] Ah [01:55:30] see what fandom does [01:55:33] I did not read it when it had anything mentioning that [01:55:52] May 2023, tis not even a year old [01:56:10] most just die [01:56:16] I think it was around before May 2023 [01:56:26] Introduced in the Senate as S. 1409 by Richard Blumenthal (D‑CT) and Marsha Blackburn (R‑TN) on May 2, 2023 [01:56:31] [1/2] > disable ability of users to provide real name, nickname, gender in special:preferences [01:56:31] [2/2] this pertains to special:preferences [01:56:39] the bill has been amended but folks still complain [01:56:49] on basis regarding "duty of harm" [01:57:03] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/11/kosa-would-let-government-control-what-young-people-see-online [01:57:06] It existed before but failed then [01:57:18] Yes [01:57:21] eff is biased, go read the actual bill. its very simple [01:57:27] Sigh [01:57:30] Send a link to it then [01:57:44] congress.gov [01:57:44] Also I am linking to the page demonstrating that it existed in 2022 not criticizing the bill's contents per se [01:57:47] There ya go [01:57:48] [1/2] > Click to reveal images sounds doable [01:57:48] [2/2] I already created a solution for this, though might be better solutions [01:58:10] What's wrong with that complaint? [01:58:34] pertains to lgbt concerns or restricting information from minors [01:58:42] Yes [01:58:42] I know [01:58:47] That's a valid reason to be concerned [01:58:53] [1/2] Also is this the bill? [01:58:53] [2/2] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1409 [01:59:19] https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/s1409/BILLS-118s1409is.pdf [01:59:29] thanks [01:59:34] Good luck its 50 pages [01:59:47] I was able to read it last night, won't take long [02:00:11] you can skip irrelevant to mh sections [02:00:52] Honestly it just looks like its doing what COPPA failed to do [02:01:37] yes plus there's the problem of platforms refusing to comply with telecommunications act section 230 [02:02:05] I find it interesting they excluded email from this service [02:02:18] it also only applies to platforms with 10 million users/month [02:02:21] from what I gather it's all the BS without the actual end user protections of say gdpr [02:02:25] [1/6] One concern I can immediately think of is harm reduction for drug abuse and self-harm, which is a controversial subject and could be considered promoting by someone and not by others. [02:02:26] [2/6] For example, these posts: [02:02:26] [3/6] https://www.reddit.com/r/selfharm/comments/mrlf86/lots_and_lots_of_harm_reduction_self_harm_safety/ [02:02:26] [4/6] https://www.reddit.com/r/selfharm/comments/foy07r/do_not_go_deeper_cautionary_tale/ [02:02:27] [5/6] https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/615786602454581249/1233236715473342506/image.png?ex=662c5cb1&is=662b0b31&hm=26633a7b5edf2d22a918de8b096ad1bafb6492a4594f0548c0afa3e2d1f51a88& [02:02:27] [6/6] https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/615786602454581249/1233236715792240652/image.png?ex=662c5cb1&is=662b0b31&hm=449693e571dba1f3fb60bf5a53a9c977c3e4b6ea9c51948fba61a74f5219a46e& [02:02:34] sorry for long embed s [02:02:36] can you get rid of auto embeds collei [02:02:43] lmao [02:03:00] [1/2] Line 20, I think we qualify as exception [02:03:01] [2/2] https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/615786602454581249/1233236862215389265/IMG_1339.png?ex=662c5cd4&is=662b0b54&hm=c820d03e3d28e6b84a459ec18bd49aea7c1ccc472e3f19f7d08460814535e349& [02:04:02] Oh I agree [02:04:04] in terms of harm, several states controlled by democrats have relented and passed legislation banning healthcare proven harmful to kids [02:04:05] We aren't aiming for profit at all [02:04:10] That's good [02:04:14] what [02:04:16] Do you mean HRT? [02:04:25] You mean republicans? [02:04:29] lmao yaeh [02:04:33] no [02:04:45]