EFF launches Age Verification Hub
eff.org
Also: We built a resource hub to fight back against age verification https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/12/age-verification-comin...
eff.org
For the folks in the back row:
Age Verification isn't about Kids or Censorship, It's about Surveillance
Age Verification isn't about Kids or Censorship, It's about Surveillance
Age Verification isn't about Kids or Censorship, It's about Surveillance
Without even reaching for my tinfoil hat, the strategy at work here is clear [0 1 2]. If we have to know that you're not a minor, then we also have to know who you are so we can make any techniques to obfuscate that illegal. By turning this from "keep an eye on your kids" to "prove you're not a kid" they've created the conditions to make privacy itself illegal.
VPNs are next. Then PGP. Then anything else that makes it hard for them to know who you are, what you say, and who you say it to.
Please, please don't fall into the trap and start discussing whether or not this is going to be effective to protect kids. It isn't, and that isn't the point.
0 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/lawmakers-want-ban-vpn...
1 https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/vpn-usage...
2 https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2025-09-15/debates/57714...
In real life, we think age verification is a good thing. Kids shouldn't buy porn. Teenagers shouldn't get into bars. etc... There has to be room somewhere for reasonable discussion about making sure children do not have access to things they shouldn't. I think it's important to note, that complete dismissal of this idea only turns away your allies and hurts our cause in the long run.
I'm even willing to talk about the possibility that we could use more robust systems deployed more broadly. A lot of folks here are talking about ZKPs in this regard, and that's not a bad idea at all.
The issue I'm trying to sound the horn on is that the current push for AF in the US and EU has nothing to do with kids. I think you could put together a working group on ZKPs and Age Verification, write up a paper and run experiments, and when you bring it to the lawmakers they're gonna say something to the tune of:
"yeah but that's not trustworthy enough and too technical for people to understand so we're just going to serve legal notices to VPN providers instead to tell them that they can't anymore"
...or something to that tune. I'm not a mind reader, I've just read the reports (by lawmakers) mentioning VPNs as an "area of concern".
This is a political gambit and not a new one. The more we treat the current issue as having anything to do with protecting kids the more we legitimize what is an obvious grift.
The EU is currently doing large-scale field tries of the EU Digital Identity Wallet, which they have been working on for several years. It uses ZKPs for age verification. They expect to roll it out to the public near the end of 2026.
The concern about children is aimed at the wrong target. Instead of targeting everyone it would make far more sense to target the platforms. With Roblox having a pedo problem the company should face punishment. That will actually get them to change their ways. However all these massive platforms are major donors to politicians so the chance of that happening is low to none.
It would not surprise me in the least if there are brick-and-mortar businesses doing this, especially larger companies in jurisdictions (such as the majority of the United States) with weak/nonexistent privacy protections.
But yeah, walmart is for sure logging their transactions and selling the data. It's practically free money.
> which is what Google etc have been trying to do for years but this would just completely fast track that.
Excuse me? They have done that for years. There's nothing to "fast track" here. Big Tech already implemented surveillance.
To view adult content, use the code to sign a thing. Content company sees the signed code, verifies against the public list and sends the content.
Privacy preserved, no adult content to kids... Easy.
The one thing you can control is your childs access through their device using parental controls.
I can absolutely guarantee you that any teenager can easily get access to weed, cigarettes and alcohol despite the laws and definitely can use a VPN. It only takes one smart kid to show them how.
Is you argument then that we shouldn't age gate those things in reality either? Would you suggest that teenagers smoke and drink just as much as they would have had it been legal to sell to minors?
Laws don't just exist to stop you, they also exist to shape society. They exist as signals for what we deem appropriate behavior.
Also how much “shaping of society” do you expect to happen when you pass a law that no one respects?
How many kids do you think a law is going to stop from going to the porn sites that completely ignored the law?
How many kids say “I really want to smoke weed but it’s illegally so I won’t do it”?
I think it's generally accepted that marijuana use increases after legalization. So yes.
https://www.mpp.org/issues/legalization/adult-use-legalizati...
"On the illegal market, no one is checking IDs before selling marijuana. When and where cannabis is illegal, high schoolers often sell cannabis to their peers. In contrast, licensed cannabis stores have overwhelming compliance with age-gating."
It has indeed not increased the cannabis use of kids, but that would also still be illegal. That study is an argument that age gating works.
But even if that wasn’t the case, underage cigarette smoking has been rampant forever
Turns out being illegal isn't as much of a disincentive as being uncool. If your parents are smoking it...
Kids: You can sniff glue and get high!!!
Ok. In real life, do we think having agents from the government and corporations following you everywhere, writing down your every move and word, is a good thing? Or rather, what kind of crime would one have to have committed, so that they would only be allowed out in public with surveillance agents trailing them everywhere?
These are not equivalent, I don't have to scan my face, upload my ID and share my personal biometric data with various 3rd parties, who will sell and leak my data, every time I want to look at porn or sip a beer.
Also, there are countries where teenagers can drink and go to pubs, and society hasn't crumbled. We also have several generations of young adults with access to porn, and the sky didn't fall.
Maybe we shouldn't use the government to implement a "papers, please" process just to use and post on the internet, maybe we should instead legislate the root cause of the problem: algorithmic optimization and manipulation. That way everyone benefits, not just kids, and we won't have to scan our faces to look at memes on Reddit.
Oh man, you must just not go out much anymore. I’ve seen a lot of bars with full blown facial scanners next to their bouncer.
My heuristic is that social media focuses on particular people, regardless of what they're talking about. In contrast, forums (like HN) focus on a particular topic, regardless of who's talking about it.
I was replying to a discussion between two HN users, who were using conflicting definitions of the term. AFAIK they are not "those in power".
AFAIK nobody here is. The point is that with relevance to the current discussion on potential future age-verification laws, only the widest definition matters, because that's what's at risk.
That is untrue
(This includes being robust against law enforcement action, legal or otherwise.)
When I say "if we have to know you're not a kid, we have to know who you are" I'm not stating an actual truth, but the argument as it is playing out politically.
The EU age verification solution says implementations SHOULD implement[1] their ZKP protocol[2]. Not linking it to the user is stated as an explicit goal:
Unlinkability: The goal of the solution is to prevent user profiling and tracking by avoiding linkable transactions. Initially, the solution will rely on batch issuance to protect users from colluding RPs. Zero-Knowledge Proof (ZKP) mechanisms will be considered to offer protection. More details are provided in Section 7.
[1]: https://ageverification.dev/av-doc-technical-specification/d...
[2]: https://ageverification.dev/av-doc-technical-specification/d...
This is a solution that requires non-trivial interaction between many paries.
It seems very reasonable to want to get the parties started on the implementation so they can iron out issues in the infrastructure they're building while they work on the details of the ZKP aspects.
Assuming that's even a goal, of course. The cited paragraph mentions RPs (the websites, from what I understand), but makes no mention of attestation providers.
In the non-ZKP presentation, the "holder" (phone) sends the credential to the relying party (website), and the RP executes some verification algorithm. In the ZK presentation, the holder executes the verification algorithm and sends to the RP a proof that the algorithm was executed correctly.
The "proof" has this magical property that it reveals nothing other than the check passed. (You will have to take on faith that such proofs exist.) In particular, if the check was the predicate "I have a signature by ISSUER on HASH, and SHA256(DOCUMENT)==HASH, and DOCUMENT["age_gt_18"]=TRUE", anybody looking at the proof cannot infer ISSUER, HASH, DOCUMENT, or HASH, or nothing else really. "Cannot infer" means that the proof is some random object and all HASH, DOCUMENT, ISSUER, etc. that satisfy the predicate are equally likely, assuming that the randomness used in the proof is private to the holder. Moreover, a generating a proof uses fresh randomness each time, so given two proofs of the same statement, you still cannot tell whether they come from the same ISSUER, HASH, DOCUMENT, ...
The currently favored approach works like this. The DOCUMENT contains a device public key DPK. The corresponding secret key is stored in some secure hardware on the phone, designed so that I (or malware or whatever) cannot extract the secret key from the secure hardware. Think of it as a yubikey or something, but embedded in the phone. Every presentation flow will demand that the secure element produce a signature of a random challenge from the RP under the secret key of the secure hardware. In the ZKP presentation, the ZKP prover produces a proof that this signature verifies correctly, without disclosing the secret key of the secure hardware.
In your example, the parent could give the phone to the kid. However, in current incarnations, the secure hardware refuses to generate a signature unless unlocked by some kind of biometric identification, e.g. fingerprint. The fingerprint never leaves the secure hardware.
How does the issuer (e.g. the republic of France) know that DOCUMENT is bound to a given fingerprint? This is still under discussion, but as a first bid, a French citizen goes to city hall with his phone and obtains DOCUMENT after producing a fingerprint on the citizen's phone (as opposed to a device belonging to the republic of France). You can imagine other mechanisms based on physical tokens (yubikeys or embedded chips in credit cards, or whatever). Other proposals involve taking pictures compared against a picture stored in DOCUMENT. As always, one needs to be clear about the threat model.
In all these proposals the biometric identification unlocks the secure hardware into signing a nonce. The biometrics themselves are not part of the proof and are not sent to the relying party or to the issuer.
Can I log into an age gated service at a library without a phone?
