Online age verification is the hill to die on
x.com
x.com
I a small server operator and a client of the internet will not participate in any other methods period, full-stop. Make simple logical and rational laws around RTA headers and I will participate. Many sites already voluntarily add this header. It is trivial to implement. Many questions and a lengthy discussion occurred here [1]. I doubt my little private and semi-private sites would be noticed but one day it may come to that at which point it's back into semi-private Tinc open source VPN meshes for my friends and I.
Exactly. If you’re hurting kids to make more money selling porn videos, straight to jail.
I’m glad there are solutions that won’t ruin the Internet. Now the uphill battle to convince our legislators (see: encryption & fundamentally technically ignorant calls for backdoors).
I’m here to die on this hill!
This still isn’t perfect, as it creates an incentive for legislators to criminalize improper age header settings and legislate what is considered kid-appropriate. But it’s still better than this age verification crap.
Letting a company or government decide what's appropriate for what exact specific age is fraught with problems.
This one: https://www.w3.org/PICS/
I added PICS to my forums but it was missing many categories of adult content. I ended up just selecting everything as I could not predict what people may upload which made for a very long header.
YT already does this. I never watch YT signed in, and I often see videos that require you to be logged in as the video is age restricted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Sites_Advocatin...
We pay money online mostly through credit cards. Credit card transactions can be reversed. If children spend money on porn, those payments are likely to be reversed. This is really bad for the ability of the porn sites to continue receiving credit card payments, and continue making money.
An age header is a trivial step that can reduce the odds of the adult site receiving payments that later get reversed. Win, win.
But if someone is willing and able to pay, then the adult industry wants the choice of whether to access content to be up to them. If government tries to regulate them, they'll engage in malicious compliance - do the minimum to not be sued, in a way that they can still reach customers.
For example Utah tried to institute age verification. The porn industry blocked all IP addresses from Utah. Business boomed for VPN companies in Utah. Everyone, including porn companies, knows that a lot of that is for porn. But if you show up with a Nevada IP address, the porn's position is, "You're in Nevada. Utah law doesn't apply." Even if the credit card has a Utah zip code.
If you live in Utah, and you're able to purchase a VPN, the porn companies want your money.
If someone is willing and able to pay, they have a source of money. If they aren't allowed to buy something, that control should be applied at the level where they get the money. If the child is using an adult's credit card, responsibility lies with the adult. If children need to have their own credit cards, the obvious point of control is the credit card itself.
But also, most porn is ad-supported, pirated or free. Directly paid content is a small fraction. So all of this is moot for porn.
So ig stop spreading hallucinatory misinformations?
Source, I have a number of friends who worked on the web side of online porn a long time ago.
As proof, they provided records of cable TV pay-per-view purchases in Utah. The defense won.
UK's OFCOM is currenly issuing legal threats to 4chan, for allegedly serving adult content and not willing to implement age verification. 4chan's lawyer tells them to pound sand[0], on the basis that 4chan is hosted in the US and has zero business presence in the UK, and UK is more than welcome to ban the website on their end through UK ISPs. The saga has been ongoing for a while, and the lawyer has been pretty prolific online talking about the case.
Anyway, following your approach, UK should embargo US over 4chan not willing to implement age verification as required by UK law? I plainly don't see this happening, or even being considered, ever.
The IP addresses are all captured by Cloudflare. It is literally next to impossible to post on 4chan without enabling javascript on Cloudflare or buying a 4chan-pass which leaves a money trail not perfect, nothing is but most mentally unstable people do not think these things through.
Should legislation be added to require the RTA header 4chan could and likely would add it in a heart-beat. They already have some decent security headers in place.
Are you sure you didn't misread what I said? Asking because I am not sure how what you are saying has anything to do with my point.
Why would the US even consider seizing the servers? 4chan isn't breaking any US laws, and US indicated zero interest in pursuing 4chan.
