“The ESRB has proposed that the FTC greenlight facial recognition technology as a method to detect a user’s age”
So little kids won’t ve able to play GTA San Andreas anymore? 🥺
Yeah if I’m gonna get digital-carded to play a video game like I get regular-carded for booze at 34, I will absolutely just start pirating everything.
I’m like 30 I still put my birthday in as 4/20/69 like hell some website needs to know my exact birthday to view a videogame trailer.
No games for young people or people of a race that the model was not trained on or anyone with a disfigurement or anyone in a dark room. Ever.
ESRB be dumb as hell.
@drdiddlybadger @LunarticBot well, yeah
Sports game with literal real money gambling = fun for all ages
Game where someone says a naughty word = 17+ kids would be destroyed by foul language
That was my first thought; I’m 20 but I look quite a bit younger in real life. I could have some trouble trying to play M rated games legitimately if this is widely implemented. One alternative I can see them using is submitting an ID to bypass, but that’s really invasive just to play a video game.
The image is then uploaded to Yoti’s backend server for estimation
“Images are immediately, permanently deleted, and not used by Yoti for training purposes.”
the facial recognition does not presential a substantial risk to parents’ privacy or potential biases.
“To the extent that there is any risk, it is easily outweighed by the benefits to consumers and businesses of using this [Facial Age Estimation] method.”
Pretty sure only one of those statements can be true. I’d go with “there is a risk”.
There’s no paradox. It says there is a risk, it is not substantial, and the benefits outweigh it.
Right, assuming they’re not lying, which isn’t the kind of assumption you should ever make in the tech industry.
The paradox is they start claiming no risk… only to step by step admit there is a risk, to end with a “but it’s all fine, trust us”.
Adding that the images are not going to be used for training purposes by them, is like a robber saying “I didn’t break into that store… just the one next door”.
I don’t like this any more than you, but that isn’t what they’re saying. “To the extent that there is any risk…” is not an admission that there is risk. It’s a CYA statement that means “even if there was a risk we haven’t mentioned/anticipated, it would be outweighed by these benefits.” “There is no substantial risk” is also not an admission of risk; it means they rule out any risk which is “substantial” (in their subjective assessment), but no competently made proposal like this would ever say “there is no risk whatsoever of any kind” because, again, CYA.
This is a good way to get a lot of people to never pay for a video game ever again, after Steam did a pretty good job convincing people not to pirate.
The proposal also said, “To the extent that there is any risk, it is easily outweighed by the benefits to consumers and businesses of using this [Facial Age Estimation] method.”
What benefits are there to consumers? Here’s one more way you can be denied access.
There has to be zero benefits for all adults, and tbh I don’t see the big risk for minors in accessing entertainment that they’re mature enough to intentionally seek out. Content descriptions and parents communicating with their kids should cover the vast majority of use cases.
All of it of course comes back to parents not actually wanting to parent. The rules are already in place. Literally all you have to do is not buy Timmy the game.
Not quite. The main groups who push this crap, IIRC, tend to be the same groups of far-right evangelicals who insist on homeschooling their children because “public schools are liberal indoctrination” and totally not because they’re trying to isolate their child so it’s easier to abuse them. ~Strawberry
So… take more control away from the parents, who can decide for their own kids what they should and shouldn’t be playing. Parents are of the gaming generations now; they’re familiar with violence in video games.