Are you saying that someone goes to city hall, shows ID, and gets a DOCUMENT that certifies age, but doesn't link back to the person's identity? And it's married to a fingerprint in front of the person checking ID?
Is there a limit on how many times someone can get a DOCUMENT? If not, it'll become a new variation of fake id and eventually there's going to be an effort to crack down on misuse. If yes, what happens if I get unlucky and lose / break my phone limit + 1 times? Do I get locked out of the world? The only way I can imagine limiting abuse and collateral damage at the same time is to link an identity to a DOCUMENT somehow which makes the whole ZKP thing moot.
I'd be more worried about the politics though. There's no way any government on the planet is going to keep a system like that limited to simple age verification. Eventually there's going to be enough pretense to expand the system and block "non-compliant" sites. Why not use the same DOCUMENT to prove age to buy beer? Sanity for guns? Loyalty for food?
What happens if the proof gets flipped to run the other direction and a DOCUMENT is needed to prove you're a certified journalist? Any sources without certification can be blocked and the ZKP aspect doesn't matter at that point because getting the DOCUMENT will be risky if you're a dissenter. Maybe there's an interview. Maybe there's a background check. Has your phone ever shown up near a protest?
It's just like the Android announcement that developers need to identify themselves to distribute apps, even via side loading. The ultimate goal is to force anyone publishing content to identify themselves because then it's possible to use the government and legal system to crush dissenting views.
Big tech caused most of the problems and now they're going to provide the solution with more technology, more cost, and less freedom which is basically what they've been doing for the last 2 decades so it's not a surprise.
Regarding using the document to buy beer, that's already done, you need to provide ID. I also hope you being asked to provide ID for buying guns, but then again I'm not from the US, so I have quite a different opinion on gun ownership.
All that said though, we are currently watching some of the most significant civil rights abuses by authorities, all without any ID system and people are worried about age verification? If the government wants to abuse their power they don't need an ID system, they just look at your social media profile at the border.
You're not wrong to be concerned about those impulses, but I think this is getting into "perfect is the enemy of good" territory.
A really authoritarian government isn't going to make an effort to misuse the system that way: They'll tear it down entirely and go back to worse-alternatives which we already use, where they do know all parties involved and exactly when and what was being checked.
The EU age verification app is intended to be a pilot to the EU Digital Identity Wallet (EUDIW), which EU law requires to be deployed everywhere in Europe by the end of 2026. (Thus your "worry" is in fact the explicit plan of record.)
The EUDIW will store more attributes than age. Think of it as a digital form of a passport (with name, address, etc.). The exact set of attributes is determined by local laws.
Thus, the DOCUMENT that you obtain is tied to you, and of course the state knows what is in the DOCUMENT since the state creates the document in the first place.
The state does not generate proofs. The phone generates proofs. Given a proof (and only the proof), nobody can associate the proof to the phone or to you.
Now I switch to less factual statements, which are still approximately correct.
Why would you trust the wallet software not to phone home to the state or us (Google)? The EUDIW regulations require that the wallet software be open source. However, states will only issue DOCUMENT to their own certified wallet software---you cannot just take the open source and recompile it, since the state won't issue DOCUMENT to your uncertified wallet. (Maybe your gym will issue a gym membership to your raspberry pi wallet, since it's not a big deal.)
The reason for this strictness is that the EUDIW is intended for official or semi-official uses. For example, you can open a bank account with it, or use it as ID to get a mortgage. The bank must by law accept DOCUMENT, the state guarantees that DOCUMENT is correct, and you get better privacy than handling over a piece of plastic that is then photocopied by who knows whom. This is the tradeoff of the current EU law. It would be inappropriate for this kind of official, passport-like documents to store attributes such as your profession (journalist or whatever), and nobody is talking about it.
> The state does not generate proofs. The phone generates proofs. Given a proof (and only the proof), nobody can associate the proof to the phone or to you.
I get that part. I visit a website and it basically asks me to prove my DOCUMENT has an attestation for age and my phone generates the proof. The part I don't get yet is how it proves the issuer.
> However, states will only issue DOCUMENT to their own certified wallet software---you cannot just take the open source and recompile it, since the state won't issue DOCUMENT to your uncertified wallet.
I don't get why that would matter. I think of it in terms of proving you have a signed DOCUMENT (like a signed executable), but that concept doesn't work for a proof with a subset of data in the DOCUMENT. The wallet can't be trusted either, can it? What would stop me from running a proxy to tamper with the responses?
> Why would you trust the wallet software not to phone home to the state or us (Google)?
To be honest, I don't and I think calling certified wallets "tamper proof" is incorrect. They're tamper proof from the perspective of the users, but the designers, maintainers, policy makers can "tamper" at will.
> For example, you can open a bank account with it, or use it as ID to get a mortgage.
This starts to get into the biggest issue for me. As an average person, all I know is that I have this DOCUMENT with all my vital personal information on it and some of that information can be sent to a 3rd party that asks for it. Because it's such a complex technical system I have no way of understanding what's happening or verifying I'm only sending the information I expect them to be asking for. If it's a permission system like we have on phones, that's broken. People have been conditioned to think they need to click yes on everything or things won't work. I'd worry that suddenly people will be giving away vital information without even knowing.
> you get better privacy than handling over a piece of plastic that is then photocopied by who knows whom
On a technical level, that's right. On the level of an average person understanding what information they're handing over and how it's being used (or potentially misused), that's wrong. I understand perfectly what I'm handing over when I give someone my credit card or drivers license. A digital ID system is basically opaque to me.
We have to put 100% faith in a few companies; Google, Apple, etc.. We need to trust they're acting in good faith and getting the implementation perfect. The saying is trust but verify, but what happens when the system is so complex that not enough people can verify it does what it says, or, more importantly, that policy makers aren't giving classified orders that force the handful of certified wallets to change the way things work?
The technology is very cool. When I see documents like that manuscript you linked I'm envious. I wish I could understand the math well enough to conceptualize the whole system. I think there's a ton of value in leveraging technology to modernize identity. I also have no doubt the people working on the implementation are acting in good faith. Flat out though, I don't trust the institutions. There's always someone willing to act in bad faith for one reason or another.
I think it's important to understand there's a difference between analog verification systems and digital verification systems. If someone is checking my ID or comparing my face to pictures in a book of banned patrons, that has a natural limit on the scalability. Once things are digital, all bets are off. Think of the difference between a manager banning someone from a single store vs facial recognition being used to ban someone from every store in a chain. Digital IDs could very well be the next step up where people can be banned from participating in society.
Also think about the difference between fingerprint unlock for releasing a digital ID vs Face ID. With a fingerprint, you're creating a limit on what people will tolerate in terms of the number of times their ID is queried. With Face ID, people will tolerate a much larger volume. If the biometric ID is cached and allows multiple uses of a digital ID within X minutes, the number goes even higher. With a watch that's unlocked until you take it off your wrist, it's unlimited.
So, if you're working on these systems, consider there's more than just an algorithm and the implementation can leverage what the average person will tolerate to act as a bit of a check on the system. The fingerprint unlocking above is a good example where 1 fingerprint scan = 1 proof. People can understand that. Please don't build a system that allows for continuous identification.
Thanks for trying to explain some of the goals and how the system actually works. It's really hard to separate the politics from the technology, because they can't be separated, but I find it helps to have a better understanding of the technology as it helps when trying to focus on pragmatic concerns.
So like, we've got this algorithm that gets sent our way and we run it and that provides kind of a cryptographic hash or whatever. But if we're running the algorithm ourselves what's to stop us from lying? Where does the 'proof' come from? What's the check that it's running and why do we inherently trust the source it's checking?
Here is a hopefully simple example of how this ZKP thing may even be possible. Imagine that you give me a Sudoku puzzle. I solve it, and then I want to prove to you that I have solved it without telling you the solution. It sounds impossible, but here is one way to do it. I compute the solution. I randomly scramble the digits 1-9 and I put the scrambled solution in a 9x9 array of lock boxes on a table. I have the keys to the 81 locks but I am not giving you the key yet. You randomly ask me to open either 1) one random row chosen by you; 2) one random column chosen by you; 3) one random 3x3 block chosen by you; or 4) the cells corresponding to the original puzzle you posed to me. In total you have 28 possibilities, and assume that you choose them with equal probability. You tell me what you want and I open the corresponding lockboxes. You verify that the opened lock boxes are consistent with me knowing a solution, e.g. all numbers in a row are distinct, the 3x3 block consists of distinct numbers, etc. If I am cheating, then at least one of your 28 choices will be inconsistent, and you catch me with probability 1/28, so if we repeat this game 1000 times, and I don't know the solution, you will catch me with probability at least 1-(1/28)^1000 which is effectively 1. However, every time we repeat the game, I pick a different random scrambling of the integers 1-9, so you don't learn anything about the solution.
All of ZKP is a fancy way to 1) encode arbitrary computations in this sort of protocol, and 2) amplify the probability of success via clever error-correction tricks.
The other thing you need to know is that the protocol I described requires interaction (I lock the boxes and you tell me which ones to open), but there is a way to remove the interaction. Observe that in the Sudoku game above, all you are doing is flipping random coins and sending them to me. Of course you cannot let me pick the random coins, but if we agree that the random coins are just the SHA256 hash of what I told you, or something else similarly unpredictable, then you will be convinced of the proof even if the "coins" are something that I compute myself by using SHA256. This is called the "Fiat-Shamir transformation".
