But wouldn’t that be too easy to counterfeit? Or if it were handled by a special government-approved piece of software that’s then just DRM all over again.
Specifically, governments mandate that:
1. Websites/apps/etc. MAY label content (via headers) indicating when their content/service is/isn't appropriate for some specific audience (e.g., children) according to X/Y/Z regulations. Websites/apps/etc. MUST NOT incorrectly label their content.
2. Devices that can access the internet must not be sold directly to miners without parental consent.
3. Devices that can access the internet must include parental control software can be configured to allow/forbid all apps/content that may contain content not deemed suitable for children (in the jurisdiction where the device is sold).
Importantly, this kind of solution solves the "borderless internet" problem:
1. Device sellers are regulated in the jurisdiction where they sell the device.
2. Service providers take no (additional) per-jusrisdiction responsibility until they start labeling their content. By labeling their content, they are claiming to abide by specific regulations.
Which government? This list of pornographic film studios indicates they reside in many countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pornographic_film_stud...
Past that, the USA alone has thousands of governments. Many have opinions.
1. Governments MAY define labels like "gov.texas.bill1234-compliant".
2. Websites MUST NOT apply this label to their content unless the content actually complies with Texas' bill1234.
Websites may ALSO proactively label their content with advisory labels like "advisory.may-contain-nudity", but those would have no legal meaning.
What do we think a Latvian porn host is likely to do in response to that?
Highly likely to be the end of free software/general purpose computing, which would be quite a bit worse than identifying yourself to companies providing adult material (in a world where ads haven't corrupted everything, you'd identify yourself when paying for it anyway just like any other e-commerce transaction).
If you want to be Child Star certified, you need to provide access controls that conform to whatever standard web hosts implement. Parents could be encouraged to buy such products, and this would market well to the parents who complain about what their kids watch on YouTube but also can’t be bothered to _parent_ and actually curate said content.
I think age verification is a losing battle that does what most similar schemes do: make it harder for legitimate users while not having a large impact on the purported problem. All while providing another way to track user data and create huge privacy risk. I’m all for some kind of opt-in or certification system that allows websites that care and parents who care _enough_ to work together to address whatever problem they perceive while letting the rest of us go about our business not even noticing a change in the online landscape.
The only reason these kinds of controls may appear to work is that younger children simply aren't interested in the stuff that may be blocked.
"Magic ZKP faerie dust" still requires locked down corporate controlled devices implementing remote attestation that destroys everyones ability to run the code of their choosing on their device (see UK's system). Of course Google advertises the cool seems-like-privacy ZKP part rather than the totalitarian remote attestation/"Safety"Net/WEI part.
Filters on the device, including preventing kids booting/installing alternative software only requires devices to prevent easily running other OS images on demand. Boot signatures suffice. And if designed to support it, filters could also be run on the router or by a mobile provider.
That last approach is still the least freedom-destroying, by far.