The case I am describing is about 4chan breaking UK laws (by refusing to implement age verification), and UK OFCOM is threatening 4chan with fines and more. 4chan, as you said, is located in the US, so they claim they don't care about what UK wants, and that 4chan won't implement age verification due to 4chan not having such a requirement under their operating jurisdiction (US).
The only thing UK can do is block 4chan within their country, and that's pretty much it.
They break US laws every single day. Every loli in /b/ and /gif/ thread violate several laws and yes people do debate this endlessly which I will not, discuss that with lawyers that deal with CSAM. On that alone they could easily seize all the servers if they wanted to but that will never happen because like I said it's an goldmine for people self reporting they are going to shoot up a place or show intent for a myriad of other crimes. The feds would never throw away such an easy mode treasure trove nor would I expect them to. The site started glowing hard in 2008 and glowed even harder after 2012. I even showed people how to extract IP addresses using the hashes in the thread and post ID prior to their moving to Cloudflare and the users still went into full cope.
All of this aside it would be trivial to add the RTA header to the entire site. They could add it in the Cloudflare interface in a few seconds. It would cost them nothing. Only groomers would have their jimmies rustled even despite most of the groomers having moved to Roblox.
This isn't hypothetical, by the way. There are adults catfishing kids into producing CSAM [0], kidnapping and assaulting minors [1], [2], and in the most extreme case, there's a borderline cult of crazy young adults who do terrorize people for fun [3].
It is a constant game of whackamole by moderators/admins to keep this behavior out of online spaces where kids hang out.
I recognize that this is a "think of the children" argument, but indeed that's the point. The anonymous web was created without thinking about the children, just like how all social media was created without thinking about how it could be used to harm people. Age verification is the smallest step towards mitigating that harm.
Now I disagree very strongly with the laws proposed (and indeed, I've been writing/calling/talking with state reps about this locally, because I don't want my state's bill passed). But the technical challenge needs to address the real problems that legislators are trying to go after.
[0] https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdnc/pr/discord-user-who-catfis...
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kidnapping-roblox-rcna2...
[2] https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/nebraska-man-charged-wit...
[3] https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/boston/news/ope...
Point being, there will be a myriad of exceptions. I am not looking to address the exceptions. Those can be a game of whack-a-mole as they are today. I am proposing something that would prevent the vast majority of children from being exposed to the trash we today call social media and of course also porn sites.
> It is up to businesses to detect and block such things.
Which is exactly why age verification legislation is hitting the books. No one (serious) cares about whether kids can download porn and R rated movies. Parental controls already exist if the threat model is preventing access to specific content that is able to report itself as _being_ that content.
Your proposal also doesn't address the other domain that these legislators are targeting, which is addictive content. They define specifically what classifies as an addictive stream and put the onus on service providers to assert that they're not delivering addictive streams of media to kids. An HTTP header isn't enough, because it's not about the content being shown to kids but the design patterns of how it's accessed.
Essentially: age verification isn't about porn. 18+ content stirs the pot a bit with the evangelical crowd but it's really not what people are worried about when it comes to controlling digital media access with age gates.
That sounds simple to me. If a type of content is addictive then require the RTA header.
- Adult content, or possible adult content.
- User contributed or generated content (this covers most of social media)
- Site psychological profiles that are deemed addictive (TikTok and their ilk)
Overall we are describing things that are harmful to the development of the minds of small children. If adults wish to avoid such content they can create a child account on their device for themselves to be excluded from this behavior as well. I use a child account in a couple of popular video games to avoid most of the trash talking and spam. I'm not hiding my age as the games have my debit card information but rather I opt-in to parental controls.
Today devices do not default to accounts being child accounts. Some day this may change and may require an initial administrator password or something to that affect but this can evolve over time.
Not being able to detect all children doesn't mean that being able to detect 80% of them is somehow less disturbing.