How do we implement the lock boxes? I tell you SHA256(NONCE, VALUE) where the NONCE is chosen by me. Given the hash you cannot compute VALUE. To open the lock box, I tell you NONCE and VALUE, which you believe under the assumption that I cannot find a collision in SHA256.
That's the bit I was missing! The prover pre-registers the scrambled solution, so they can't cheat by making up values that fit the constraints.
This is a simplified method for age verification:
I want to buy alcohol from my phone and need to prove I’m over 18. SickBooze.com asks me for proof by generating a request to assert “age >= 18”.
My phone signs this request with my own private key, and forwards it to the government server.
The government verifies my signature against a public key I previously submitted to them, checks my age data in their own register of residents, and finally signs the request with one of their private keys.
My phone receives the signed response and forwards it back to SickBooze.com, which can verify the government’s signature offline against a cached list of public keys. Now they can sell me alcohol.
- the “request” itself is anonymous and doesn’t contain any identifying information unless that is what you intended to verify
- the government doesn’t know what service I used, nor why I used it, they only know that I needed to verify an assertion about my age
- the web service I used doesn’t know my identity, they don’t even know my exact age, they just know that an assertion about being >= 18 is true.
Sadly, it‘s still hard to explain how exactly it works, but conceptually simpler than arbitrary ZKPs.
This is problematic if a majority of things needing age verification are looked down upon; for example, insurance companies would love to know what people don't do things needing age and therefore don't buy alcohol (at least not online).
Moreover, that would only work if there are relatively few things that require age verification and it needs more than just being looked down upon, i.e. while alcohol buying might be interesting information for insurances, watching porn is likely less interesting. Even worse, if the insurance can't distinguish between porn and alcohol (which they can't by design even if the government would give them the information about how often you ask for age verification).
What information is not disclosed to whom? In what way is it ZK?
One example is Googles "zero-knowledge age verification" where AFAICT, Google still has full insight into all the sensitive data and metadata. It's not like they inherently need to be the designated middleman but that is how the scheme is designed. Therefore I find it ingeniously marketed. A bit like saying "Facebook Messenger protects all your messages with end-to-end encryption", which is arguably technically true but misleading and not an honest statement.
Recent HN discussion example: How Kohler Inc. has a toilet feces analysis camera with "end to end encrypted", except they're one of the ends so it is deceptive advertising.
The law does not mandate identity, so your argument does not hold.
EDIT: Actually do one better - tell them that for 16+ websites, you're actually protecting teenagers by keeping them anonymous.
We should have started arguing when he just said he had a gun, indoors, in the crowd. We shouldn't have quietly walked outside at his demand. But that all happened. Here we are now, at the car, and he's got the gun out, and he's saying "get in", and we're probably not going to win from here -- but pal, it's time to start arguing. Or better yet, fighting back hard.
Because that car isn't going anywhere we want to be. We absolutely can not get in the car right now, and just plan to argue the point later. It doesn't matter how right the argument is at all.
But attestor has to have certainty about the age of the person it issues IDs to. That raises obvious questions.
What states are going to accept private attestors? What states are going accept other states as attestors? What state won't start using its issues ID/Wallet for any purpose it sees fit?
This system seems likely to devolve national Internets only populated by those IDs. That can all happen with ZKPs not being broken.
That is how states work.
Because if there aren't, then it matters substantially less whether they're possible.
This would be far easier to implement for websites too. You'd just have a single, unauthenticated API endpoint which, given a code, tells you if the code is valid (and marks it as used). Integrating with such an API is about 1 day of work for a competent dev. Even open, non-profit platforms like Mastodon could easily implement such a mechanism.
Scratch cards wouldn't have to be the only way of getting such codes. THe vast majority of people could just generate them in their banking app or whatever (which would still be far more privacy friendly than the current ID verification mechanisms).
2) Cigarette vending machines accept VISA cards and government IDs and they're offline.
3) A medium-sized social media network required photos (not scans) of GovIDs, where only year of birth and validity date need to visible. The rest could be blacked out physically.
4) You can guess users' age and only request solid proof only for those you are unsure about.
The problem is that we technical users think of a one-size-fits-all technical approach that works, without a single fail, for all global users. That is bound to fail.
It is only a law and you can break it big time or small time. Reddit's approach might proof way too weak, it'll be fined and given a year to improve. Others might leave the market. Others will be too strict and struggle to get users. Others might have weak enforcement and keep a low profile forever. Others will start small, below the radar and explode in popularity and then enforcement will have to improve.
You can also request identity and then delete it. (Yes, some will fail to delete and get hacked.)
Giving Facebook a free pass is stupid. They're selling your age cohort "10-11" within 0.0037ms for 0.$0003 to the highest bidder on their ad platform.
Some of these are getting batted down by judges, so right now the category of "legal" is especially vague. That's why I phrased it like that.
But also, we see cops just straight up stalking people using government tools. So that's another reason to be concerned about "legal" government actions.
Nothing to do with libertarianism.
As I understand it, it's the goal of OpenID4VP[1][2]. Using it a site can request to know if the user is over 18 say, and the user can return proof of just that one claim, I'm over 18, without sharing identifying information.
The new EU age verification solution[3] builds on this for example.
[1]: https://openid.net/specs/openid-4-verifiable-presentations-1...
[2]: https://docs.walt.id/concepts/data-exchange-protocols/openid...
At least in the EU solution they say there would be multiple attestation serivices the user could choose to use. So that would be technically better than nothing.
We know this because, instead of putting easy-to-use parental controls on new devices sold (and making it easy to install on old ones) with good defaults [1], they didn't even try that, and went directly for the most privacy-hostile solution.
[1] So lazy parents with whatever censorship the government thinks is appropriate for kids, while involved parents can alter the filtering, or remove the software entirely.
Over 70% of teenagers <18 today have watched porn [1]. We all know (many from experience) that kids easily get around whatever restrictions adults put on their computers. We all know the memes about "click here if you're 18" being far less effective than "click here if you're not a robot."
Yes, there were other ways of trying to solve the problem. Governments could've mandated explicit websites (which includes a lot of mainstream social media these days) include the RTA rating tag instead of it being a voluntary thing, which social media companies still would've fought; and governments could've also mandated all devices come with parental control software to actually enforce that tag, which still would've been decried as overreach and possibly would've been easily circumventable for anyone who knows what they're doing (including kids).
But at the end of the day, there was a legitimate problem, and governments are trying to solve the problem, ulterior motives aside. It's not legal for people to have sex on the street in broad daylight (and even that would arguably be healthier for society than growing up on staged porn is). This argument is much more about whether it's healthy for generations to be raised on porn than many detractors want to admit.
[1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/raising-kind-kids/20...
Also, access to porn isn't new with the internet. When we cleared out my grandpa's house we had to pry open a desk that was chock full of hustlers.
“Ease of access” and “easy access to the most depraved shit you can think of that’s out there” is what changed. That is what is wrong and why many people feel we need to find some way to control that access.
The Internet didn’t come along until I was well into adulthood. Think about what porn access looked like in the late ‘70s and ‘80s. As a teen we were “lucky” if by some rare miracle a friend stole their dad’s Playboy, Penthouse, or Hustler and stashed it in the woods (couldn’t risk your parents finding it under your mattress) for us dudes to learn the finer points of female anatomy. In a week it would be washed out from the elements with nary a nipple to be seen. Those magazines (even hustler) was soft compared to what a few clicks can find today. Basically you got degrees of nudity back then, but we appreciated it.
Hardcore video was very rare to see as a horny teen kid in the ‘80s. Most porn movies was still pretty well confined to theaters, but advent of VHS meant (again by sheer luck) you had to have a friend whose parents happened to be in to it, who had rented or bought a video, it was in the house and accessible, all the adults had to be gone from the house so you could hurry up and watch a few minutes on the family’s one TV with a VCR. You needed to build in viewing time along with rewind time to hide your tracks.
Now…parents just leave the room for a few minutes and a willing kid with a couple of clicks could be watching something far beyond the most hardcore thing I saw as a teen.
The fact is that as difficult as it was to get, you got a hold of it and watched it. Why would 'ease of access' make any difference if you didn't have easy access and got it anyway?
There could have been years between the opportunities we had. I don’t think you conceptualize just how infrequent the opportunity would present itself.
[1] https://eprints.qut.edu.au/217360/1/__qut.edu.au_Documents_S...
So exactly what is the target of the “difference” you are referring to then here? You are referencing a differential in something…if not psychological impact from the viewing of said material…what would that something be?
Person 2: "I don't think that they actually smell worse, and people were still exposed to chemicals in the 70s, so why would it make a difference?"
Person 1: "Are you saying that the health effects of chemical exposure are lessened because they are exposed to some chemicals as opposed to a lot of chemicals?"
Person 1 is using a claim that is not proven by their statements to make Person 2 responsible for a claim they never conceded was true.
Person 2 is disputing that Person 1's mechanisms make a difference not that their conclusion is valid.
