I think this pov tends to come from people that are nostalgic for the wild west days of the web. It doesn't matter if the internet was not originally intended for children -- they're here, en masse, and now society is looking for solutions.
Metaphor time:
Consider a liquor store in a physical space, and a porn site on the internet.
The liquor store requires ID at point of sale because it has limited entry and exit into the building. It has physical restrictions making it harder for minors to enter, and harder to exploit their way into accessing age-restricted items. This is because the physical world is always shared by default, and we must make rules securing adults-only spaces in a world that’s intrinsically shared with children.
A digital porn site exists on a realm solely built by adults, that requires adults to access in the first place. A child cannot sign up for an ISP, a child cannot buy their own cellular phone[1], and a child cannot decide to share their coffee shop or library WiFi for free to everyone within range. At some point, a child requires the assistance of adults to enter the internet. That makes the internet a de facto space for adults first, not children, and that is why I vehemently disagree with vilifying the majority of users (adults) just to “protect” kids who will bypass those age checks like they’ve successfully done for decades.
There will always be youth finding a way to procure pornography, drugs, or alcohol underage. The difference with the internet is that it’s by adults, for adults, and that children are guests who should be supervised by adults in their circles - not by policing all the adults online through intrusive surveillance measures.
[1] Children can, of course, use cash or cards to buy prepaid phones and airtime in many countries. I do not think this should be allowed and would be a better venue to restrict access than a surveillance state.
I'm not critiquing your argument, I'm really just sitting here in amazement that the zeitgeist thinks these are of similar harm.
You say we are looking for solutions. There are better solutions, including privacy preserving solutions, which can work. We just don’t have any of those yet.
But, dismissing the whole verification effort on principle because "it's the internet and it's inherently for adults" is silly and unrealistic, IMO (not that you were). It's just not the world we live in anymore, the internet is used by everyone, for everything, and we should build accordingly.
Believing that Google's solution will be truly ZK, interoperable, or good is similarly silly, unrealistic, and not the world we live in anymore. Unfortunately.
The most dangerous people on earth who are not in prison are on the internet; It is an adult place. Making it look like a child friendly place will not change this. But it will lure more kids online unsupervised and unprotected.
Where is the equivalent here?
But you can watch videos of people being beheaded in subreddits by simply signing in.
My point is that if a society decides that certain content should be age restricted -- it being on the internet shouldn't make the difference.
I largely think that age restriction laws are ridiculous. BUT, I don't think the internet is some special haven, exempt from all of society's standards/laws enforced offline.
also worth noting that in most places in the US, it’s not a legal requirement to card, but a industry agreement with the MPAA (self regulation)
I don't think that's a very good comparison, even setting aside the points made in other replies to you.