In the case of RTA the only signalling taking place is a server header being transmitted to the client. The client could be anyone at any age. Nothing to explicitly leak or disclose. Server operators can guess all they desire as some do using AI based on user behavior of which they sometimes get wrong.
That would also amount to compelled speech.
I disagree. The legal requirement to apply a warning label is a well known, understood and accepted process that is applied to a myriad of hazards to children and adults. As just one example businesses in some states, most notably California are compelled to add warning labels to foods and other products that could cause cancer.
Fine, cigarettes must be labelled as being a risk of causing cancer. The punishment for failing to do this is both civil and federal penalties including massive fines and federal prison time.
On other hand servers might choose to lie. After all that is their free speech right.
So maybe you need some third party vetting list. Ofc, that one should be fully liable for any damages misclassification can cause... But someone would step up.
[1] - https://www.shodan.io/search?query=RTA-5042-1996-1400-1577-R... [THESE ARE ADULT SITES, NSFW]
Point being, put the controls entirely into the hands of the device owner. Options can be to default to:
- Block everything by default unless header states otherwise.
- Block only sites that state they are adult.
- Do nothing. Obey the operator. (Controls disabled on child accounts or make them an adult or otherwise unrestricted account on the device).
I think the options are just limited to our imagination.
This is the problem. What is an "adult" web site? Websites that show porn? Websites that show gore? Websites that show violence? Websites that show non-porn naked people? Websites that have curse words? Websites that promote cults and alternate religions?
Why is it the site's responsibility to "state" that they are adult, given whatever parameters they dream up? Why is it the government's responsibility to say "This is adult content, but that isn't adult content?" Shouldn't the parent get to decide which categories of content count as "adult"?
At minimum, it would be a reasonable legislation topic to at minimum mandate that websites publishing obviously “Harmful to minors” content tag it as such[1]. And also it would be ideal to create some kind of campaign to tag the first category as safe (honestly Apple and Google ought to be working together on that one). If you in good faith operate a site in the controversial category, that would be no different than selling books on sex ed in a Barnes & Noble - protected.
Parents could then choose, with simple device controls:
- Allow only “tagged safe” pages (parents with very young kids, or who have a hard time monitoring use)
- Allow safe + no-tag (open-minded parents who choose to err on the side of allow, and monitor the controversial stuff themselves)
- Allow all (parents who want to be solely responsible to regulate it)
I find it frustrating that people are talking like we have to either have a completely “no rules” Internet where obviously any kindergartener is going to stumble upon super disgusting stuff, or this gross surveillance state Internet, where people have to show ID to use any site. Neither of those are how things were before the Internet and it doesn’t have to be how things are now.
[1] you might ask, what do we do when say, a Russian porn site doesn’t want to comply with this tagging. In my opinion, it seems reasonable that someone could put obviously bad faith sites like that into a block list database. In a place like the UK I would expect that to be a government regulator, but there’s no reason why that couldn’t just be something private companies do in the US. As a parent, I would pay two bucks a month to subscribe to a service like that if it were integrated into the operating systems my kids use.
Websites that promote any religions. No way should under-18s be exposed to that.
I don't agree with showing actual children porn, but I also totally expect teenagers to find some way to get access to it in the age of the Internet.
Part of the challenge with this is cultural. Different places in the world think about sex, sexuality, and even the concept of what is a child differently. In the US, showing a woman's bare breasts to a person under 18 is generally considered wrong, and in many cases is illegal. In most of Europe it wouldn't even raise an eyebrow, because bare breasts are on television, sometimes in commercials even.
Set aside for a moment the question of age verification and age limits, we cannot even agree in any sort of universal sense what even qualifies as porn or adult content, and at what age someone should be able to see it. There's a difference between a 7 year old and a 17 year old seeing the same type of content, and there's also a difference between a photographic nude and a video of people engaged in coitus.
The story is basically the same for everything else you listed.