Person 2: I bathe in that same chemical for 30 minutes every single day. It’s no different than 1982. The risk of harm is the same.
If Person 1 is claiming that there are harmful effects, they are required to prove that they exist and explain why bathing in it causes those effects while being exposed to it otherwise does not.
So be it.
You never stated what that impact was, and then tried to make me explain why you are wrong without you defining what your hypothesis is. What is the emotional and mental impact of porn? Why do you press for clarity from me, when you are the one that should be providing it?
You left your thought and argument (whatever that was), incomplete. That’s your prerogative, but it’s a poor debate technique if your hope is to convince someone of your opinion.
How would you know whether it has worked or not? Wouldn't the relevant criteria be up to parents themselves?
And we all turned out fine I might add. In fact there's a lot more attention to consent and respect for women than 20 years ago.
Of course not counting the toxic masculine far right but that doesn't have anything to do with porn but everything with hate.
Absolutely not. You might personally feel like (or want to tell yourself that) porn didn't negatively affect you. I can tell you with certainty that porn negatively affected my social and sexual development. (I was literally afraid to physically open my mouth around girls when I was 10 years old because of porn.)
> Of course not counting the toxic masculine far right but that doesn't have anything to do with porn but everything with hate.
There are plenty of pipelines between porn and "toxic masculinity."
Sorry, but if you would actually read my post, you would notice that I am not proposing that it should merely "exist", but that it should come enabled by default on all new devices.
I do agree it could be done. I disagree with your characterization that it would be easy/easier, or that the current age verification efforts are entirely nefarious and not actually trying to work the problem.
There is a ton of evidence that there are harms to unrestricted online access for kids and teens (the book The Anxious Generation is cultural touchstone for this topic at this point). There is a real, well reasoned, and valid movement to do something about this problem.
The solutions proposed aren’t always well targeted and are often hijacked by the pro-surveillance movement, but it’s important to call out that these solutions aren’t well targeted instead of declaring the age verification push isn’t addressing a real problem and constituency.
The harms are real. The solution is a Surveillance Wolf wearing a dead Save The Kids Sheep(tm).
Solutions that might work - RTA headers [0]. More robust parental controls. Not this reimagining of the rules of the internet in service of a fairly vague and ineffective goal. It's like the whole AV concept was designed not to work in the current context at all - almost as if that was the point.
Perhaps I'm going a little out on a limb. I don't think I am - but quick, tell me you need to know where I'm dialing from without asking me where I'm dialing in from.
Given that it's also coming from a bunch of tech males, it comes across as extraordinarily creepy. This is not hard to understand.
Social media is akin to violent video games in the 2000s, tv addiction in the 90s, santanic heavy metal in 80s, and even 'bicycle face' in the 1890s bicycle craze.
Jonathan Haidt seems extremely earnest and thoughtful, but unfortunately being lovingly catapulted to fame for being the guy who affirms everyones gut reaction to change (moral panic)...makes it extremely difficult financially, emotionally and socially for him to steelman the opposite side of that thing.
Even if he hadn't compiled a bunch of suspect research from pre-2010 to make his claims, the field of Psychology is at the center of the replication crisis and is objectively its worst offender. Pyschology studies published in prestigious academic journals have been found to replicate only 36% of the time. [2]
1. https://reason.com/video/2024/04/02/the-bad-science-behind-j...
I wonder if there's something like internet accelerationism - push things like having friends or watching movies online off the cliff as soon as possible.
https://www.xbiz.com/news/294260/washington-av-bill-jumps-on...
> A person who sells, gives away or in any way furnishes to a person under the age of 18 years a book, pamphlet, or other printed paper or other thing, containing obscene language, or obscene prints, pictures, figures or descriptions tending to corrupt the morals of youth
> 1. Most of the dollar costs of making it all happen will be paid by the people who actually need/use the feature.
> 2. No toxic Orwellian panopticon.
> 3. Key enforcement falls into a realm non-technical parents can actually observe and act upon: What device is little Timmy holding?
> 4. Every site in the world will not need a monthly update to handle Elbonia's rite of manhood on the 17th lunar year to make it permitted to see bare ankles. Instead, parents of that region/religion can download their own damn plugin.
Once that solution was in place, the argument was settled, and the people trying to push for censorship in pursuit of ulterior motives didn't have a leg to stand on.
At best I may avoid using products from certain companies until I really have to, like Google and Microsoft's AIs, or clear cookies after signing into YouTube so it doesn't sign you into everything else, or write a comment here and there about how some Apple APIs like the iCloud Keychain allow Facebook etc to track you across devices and reinstalls, but I'm not ever going bother doing anything more that would actually challenge all this dystopian fuckiness.
Telling that larger group their interest just isn't part of the conversation at all excludes _you_ from the conversation rather than changing the focus of the conversation to the other downsides instead of the primary interest others might have.
There are also, concerningly IMO, an extremely large amount of people willing to accept severe surveillance or privacy downsides so long as it helps achieve the goal about kids. To them, the same would in reverse would be "why are you talking about surveillance, the real issue is the kids. Say it 3 times loud, for those in the back!" and the conversation gets nowhere because it's just people saying how they won't talk to anyone who disagrees what concerns should be considered.
I’m alive. Nice to meet you.
I “accept severe surveillance”, not in the sense that I agree with it, but because I know that it already exists and has existed and that people that are against it are screaming into the wind. Many large and small countries have long histories of surveillance.
It’s not that you shouldn’t try to enforce privacy, in fact, the law requires it if you in some cases, and it’s a good idea in others.
I’m certainly not against the EFF standing up for the rights of everyone not to be severely surveilled.
But, realistically, the public cannot easily anonymize our activity and data. And if you try to do so, you’re painting yourself as a target.
If you were trying to keep your country safe, wouldn’t you like the ability to infiltrate any major cloud, SaaS app, social media platform, bank, government, VPN/internal network, and OS?
Similarly, if you were a big data or security company wouldn’t you also do everything you could to know everything it is to know about a person if you had the means and time and it made sense for your business?
Following, if you were to have that power as a government, business, or other organization, wouldn’t it be critical to ensure that you restricted its use to ensure it wasn’t abused to the point that you’d lose it, even though the reality would be that you probably don’t have time to keep it as safe as you need to?
I “accept severe surveillance” not because I promote it or want it, but because I understand how the world works and what it does.
All these things will pass. If you have the focus and the mental capacity to do what is good, then do it. It likely helped the world in some way to learn about KGB wiretaps. But, in the U.S., as far as I can tell, the backlash against the CIA and NSA was just used for political gain and then to replace those that didn’t agree with the current administration. Was that helpful? And who are we really being manipulated by when we attack ourselves and install destabilizing leaders?
This battle for online privacy and control is just that, a battle, and you are correct that it is not a fair fight. But engaging and pushing back, through advocacy, speaking out, and acts of noncompliance does three things:
First, it slows the progress of these measures and thus limits the amount of control over our lives we give up, hopefully until some more politically friendly people come to power.
Second, it provides a barometer (via its effectiveness) for assessing the state of that fight, and how dire it is becoming.
Finally, people voicing their concerns about these laws gives information that helps inform more powerful and potentially altruistic advocates with more resources (such as the EFF) in how those resources should be allocated.
Maybe those aren’t good reasons for you, and that’s okay. Lots of people just want to browse twitter and see sports scores and they don’t really care if they have to show ID to do that. For anybody else reading this though, there are lots of reasons why your involvement and engagement in this issue should not stop with “that’s just how the world works”.
Excessive surveillance is necessary when you cannot convince people of the merits of your politics or morals on their own and need to use the power of the State to intimidate and control their access.
For the issue on minors, if you have a child (guilty here) you are obligated to actively raise and educate them on the nature of the world. For access to online interactions this doesn’t necessarily only mean active limits (as one might judge appropriate for the child), but also teaching them that people do not always have positive intent, and anonymity leads to lack of consequence, and consequently potentially antisocial behavior.
A person’s exposure to these issues are not limited to interactions online. We are taught to be suspicious of strangers offering candy from the back of panel vans. We are taught to look both ways when entering a roadway.
The people demanding the right to limit what people can say and who they can talk to do so under the guise of protecting children, but these tools are too prone to the potential for abuse. In the market of ideas it’s better (and arguably safer, if not significantly more challenging) to simply outcompete with your own.
> that you’re giving a mouse a cookie
These types of arguments are quite common due to how beneficial they are for authoritarian. People forget that authoritarians don't need a lot of supporters, but they do need a lot of people to be apathetic or feel defeated. With that in place even a very small group can exert great power. Which also tends to make their power appear larger than it is, in order to create that feedback loop
People eager to have such a vast trove of data at their fingertips lack patience and focus to develop skills to use their access responsibly - having them around is counterproductive and dangerous in any business where intelligence is key.
So, no. I would actually prefer to try and keep my country safe, thus any desire to infiltrate anything, anywhere, anytime would be irrational, and most likely an early warning signalling an onset of dementia, delirium or any similarly debilitating condition. It should certainly exclude me from working with highly sensitive data, unless you are in the business of making my country less safe.
> If you were trying to keep your country safe, wouldn’t you like the ability to infiltrate any major cloud, SaaS app, social media platform, bank, government, VPN/internal network, and OS?
In fact, the opposite!
