Just this past 12 months both my drivers license and passport have been involved in data breaches and there are no penalties or recompense for the companies at fault, so my patience for providing ID is near zero.
Because self inputed age fields don't work. People just lie to access what they want.
You have to understand that the goal here is not token compliance but actually limiting teenagers exposure to something we now know to be highly addictive and damaging to mental health.
Clearly, the market is not able to self restrict and will exploit every opportunities given to it. It's only logical to take stronger restriction. That's basically bringing regulations on social media on the same track as tobacco and alcohol.
Personally, I think it makes a lot of sense.
Requiring ID is not entirely the right approach here I think. You're forcing people to reveal PII for limited gain, and building systems you can't knock down later.
The EU is working on a zero knowledge proof system for exactly this purpose, but it doesn't quite seem to be ready for prime time yet.
https://ageverification.dev/Technical%20Specification/annexe...
It is in the sense that it entices the industry to come up with a better approach.
Otherwise they'll just sit on their piles of gold saying that it can't be done, as they have been doing for far too long.
We have gone from the industry clamouring that what's being done now is not possible and spending millions of lobbying money against it, to such laws spreading like wildfire.
The next step is the (inevitable) mess up because implementations won't be foolproof, followed by yet more millions of lobbying money being spent to amplify the effect of these mess ups.
Eventually we will come to a new normal. It will take time. But the hope is that the cat is out of the bag and we don't come back to a model that we know hurts children and pretend it's just how it is.
You can expect another law or directive to explain how it has to be done. In the EU, GDPR does apply so you can be sure that poorly storing ID copies for this purpose will not fly.
But, I think it's clearly what ID is for and a legitimate use case for electronic ID. ID is the tool the state uses to give you a way to prove you are who you pretend to be.
I think there's something a bit funny in worrying about giving a copy of your IDs to companies who already know everything about you from your full social graph to your political leanings and interests.
I believe it's because the governments (which are far more powerful than any "corporation", because they have the de facto monopoly of violence: Microsoft can sue you, but the government can just jail you) can then pressure said companies if there's something that is not liked, with all consequences that come from there.
There's no need to bring conspiracy theories in, FTR. The power of the government must be always limited and bound by strong chains, and this goes in the opposite direction.
But the idea that giving your ID changes anything is a fiction. These platforms already require you to provide your phone numbers or an email. They have your location. They already know who you are and they can already be pressured by the government for all that. They don't even need to be pressured actually. They willfully share a ton of information as has been shown time and time again. The ID that you can somehow get plausible deniability regarding the association between your social media profile and identity is a complete myth.
> There's no need to bring conspiracy theories in, FTR. The power of the government must be always limited and bound by strong chains, and this goes in the opposite direction.
I don't think a theorical, overblown and mostly fictitious increase in risks trumps the very real need to limit the armful impact of these actors. It makes for ok-ish lobbying but that's pretty much it.
I'd say it's an expansion of the "attack surface". Not to mention: what happens with those IDs after the fact?
> I don't think a theorical, overblown and mostly fictitious increase in risks
It already happened in my country (an European country) during the pandemic (and not in the first days). So it's not fictitious.
On Android you cannot limit app installation
The tension between freedom and public health is obviously very real. That's why liberal democracies generally rely on public debate and expert opinions to decide what should be controlled and what should be widely available.
Turns out, the expert opinions on social media is not very good and very much in favour of a ban for minors. Also turns out that the public is apparently in support of the ban.
but no parent lets their kid play with either land mines or crack cocaine do they? cos the dangers are real. if the dangers were real, YOU wouldnt be on it would you?
Just like porn, its so dangerous kids just CANNOT be shown it, yet fine for adults obviously. that is not the same for crack cocaine and land mines (ie real dangers)
If this would have been the case, proper parental controls would have been in place everywhere. Instead, parental controls are only used to maximize profits.