These age verification laws in many ways are trying to use the most heavy-handed mechanism possible to enforce American cultural norms on the entire planet. That's clearly wrong to do. What the GP suggested using RTA headers though puts the control into the parent's hands, which is as it should be.
> These age verification laws in many ways are trying to use the most heavy-handed mechanism possible to enforce American cultural norms on the entire planet. That's clearly wrong to do.
Yes there's a chance our rules spill over there naturally, and I don't consider that wrong either.
Though, one area I am still struggling to grasp is the harm that governments are trying to mitigate. If a child were to see inappropriate material, then what harm can truly arise? Also, why do governments need to enact such laws when the onus of protecting children should be on their parents?
I am not trying to start any kind of flame war, but I really cannot see any other basis for all this prohibition that is not somehow traceable back to Western religious beliefs and the societies born and molded from such beliefs.
I think it’s important, as tough as it can be to identify where exactly the line is, distinguish the concept of a 16-year-old cranking his hog to some Internet porn (which yes, probably pretty harmless and inevitable), with little kids being exposed to explicit types of content. And little kids are curious, so just the fact that they make an attempt to find the content doesn’t mean they’re ready for it.
As to whether I believe in cultural relativism depends on the level of abstraction we are discussing. I believe there is no way to logically prove that something is morally right or wrong in a similar manner to how a mathematical concept can be proven from pure logic alone. But this fact does not often influence my beliefs in terms of morality in the context of social contracts, diplomacy, legal frameworks, etc.. To draw a parallel, I do not believe in complete free will, but I live my life as though it does exist (I believe in more of a 'sandbox' like an RPG video game with clear constraints and limitations).
> many of us believe that it’s harmful to the normal development of children to be exposed to certain types of content.
Are these beliefs supported by evidence or are they merely conjecture? Do not get me wrong, I am not saying I completely disagree. A child exposed to various types of abuse and neglect can have detrimental effects to his or her development, and there is plenty of evidence to support a statistical relationship.
> A five-year-old who sees explicit sexual acts performed on a screen is going to be curious about it and be interested in trying it.
I believe that is quite presumptuous. By that logic, if a child is exposed to comedic content, will that child become funnier? Such conclusions remind me of the debate as to whether violent video games and other media increase aggression and acts of violence in children. The data clearly does not support this conclusion. Now, I would not say there never has been/will be a case of a child trying to replicate a sexual act due to exposure -- much like violent content -- but outliers do not define the norm.
> He or she will likely have no sense of what would be problematic (e.g. trying to initiate such an act with a peer or an adult. Consider how they probably don’t understand ideas of consent).
Understanding consent is irrelevant. Children legally and morally (as determined by my culture) cannot consent to any sexual activity under any circumstances. Consent is de facto impossible. This is a social contract that I also strongly agree with.
> It’s why it’s generally considered grooming for people to exhibit that type of thing to children.
I was under the impression the intention behind the action was more important than the action itself. There is a difference in intentions between a child stumbling upon an adult getting undressed compared to an adult undressing and exposing themselves in front of a child. One action is happenstance and the other is predatory and abusive. It's why family pictures that might have a naked baby in a bathtub is not often considered CSAM.
> Children who have been groomed frequently abuse other children (including by force), and can be taken advantage of by pedophile adults.
I believe this myth is perpetuated too often. The vast majority adults that of sexually abuse children have no history of childhood sexual abuse. Certainly, some do perpetuate the abuse, but it's not as common as some might think. It is just another attempt for abusers to garner sympathy and decrease their punishment. It's very similar to the myth that public urination can result in a registered sex offender. To my knowledge, there are no instances of this type of case in the United States. However, it is a clever little lie to tell comfort folks into living next to a registered sex offender convict of a more heinous crime.
As for children-on-children abuse, I am not certain your claim holds up, but I admit I am less knowledgeable in this area.
Fundamentally, the laws around requiring ID to view adult content do not really prevent any of the harm we are discussing. Sure, I child might not accidentally stumble upon explicit content on Pornhub. However, the laws do not stop Chester Child Molester from sending their dick pics to a kid on Discord or Roblox or whatever.