If I have keys then so do my enemies! I want that shit locked down as much as possible because I don't want others infiltrating.
Personally if I was the president I would direct the NSA to pen test our own networks and work with companies to resolve any issues. I would make this a major priority in fact. I don't want them to be vulnerable or subject to blackmail.
Is it annoying I can't get in and watch them? Sure. But you can't have both.
Everyone is adults here and get trust. Plus, I'm the government. If I have legitimate belief they're acting illegally I have the power to get in anyways. It's just shower, requiring courts who keep my power in check
BTW the Australian law says it's illegal for a platform to require government ID for age verification.
Honestly, it is the only thing that you can do, apart from voting and talking to people in your near environment.
Is it a good solution, and always likely to work? No, absolutely not.
But is a hell of a lot better than doing nothing or sharing social media posts, which is frankly as effective as screaming into your pillow at home.
Age Verification is about Kids and Censorship: to track them and censor them
Age Verification is about Kids: giving it to companies who will keep it as safe as they've kept your identity, email, and other information.
Age Verification is about Kids and Censorship: taking control from you and giving it to corporations and government.
Age Verification is about Kids and Censorship: to keep them on their platforms so they can profit from them
Age Verification isn't just about Kids: it's also about tracking you
I don't know why we want to put children's data online. I don't want cameras in the kids rooms to verify their face, that camera will be used by others. That camera will be used to do the very thing they claim it is to protect against. I don't want the kids online, easily meeting with pedos, pretending to be kids or otherwise. I don't want kids data online for those people to use it to harm them. I don't want kid's data being leaked and exposed forever. To create lasting damage that will follow then the rest of their lives.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The devil uses this to fool you. Seriously, y'all gonna trust your kids' data with the people in the Epstein list? Why would you let a fox guard the chicken coop?
"Age Verification is about suppressing the 'undesirable' for kids, but also for you". I.e. having to share your personal identity for that taboo (but legal and harmless) sex site (or whatever someone in power might not approve of) sure is going to make you think twice and may even kill many smaller instances withojt making them illegal outright.
It may not sound bad in a single example, but eventually there is something you like that is fine but gets added to the list.
Parents need to parent then, but the amount that will are still larger than the people who want mass surveillance because they can't be arsed to raise their kids.
If they are too lazy to raise their kids, they don't have the energy to push the nanny state forward.
No, it isn't, and no it hasn't. Other people have always been involved in the upbringing of children, but responsibility for parenting has never belonged to anyone other than parents.
And the others involved have always been individuals operating within the bounds of direct trust relations with parents and children -- extended family members, neighbors, friends etc. -- and not strangers enforcing rules promulgated by other strangers.
The social context in which parenting takes place is "family", not "political state".
We all exist in a society and (as the other comment says) it take society to raise kids. I don't want a society where as a parent I have to fight against shitty parents and the potential immaturity of my kids (they are too young right now thank god) to stop them watching porn as a 11yo or other inappropriate gifts from internet "culture".
Setting some reasonable standards for what content kids should consume provides parents with cover when trying to raise their children well. Its the reason movies have age gates, and strip clubs and many other things not on the internet.
The reason you get down voted is likely because you are neither sorry nor correct. Just because someone doesn't have children does not mean their opinion of technology that affects them just the same is invalid. You will get better results engaging others in meaningful debate without dehumanizing folks simply because they aren't like you.
> Your sci-fi distopia flash fiction is compelling, but not actually on topic in this discussion.
> "Think of the children" is weaponized for censorious purposes, but also the harms of social media are well documented (unlike many of the other moral panics fuelled by this phrase).
> I'm not sure a blanket under-16s ban on all social media is the right answer, but there are really good reasons why people support this that you need to engage with to have a useful discussion here.
So basically for everyone even with modest pattern recognition abilities the template used here should be crystal clear, which goes along the lines of
- I'm kinda with you (even though you are stupid and emotion-driven);
- But your point is totally invalid because you should be humiliated by the sheer number of your opponents, which renders you small and negligible;
- Your opponents have very good reasons to support any fascism that is able to address their reaction to prefabricated problems with prefabricated solutions, and you've got to support that too if you want to be heard.
I'm pretty sure these threads are chock full of shills, because one can't rob people of freedom without significant narraive steering efforts.
Also, I don't want to give the impression the only path here is to placate the other concerns/interest. That does work very well if you can, but the main point is just avoid this idea declaring anny other ideas out of the conversation because you disagree with them and only want people to talk about what you like. That doesn't help, you want to convince people to see the reasons you do not to ignore them.
If you ever feel there are threads with shills, take the time to send an email to hn@ycombinator.com with the parts in question. This isn't just some platitude people say here, they've really hopped right on it, triggered action, and got back to me every time I've emailed.
I see this argument repeated over and over on HN, with 0 evidence for it. Any "evidence" people cite is usually of the "politicians are evil, so this should be obvious by definition" kind, sometimes of the "they tried x in the past, so surely some unrelated y they're trying to pass in the future is also about x" kind.
I haven't seen a single leak, a single admission from somebody trying to pass a law like this, that surveillance is actually the goal here. There are far too many politicians trying to pass laws like these, in very different countries across the world, for some kind of giant global conspiracy to stay undetected.
Plain ignorance seems far easier to believe.
This is today's top agrument! "There are far too many gangsters each operating in their own district for some kind of notion of organized crime to be credible".
The state always thinks of self-preservation. Any bureaucrat is aligned to this goal by getting the benefits from the state. So, the more power it has over its citizens, which is the first threat it, the more safe it is and the less opinions of citizens matter.
Understanding this, every citizen must think carefully about giving away more power to the state.
The fact that you need a driver's licence to drive a car, or a document to identify yourself to open a bank account is also surveillance. Yet it seems perfectly reasonable?
Childless digital nomad privacy freaks are a minority, age gates are coming. I don't care that they will never be 100%, if it provides cover for parents to stop their kids consuming trash internet "culture" until they are more mature they are already a great benefit to socitey.
As a parent myself (and, I hope, a good one), I have found it very difficult to effectively monitor and limit my children's ability to access these things. And I have more facility with technology than the average parent. It's a complex and frustrating problem and the stakes are high.
Forcing providers to divine the age of the user, or requiring an adult's identity to verify that they are not a child, is backwards, for all the reasons pointed out. But that's not the only way to "protect the children". Relying on a very minimal level of parental supervision of device use should be fine; we already expect far more than that in non-technology areas.
It's not even necessary to block parents from giving their children Linux desktops or whatever. It'll largely solve the problem if parents are merely expected to enable parental controls on devices that have the capability.
Which I still don't love, but is at least more fair.
1) Given that it just says you're a "child", how does that work across jurisdictions where the adult age may not be 18?
2) It seems like it could be abused by fingerprinters, ad services, and even hostile websites that want to show inappropriate content to children.
It's a client-side flag saying "treat this request as coming from a child (whatever that means to you)". I don't follow what the jurisdiction concern is.
[EDIT] Oooooh you mean if a child is legally 18 where the server is, but 16 where the client is. But the header could be un-set for a 5-year-old, too, so I don't think that much matters. The idea would be to empower parents to set a policy that flags requests from their kids as coming from a child. If they fail to do that, I suppose that'd be on them.
It doesn't seem sufficient, and would probably lead to age verification laws anyway.
Say you're a parent, with child, living in country A where someone becomes an adult when they're 18. Once the child is 18, they'll use their own devices/browsers/whatever, and the flag is no longer set. But before that, the flag is set.
Now in country B or in country C it doesn't matter that the age of becoming an adult is 15 and 30. Because the flag is set locally on the clients device, all they need to do is block requests with the flag, and assume it's faithful. Then other parents in country B or country C set/unset the flag on their devices when it's appropriate.
No need to tell actual ages, and a way for services to say "this is not for children", and parents are still responsible for their own children. Sounds actually pretty OK to me.
> should
I don't know if "should" is intended as a moral statement or a regulatory statement, but it's not at all unusual for server operators to need to comply with laws in the country in which they are operating…
So namespace it then. "I'm a child as defined by the $country_code government". It's no more of a challenge than what identity-based age verification already needs to do.
> 2) It seems like it could be abused by fingerprinters, ad services, and even hostile websites that want to show inappropriate content to children.
This is still strictly better than identify-based age verification. Hostile or illegal sites can already do this anyway. Adding a single boolean flag which a large proportion of users are expected to have set isn't adding any significant fingerprinting information.
Alternatively, just use an older browser that doesn't serve the header.
If anything, you'd want the reverse. A header that serves as a disclaimer saying "I'm an adult, you can serve me anything" and then the host would only serve if the browser sends that header. And you'd have to turn it on through the settings/parental controls.
Now, this doesn't handle the proxy situation. You could still have a proxy site that served the request with the header for you, but there's not much you can do about that regardless.
That's no different to a law mandating identification-based age verification though. A site in a different jurisdiction can ignore that just the same.
Even the idea of prosecuting parents for allowing their child to access 'information,' no matter what that information is, just sounds like asking for 1984-style insanity.
A good rule of thumb when creating laws: imagine someone with opposite political views from yours applying said law at their discretion (because it will happen at some point!).
Another good question to ask yourself: is this really a severe enough problem that government needs to apply authoritarian control via its monopoly on violence to try to solve? Or is it just something I'm abstractly worried about because some pseudo-intellectuals are doing media tours to try to sell books by inciting moral panic?
As with every generation who is constantly worried about what "kids these days" are up to, it's highly highly likely the kids will be fine.
The worrying is a good instinct, but when it becomes an irrational media hysteria (the phase we're in for the millennial generation who've had kids and are becoming their parents), it creates perverse incentives and leads to dumb outcomes.
The truth is the young are more adaptable than the old. It's the adults we need to worry about.
This assumes an absolutist approach to enforcement, which I did not advocate and is not a fundamental part of my proposed solution. In any case, the law already has to make a subjective decision in non-technology areas. It would be no different here. Courts would be able to consider the surrounding context, and over time set precedents for what does and does not cross the bar in a way that society considers acceptable.
What could humanity do instead with all that time and resources?
I know the US is a nation built by lawyers, for lawyers, but this is both its best strength and worst weakness. Sometimes it's in everyones best interest to accept the additional risks individually as opposed to bubble wrapping everything in legislation and expanding the scope of the corrupt lawyer-industrial complex.
Maybe the lawyers could use the extra time fixing something actually important like healthcare or education instead.
You have way too much faith in the fairness of the court system.
There is no perfect solution that avoids destroying the internet, but this would be a pretty good solution that shelters kids from accidentally entering adult areas, and it doesn’t harm adult internet users. It also avoids sending out information about the user’s age since filtering happens on the client device.
It was derided as a "system for mass censorship", and got shot down. In hindsight a mistake, and it should have been implemented - it was completely voluntary by the user.
But this also needs some kind of guarantee that lawmakers won’t try to force it on FOSS projects that want to operate outside the system. And that companies like Google won’t use EEE to gradually expand this header into other areas and eventually cut off consenting adults who want to operate outside this system. I’m not sure if it is possible to get those guarantees.
Worse, it leads to situations where society seems to want to flat out be kid free in many ways. With families reportedly afraid to let their kids walk to and from school unsupervised.
I don't know an answer, mind. So this is where I have a gripe with no real answer. :(
Wait, those grand parents also had bad models to work with, so really it's the great grandparents that were to blame...
No, wait, it was the society that they grew up in that encouraged poor behaviour toward them, and forced them to react by taking on toxic behaviours. We all should pay because we all actively contribute to the world around us, and that includes being silent when we see bad things happening.
I'm not seeing the correlation / causation here.
A. "Your kid is not my problem"
B. "Your kid is everyone's problem"
Note that I'm not even necessarily worried about cops getting called. Quite the contrary, I am fine with the idea of cops having a more constant presence around parks and such. I do worry about people that get up in arms about how things are too unsafe for kids to be let outside. If that is the case, what can we do to make it safe?
What content is appropriate for children is properly up to their parents themselves, not to the government or to some nebulous concept of "society". If parent's choose not to set such a flag on their children's devices, then that means that they're choosing to allow their children to access content without restriction, and that's what defines what is OK for their children to access.
Thank you for your well written take.
[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46152074
[2] - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
This completely leaves it up to the families / parents to control and gives some level of compliance to make the effort worth while.
There may even be a way to generate enough noise with the request to prevent any forms of tracking. This sort of thing should really be isolated in that way to prevent potential abuses via data brokers by way of sale of the information
This concept does not involve any tracking if implemented as designed. The user agent detects the RTA header and triggers parental controls if enabled. Many sites already voluntarily self label. [1] Careful how far one drills down as these sites are NSFW and some may be malicious.
[1] - https://www.shodan.io/search?query=RTA-5042-1996-1400-1577-R...
https://sk.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/childmedia/chpt/internet-c...
That's why I am pleased with RTA. Just add one header, done. Most admins and developers could do that in their sleep.
If so I would expect such sites to appear, and the only way to secure a child device is to have a whitelist of webpages (to avoid the proxies), putting us back close to where we are today.
The problem is that it's easy to make, easy to deploy, easy to make money on, and a single site opens up the whole Internet. It will happen even if it's illegal.
Compare this to adult webpages setting the header. They will probably be quite willing to do so, since they want to make their money legally, and there is probably little money in serving to kids anyway. And even if a single out of thousand adult webpages refuses, it still only opens that single site.
Worrying about the latter makes no sense, because they are sort of like organized crime. People still take drugs even though they are illegal.
It also lets someone who knows more than I to elaborate with more depth.
I'd argue that this is negligible for data collectors and governments. Governments already know who you are and what sites you vist for 99.99% of the population. Data collectors already know who you are and have a pretty good idea of the sites you vist.
What unique information is this going to give the government and data collectors to abuse? Lets establish one case that both affects average people and is "bad" and not waste time discussing things that only affect a tiny minority of privacy minded people.
Keep in mind the law states a platform must provide multiple ways to reasonably verify a user is older than 16. No mention of giving the specific user age or requiring govt id
As many are pointing out zero knowledge proofs exist and resolve most of the issues they are referring to. And it doesn't have to be complex. A government (or bank, or anybody that has an actual reason to know your identity) provided service that mints a verifiable one time code the user can plug into a web site is very simple and probably sufficient. Pretty standard PKI can do it.
The real battle to be lost here is that uploading actual identity to random web sites becomes normalised. Or worse, governments have to know what web sites you are going to. That's what needs to be fought against.
My view is that there's no reason why we can't come together and come up with a rating system for websites (through HTTP headers, there are already a couple proposals, the RTA header and another W3C proposal).
Once a website just sends a header saying this is adult only content, what YOU as a user do with it is up to you. You could restrict it at the OS level (which is another thing we ALREADY have).
This would match the current system, which allows households to set their devices to block whatever they want, and the devices get metadata from the content producers.
No ID checks needed.
There's no way everybody will agree what constitutes "adult only content," therefore there's no way to come up with a rating for websites.
So I think they would voluntarily state that their content is adult only.
This isn’t rocket science. We’ve rated content for decades. We simply can’t be obtuse about this and throw our hands up and do nothing because we can’t tell if obvious things like porn are adult only content the way we’ve done on every other medium.
So instead of advocating for those sensible and workable solutions, the discussions are always centred on either blocking any attempt at reform while hyperventilating about vague authoritarianism or a similarly vague need to protect the innocent.
Meanwhile in the world of smartphone data providers, social media networks, and the meta/googles of the world: they all know your personal information and identity up to the wazoo - and have far more information on every one of you than what is possessed by your own governments (well except for the governments that are also buying up that data.)
So let me be clear, the gate is open, the horse has bolted - recapturing your privacy is where attention should be focused in this debate... even if it's bad for shareholders.
This is where I'm concerned too. We are seeing a proliferation of third party verification services that I have to interact with and that have no real obligations to citizens, because their customer is the website.
I'd like to see governments step in as semi-trusted third parties to provide primitives that allow us to bootstrap some sort of anonymous verification system. By semi-trusted, I mean trusted to provide attestations like "This person is a US citizen over the age of 18" but not necessarily trusted with an access log of all our websites.
If Big Brother starts mandating the collusion - then yes, there's a hill to die on. But in some ways that's the point here. There are hills to die on - this just isn't it. And if you pick the wrong hill then you already died so you are losing the ones that really mattered. If the EFF pointed out to everyone that there is a privacy preserving answer to the core issue that is driving this, they could then mount a strong defense for the part that is truly problematic, since it isn't actually required to solve the problem.
You may accept this. Others will not.
> But that just outlines a situation where the user's chosen trusted service is hostile to their interests and they need to find one that isn't.
Just?
If the identifiers are pseudonyms, if the government compelled someone to share their user IDs, all the government would see are basically a bunch of UUIDs keyed to that provider.
So what specific actions are you talking about. What is your threat model?
Once a system is in place that infringes on rights nobody will modify it to give citizens more rights.
No, fighting back against horrible proposals does not require suggesting an alternative proposal to the alleged problem. That only serves to benefit the malicious actors proposing the bad thing in the first place, the hope that we'll settle on something Not As Bad.
Thank god for the EFF and their everlasting fight to stop these nonsense internet laws. I'm glad they don't waste their time on "well how about this" solutions. The middle ground will never be enough for the proponents of surveillance, and will always be an incremental loss for the victims.
After all, they can legitimately claim it solves much of the issues with other verification schemes - no need to trust third party sites or apps, lower risk of phishing, easier to implement internationally and with foreign nationals, etc.
Of course, the downside (for individuals) is it would take just one legal tweak or pressure from the government to destroy anonymity for good.
Why do you think there's a global push all at once for this? Anyway I'll order a bunch of cheap USB Sticks, load them up with porn and gore and drop them at school yards at night then. If we do that enough we can make using USB Devices require ID Soon enough.
It's not a perfect solution, as he would still know who you are, but it's built in a way where you create a token locally to pass to the site that includes your age, and that site passes it to his site, which verifies the signature. So he knows who you are but not what sites you visit, and the sites know your age but not who you are.
There’s also a way to improve it: Sell “age verification cards” in physical stores. Just like they are verifying that minors aren’t buying alcohol or cigarettes, they can verify that these cards are bought only by grown ups. Sure wouldn’t be perfect but it greatly improves anonymity and especially in paid-for adult services can be used as a payment method so repeat verification will happen for top ups.