Why is it the if a child stumbles upon a parent's firearm and hurts themselves or another, the parent can be held liable in both civil and criminal court. However, if a child stumbles upon sexually explicit content via a parent's computer, the onus is placed upon everyone but the parent(s)? If the harm of exposure of sexual material to youth is so damaging, then should parents not also be held to such civil and criminal punishments?
Yes, of course they will. But you do make a good point that 'playing CoD leading to kids wanting to shoot people with real guns' isn't proven, but most parents I know still do not want their kindergarteners playing realistic violent games. As a parent, we are mainly looking for the ability to choose to introduce more adult themes like violence only when we can tell that the child's maturity level is sufficient to understand the morality involved. Shooting Nazis in a video game is fun, but they should first understand why we can't shoot that asshole who makes fun of them at school, or that hardass math teacher, or their annoying little brother.
> Understanding consent is irrelevant. Children legally and morally (as determined by my culture) cannot consent to any sexual activity
We agree there, but set aside this legal definition to understand my point better. If two 12-year-olds fool around with each other, willingly, I'm not that shocked and I don't think it's likely going to cause any real harm in most cases. On the other hand, if a kid (whether 5 or 8 or 12 or 14) forces another child into an act, that's worse. And the less mature, the less likely they understand the severity of that act and its impact on the victim. An immature brain might think that forcing themselves on a cousin or something is no more severe of an offense than borrowing their pokemon cards without asking.
> If the harm of exposure of sexual material to youth is so damaging, then should parents not also be held to such civil and criminal punishments?
As far as I know, in my country, if a kid says at school "My daddy showed me this cool website called PornHub" that school is 100% calling 'Child Protective Services' and the parents will 100% be investigated on suspicion of grooming and abuse because like I said, it's illegal to show such materials to children in most or all states.
Is the header a json encoded map from country code to age rating?
Think of the (current) header as meaning "we would have blocked you if we saw you were under 18" or whatever equivalent and it should make sense.
Surely you mean at least teenagers, and not literally children, right? Consider the prevalence of violence, racial stereotyping, and escalation of fetishism into degeneracy that clearly exists within this medium; what's the line that these parents draw? Are they making sure it's only something vanilla? Or is there no line whatsoever?
Or do you also think we should forbid hardcore pornography also for adults?
this is 1,000,000% not accurate. there are things that vast majority of people support that are never going to happen (e.g. universal background check for gun purchases) and there are things that ruling party easily gets through that are wildly unpopular.
So ideally you want a standardized header that can be used to self classify content into any number of arbitrary and potentially overlapping categories. The presence of that header should then be legally mandated with specific categories required to be marked as either present or absent.
So for example HN might be "user generated T, social media T, porn F" or similar with operators being free to include arbitrary additional categories (but we know from experience that most of them won't).
While this would be required by law, I imagine browser vendors might also drop support to load sites that don't send the header in order to coerce global compliance.
For anyone curious about the value, the numbering on the value is just a fixed number everybody decided to use for some reason that isn't clear to me.
I would deeply prefer to do it this way, but my goodness the RTA org needs a serious brush up of their web site and information on how to use this.
Some parental control applications will look for it but it is not yet legislated to be mandatory on a majority of user-agents.
All I am suggesting is we legislate the header to be added to URL's that may contain material not appropriate for small children and mandate the majority of user-agents the ones that are default installed on tablets and operating systems look for said header to trigger optional parental controls. Child accounts created by parents on the device should not be able to install alternate user-agents or bypass the controls (at least not easily). Parents should be guided through this on device setup.
Indeed their site is old and rarely touched. The ideas and concepts have not changed. It really could just be a static text site formatted in ways that law makers are used to or someone could modernize it.