Potentially having to participate in marketing schemes for a beer?? Its not worth it.
There should also be a read only ID method with more watermarking validation or something.
I dont trust them POS with my info.
One actor verifies ages - and they only need to do so once. Sites give users a key tied to their user account to run by their verifier, who returns another key that attests to their verified age encoded for that specific site, to give back to the site.
The site doesn't know anything about the user, but their user login info. The verifier doesn't know anything about what sites are being visited.
This would seem to address the issues, without creating the pervasive privacy and security problems of every age verifying site creating database of people's government id's, faces, and other personal information.
It also seems like a way out of the legal/legislatorial battle. Which otherwise, is going to be an immortal hydra.
I would trust the EFF to run something like this. Open source. With only one-way encrypted/hashed personal info stored at their end.
(I am not a cryptographic expert. But I believe mechanisms like this are straightforward stuff at this point.)
Fun fact: many ZK identity solutions run centralized provers and can be subpoenaed. Need to use something that generates proofs client-side.
Yes. You are emphasizing a reason it would be a good idea.
Sideline the ulterior/hidden motive. Or at a minimum, force it into the open, where it has less of a chance. (Ulterior motives are kept quiet for a reason.)
> Fun fact: many ZK identity solutions run centralized provers and can be subpoenaed. Need to use something that generates proofs client-side.
Subpoenas are one of the many privacy problems solved by this.
If there is no log of your real identity tied to visiting a site, there is nothing to hack or subpoena.
A verifier can report you got keys validated. But they don't know what sites they were for.
Sites can ensure users are vetted for age. Without knowing who they are.
This is such a classic cryptography scenario, I don't know how it isn't being pushed to the center of this debate. Anything that reduces the practical tension between divisive goal posts is going to have practical benefit, and make worst case legislation much less likely.
Or you pick three verifiers of your choice who you coordinate between to get verified, without knowing who each other are.
No, its legal (in some jurisdictions) pornography. Prostitution on the platform, as well as whatever the legal status is in the set of jurisdictions involved, is also, from what I understand, explicitly against the platform ToS.
Prostitution obviously cannot physically happen on an online platform, but it sure is a convenient way to advertise and attract customers, and serve as the payment processor.
Well, no, violating a binding legal agreement is illegal.
> Prostitution obviously cannot physically happen on an online platform, but it sure is a convenient way to advertise and attract customers, and serve as the payment processor.
Which is explicilty prohibited by the law in many places OF operates, and judging from the number of people who are creators on the platform I've seen complaining about people jeopardizing their status with the platform by soliciting it on the platform, also by the actively-enforced terms of the platform. OF is simply not “legal prostitution”, and it is ridiculous to describe it that way
Not touching the rest of this thread's arguments, but that isn't really true. Breaking ToS, or any other contract, is not "illegal"-- it's not a crime. It opens you up to civil (not criminal) penalties if the other party sues, but that's it.
Some proposed implementation do this. Without the requirement there is no chance of your ID or age being leaked, with zero knowledge proof, there is a chance they leak but can be made small, potentially arbitrarily so. Other implementations come with larger risks.
It doesn't prevent one person from prohibiting speech... I can tell a pastor to stop preaching on my lawn. But, the government cannot tell a pastor not to preach in the publicly-owned town square (generally, there are exceptions).
There are arguments that certain online forums are effectively "town squares in the internet age" (Twitter in particular, at least pre-Musk). But, I always found that analogy to fall apart - twitter (or whatever online forum) is more like an op-ed section in a newspaper, IMO. And newspapers don't have to publish every op-ed that gets submitted.
Also, the 1st Amendment does not protect you from the consequences of your speech. I can call my boss an asshole to his face legally - and he can fire me (generally, there are labor protections and exceptions).
Not in principle
See the limits on curse words on TV. Or MPAA ratings for movies.
(IANAL) That demonstrates the opposite: that's a voluntary system with no force of law behind it—the private sector "self-regulating" itself, if you will.
The film rating systems were created under threat of legislation in the first half of the 20th century (so, in lieu of actual legislation). The transformative 1st Amendment rulings of the Warren Court would have made such laws unconstitutional after the 1960's, but the dynamic that created these codes predates that—predates the modern judicial interpretation of the 1st Amendment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hays_Code (history background)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_fil... ("The MPA rating system is a voluntary scheme that is not enforced by law")
What the ZKP does is let you limit the information the site collects to the fact that you are under 18, and nothing else. It’s an application of the principle of least privilege. It lets you give the website that one fact without revealing your name, birthdate, address, browsing history, and all your other private data.
After all - if it doesn't share anything other than a guarantee of the "age" of someone who is authenticating with the website then how would the website know there's re-use of identifiers?
And you don’t see a problem with this part?
- If I can do a zero knowledge proof with an arbitrary age, I can eventually determine anyone's birthday.
- If the only time people need to verify their age is to visit some site that they'd rather not anyone know they visit and that requires showing identity - even if it's 100% secure, a good share of people will balk simply because they do not believe it is secure or creating a chilling effect on speech.
- If the site that verifies identity is only required for porn, then it has a list of every single person who views porn. If the site that verifies identity is contacted every time age has to be re-registered, then it knows how often people view porn.
- If the site that verifies identity is a simple website and the population has been trained that uploading identity documents is totally normal, then you open yourself up to phishing attacks.
- If the site that verifies identity is not secure or keeps records, then anyone can have the list (via subpoena or hacking).
- If the protocol ever exchanges any unique identifier from the site that verifies your identity and the site that verifies identity keeps records, then one may piece together, via subpoena (or government espionage, hacking) every site you visit.
Frankly, the fact that everyone promoting these systems hasn't admitted there are any potential security risks should be like an air raid siren going off in people's heads.
And at the end of all of this, none of it will prevent access to a child. Between VPNs, sharing accounts, getting older siblings/friends to do age verification for them, sites in jurisdictions that simply don't care, the darkweb, copying the token/cert/whatever from someone else, proxying age verification requests to an older sibling/rando, etc. there are way, way too many ways around it.
So one must ask, why does taking all this risk for so little reward make any sense?
There were major Supreme Court rulings on the topic recently, see
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44397799 ("US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law (wired.com)"—5 months ago, 212 comments)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Coalition_v._Paxto...
So I agree that instead of fighting some change that I think is inevitable, they should make it so that it works in the most privacy-conscious way possible. And I mean with real technical solutions, like an open-source app or browser extension you can download, a proof-of-concept server for age verification, etc... using the best crypto has to offer.
If I go to the liquor store, I can't just promise "I'm 21+"
If I go to vote, I can't just promise I'm 16+
If I go to buy a lottery ticket I cant just promise...
I think I made my point.
Either you're old enough to understand what porn is and have desires to consume it in which case you won't be scarred by it and don't need protection from it, or your not in which case you won't seek it out. You need id checks for alcohol because people too young to consume it want it, and given how much teens drink and how not a problem lower drinking ages are in other countries even that claim is somewhat dubious.
I'm sure i'll get downvoted into oblivion by skeptics, but there is a good amount of reasons to believe this is true. Your brain on porn by gary wilson is a good starting point for the ideas, and then to dig deeper if you are inclined to fact check.
ok /rant.
* There is some research that the age of first exposure to porn is lower and there's speculation that this might affect attitudes towards sex in teens but there's nothing conclusive.
* YourBrainOnPorn is most charitably a misreading of scientific literature juxtaposed with people's personal experiences of porn becoming an issue in their lives, but is probably more accurately pseudoscience manufacturing a specific narrative by citing studies that don't actually support their conclusions but are banking on people not actually checking. It's "The Body Remembers" bullshit all over again.
* Porn Induced ED isn't a medical condition and was made up by NoFap. There is an increase in ED prescriptions among young people but there's no evidence whatsoever that this is connected to porn and is much more plausible that there's just less stigma about it, it's just easier to get using an app, and more people are using it for enhancement and performance anxiety rather than ED.
* And there's this awkward problem that men actually care about size and performance significantly more than women do so this objectification angle is a bit silly. Like these two things aren't even in the top 5 of priorities for women's sexual partners. And uhh… can confirm personally as a woman. Larger becomes painful faster than most guys think and my ability to climax is more mental than physical. I've had more than one friend go home with a guy pull down his pants and laugh being like, "wow but also that's not gonna fit."
* I'm not even touching the beetles thing.
And look a ridiculous number of people bought into The Body Remembers and it's still going to be years and years to shake the public out of that one. I don't expect this to be any different. The good news is, outside of a few people with an unhealthy relationship with porn, that in general things are actually fine. Whole generations aren't being addicted to and made impotent by porn.
They literally are. Mostly men, though, so you might not really get it.
> There is an increase in ED prescriptions among young people but there's no evidence whatsoever that this is connected to porn and is much more plausible that there's just less stigma about it,
Yes, just like cancer rates and mental illnesses. The number increases aren't real, we're just getting better at detecting it. Surely, nothing ever gets worse in the world. /s
You're right, though, that most of this is pseudoscience. Most of the "problem" with porn is psychological, rather than strictly physical, and psychology is generally pseudoscience.
Shameless plug: I wrote about hash chains some time ago. They are a nice and simple solution to age verification. https://spredehagl.com/2025-07-14/
When some country parliament decides to mandate age verification, it's really easy and lazy for them to just say "verify ages and do it reliably!" and stop at that. As a result, the services affected don't really have a choice to go towards those horrible solutions of scaning our faces or IDs or both and all the issues around that.
What should happen rather is "we'll build a system for age verification that is privacy focused and all you sites that are adult only will have to use it or any other system we deem acceptable" But this requires effort on the part of the government doing the law. And money.
I know that the preparations for eIDAS 2.0 (the European thing) did contain many good parts. Taking inspiration from SSI. So at that point their specifications were rather good. I havent kept up with it for almost one year now, so that might have changed.
i am a child header = i am verifying myself as valid target header
has anyone realized that whatever at all the "good" guys do, the "bad" guys will abuse it.
we need canaries [bots with child header], to get a metric on any increase of attempted crimes vs a child.
Things like this will give them a huge advantage in not being manipulated and lied to.
I'd be comfortable with it having large segments of "uncategorized." But right now, if I scan over to my ISP to see how much data I have used for the month, I have little to no help in saying how much of that was what.
Again, I get that that will be a lot I have to write off as "uncategorized." I'm not even trying to drive all telemetry down to zero. I'm comfortable knowing that my HVAC may send diagnostic stuff in, as an example. But it seems kind of crazy to me that this is not something that is often discussed? Do I just miss those discussions?
At best, you go back and forth between no privacy, a heavily condition privacy. At best.
Let’s take privacy back, but that’s a big process.
If you haven’t internalized surveillance, start working on it!
Paranoid, maybe. Schizophrenics? No. Firstly, "paranoid schizophrenia" is an outdated diagnosis. Paranoia is a common symptom of schizophrenia, but schizophrenics exhibiting paranoia are not considered to have separate mental illness from those who are not. Secondly, schizophrenia is not caused simply by psychological stress, and is associated with a large cluster of positive and negative symptoms, with paranoia being only one of them.
"Perfect" security is only attainable with zero dissent, zero individuality, zero privacy, and zero freedom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_transplantation_in_China
Make children write down what they got out of social media, every time they use it.
Maybe then it will sink down that it basically offers close to zero actual benefit.
My SO has been teaching for nearly 20 years now, and mental health in kids has fallen off a cliff in the last two decades. I could fill this page with online bullying stories. Some of which, are especially cruel. Half her students are on medication for anxiety. It's out of control, honestly.
That said, I don't know how to solve it. It's easy to put this on the parents, but that's not the answer. Otherwise, it would be solved already. Some don't care. Some don't have the time to care because they're trying to keep the lights on, and dinner on the table. And, some simply think it doesn't apply to them or their children. Parents on HN are hyper-aware of this sort of thing, but that's definitely the minority.
I know a family that would be most folks least likely candidate for something bad to happen online. Single income, relatively well off, the parent at home has an eye on the kids 24/7. And, if you met the kids, you would most likely qualify them as "good kids". Without going into detail, their life was turned upside down because one of the kids was "joking around" online.
Again, I don't know what the answer to the problem is. Clearly, age verification laws are a veiled attempt to both collect and control data. And, EFF's emphasis on advertising restrictions as a solution, seems off the mark. There's more to it than that. Idk, this shit makes me want to log off permanently, and pretend it's 1992.
I would argue it must be part of the answer, if it isn't literally the answer. You even kind of hit the nail on the head later in that paragraph:
> Parents on HN are hyper-aware of this sort of thing, but that's definitely the minority.
I would start there. Spreading awareness and social pressure is a tractable problem.
Verified Credentials exist on the Web.
Drivers’ licenses exist.
Just show that you are over 18 in a zero knowledge way and be done with it. Why do they need to see your IDs?
It is a big slippery slope aimed at destroying anonimity on the internet. Even if first attempts are privacy-preserving, it could still break the use of double accounts for example, something which I also use widely.
It's deanonymizing and intrusive and mandatory for sites to implement without protecting them from sockpuppets and foreign troll farms.
Either we create the fix, or the feds take it over. we need to sever the idea of a global internet. per-country and allied nations only. anonymous cert-chain verified ID stored on device. problem fixed.
The surveillance and censorship system is built, administered and maintained by Silicon Valley companies who have adopted this as their "business model". "Monetising" surveillance of other peoples' noncommercial internet use
These Silicon Valley companies have been surveilling internet subscribers for over a decade, relentlessly connecting online identity to offline identity, hell bent on knowing who is accessing what webpage on what website, where they live, what they are interested in, and so on, building detailed advertising profiles (including the age of the ad target) tied to IP addresses, then selling the subscribers out to advertisers and collecting obscene profits (and killing media organisations that hire journalists in the process)
Now these companies are being forced to share some of the data they collect and store
Gosh, who would have forseen such an outcome
These laws are targeting the Silicon Valley companies, not internet subscribers
But the companies want to spin it as an attack on subscribers
The truth is the companies have been attacking subscriber privacy and attempting to gatekeep internet publication^1 for over a decade, in the name of advertising and obscene profits
1. Discourage subscribers from publishing websites and encourage them to create pages on the company's website instead. Centralise internet publication, collect data, perform surveillance and serve advertisements
Silicon valley uses that information to sell adds, and sometimes votes. Not great, but I can imagine much worse from a State.
We have the technology to do age verification without revealing any more information to the site and without the verification authority finding out what sites we are browsing. However, most people are ignorant of it.
If we don't push for the use of privacy preserving technology we wont get it and we will get more tracking. You cannot defeat age verification on the internet, age verification is already a feature of our culture. The only way out is to ensure that privacy preserving technologies are mandated.
Google even open-sourced technology to enable it: https://blog.google/technology/safety-security/opening-up-ze...
The politicians don't want Zero Knowledge Proof because it prevents the mass-surveillance of internet users. This is all deliberate.
This is not compelling. The internet I know and love has been dying for a long time for unrelated reasons. The new internet that is replacing that one is an internet that I very much do not love and would be totally ok to see lots of it get harder to access.
Extrapolate that how you will.
1. create our own porn at home and (soon)
2. have home orgasmatrons.
Parents have complete control of the Chat/Porn server and since the orgasmatron necessarily has all your desires stored in its LLM (Large Lust Model) it trivially knows your age and will lock you out.
And internet porn can be banned regardless of age. (that's only half sarcastically said).
Demand for home Large Lust Models and orgasmatrons will soar. You heard it here first. Opportunity for entrepreneurs. And these home-based products are the only way to keep porn away from kids (if parents don't care now, they never will) and to maintain privacy on the internet.
Every place where I've worked in I.T., the rule was "No porn downloading at work. Porn belongs in the home." (especially in the days of slow home modems)
And to be really enforceable, all offshore sites would have to agree to the scheme, including certain Russian ones who are glad to pollute our children's and adults' minds with porn, propaganda and conspiracy theories.
Lastly: There always was and will be media. Micro-SD cards now? If not phones, thrift store picture frames and RPi's. "Porn finds a way."
The CNIL gave up 3 years ago, and gave guidelines, you can read about it here [0]. At the time it read like "How well, we tried, we said it is incompatible with privacy and the GDPR multiple times, we insist one more time that giving tools to parents is the only privacy-safe solution despite obvious problems, but since your fucking law will pass, so the best we can do is to draw guidelines, and present solutions and how to implement them correctly".
I think the EFF should do the same. That's just how it is. Define solutions you'll agree with. Fight the fight on chat control and other stuff where the public opinion can be changed, this is too late, and honestly, if it's done well,it might be fine.
If the first implementation is correct, we will have to fight to maintain the statu quo, which in a conservative society, is the easiest, especially when no other solution have been tested. If it's not, we will have to fight to make it correct, then fight to maintain it, and both are harder. the EFF should reluctantly agree and draft the technical solution themselves.
[0] https://www.cnil.fr/en/online-age-verification-balancing-pri...
there's a great game being played out by these users of force against the advocates of desire. everything about the bureaucracies pushing digital ID is unwanted. this isnt about age verification tech, its about illegitimate power for unwanted people who are actuated by forcing their will on others.
we should treat these actions with the open disgust they deserve.
If people care enough, they will build a new internet.
You can't receive the text message without cellular service.
I had to show my passport to get a SIM card.
[1] https://www.gva.ch/Site/Passagers/Shopping/Services/Business...
Equally, I think insisting that there must be no controls to internet access whatsoever is not right either. There is now plenty of evidence that eg. social media are very harmful to teenagers - and frankly, before I noticed, going on FB got me depressed each time I did it at one point. And as a parent, you realise how little control you have over your children's tech access. Case in point - my kids seem to have access to very poorly locked down iPads at school. I complained, but they frankly don't understand.
We all accept kids can't buy alcohol and cigarettes, even if that encroaches on their freedom. But or course flashing an ID when you're over 18 is not very privacy-invading.
Likewise, I think it is much better to discuss better means of effecting these access controls. As some comments here mention, there are e.g. zero knowledge proofs.
I'm sure I'll be told it's all a sham to collect data and it's not about kids. And maybe. But I care about kids not having access to TikTok and Pornhub. So I'd rather make the laws better than moan about how terrible it is to limit access to porn and dopamine shots.