They have only themselves to blame. They had years to fix the problem of inappropriate content being delivered to kids and their response was sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "blah blah blah parenting blah blah blah"
And it really should be the opposite. Assume content is not kid-safe by default, and allow sites to declare if they have some other rating.
What's more likely a global conspiracy to get age verification passed to allow these unnamed groups to identify everyone for some unknown purpose or politicians just not understanding tech?
The way people try to pretend that there can't be any organic desire for these proposals is so bizarre and is a major cause for all these proposed solutions being so technically dubious. Refusal to recognize the problem means you won't be part of solving the problem.
Citizens that want these laws are unthinking drones who don't want to raise their children, and instead want legislators to do it for them.
Politicians that want these laws are the people who, ideally, want to track your every move online for a multitude of reasons, not least of which are censoring speech and controlling narratives.
Even if everything you said was true and there was a global conspiracy among the politicians, the tech crowd consistently denies and demeans these organic desires. We could cut the legs out from under these politicians if we listened to these people's concerns, considered actual solutions like OP did at the top of this thread, and turned these people into allies against those politicians. But instead we deny the actual desire to protect children and accuse them of either having ulterior motives or being sheep, turning them into permanent enemies thereby empowering those (hypothetically) conspiratorial politicians.
But there is a global conspiracy, a synchronised effort among western leaders to implement near identical solutions to this engineered "problem", the responsibility remains squarely on the shoulders of parents, I say this as a parent.
Thank you for proving my point by doing the exact thing I said tech people do. Do you think that if you demean and deride enough people, the problem will go away?
>the problem will go away?
...
It's more worrying to me that you think you can fix us.
I mean I cannot believe I have to post these, but here we go:
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/13/california-advances...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/reddit-user-uncovers-beh...
But more importantly even if that connection is true, your argument relies on the current proposals of age verification being the only way to satisfy the organic desire for protecting kids from the unfettered internet. OP gave an example that could be a compromise position that addresses the need and isn't authoritarian. Why can't you support that effort?
The way it stands now. this issue is being used by people in power to advanced an authoritarian agenda. Its really clear to see, if you only have the will to look.
Which brings us right back to what I said here[1]. We don't have to agree on the motivations behind this push. Even if you believe this is all an authoritarian conspiracy, that conspiracy could be undermined by proposals like OP's, but instead people make enemies out of these potential allies which just further empowers the people who you consider to be authoritarians. It's a failure of basic political coalition building.
Taking away freedoms, for any reason, is not the answer. They make us less secure [0] and promote bad actors to make things worse.
[0]: https://news.clemson.edu/the-safer-you-feel-the-less-safely-...
But you're ignoring my point that your dialog is actively counterproductive when you don't engage with the root of the problem.
Nowhere in here did I advocate for "taking away freedoms" or for the age verification policies as discussed in this article. The only aspect of this issue that I have argued is that there is a real organic demand from people who want help in preventing children from having unfettered access to the internet.
The reason you see me as "misguided" is because you are refusing to actually listen to what I'm saying. And then you magnify the divide with your rhetoric implying I'm out to take away your freedom. Maybe you don't look at me as an enemy, but your rhetoric and behavior is actively repellent when it could instead be welcoming as you claim to sympathetic to the only issue I have actually advocated for here.
The root of the problem is child safety on the internet.
>I dont think the problem is solved by id verification. This is the position I have been arguing all along
I have advocated for child safety, but nowhere in any of these comments have I advocated for id verification. If you have been "arguing all along" against id verification, then you must be equating all childhood internet safety advocates with those advocating for id verification.
>Im not seeing how my position is getting in the way of what you are talking about.
The equating of childhood safety on the internet with id verification is getting in the way. There exists compromises like the one OP suggested in the top comment in this thread that satisfy both my desire for childhood safety and your desire to prevent id verification. But instead of seeking that path of coalition building and compromise, you're actively repelling childhood safety advocates by misrepresenting their opinions and then calling them "misguided". You're making it clear that you won't be my ally when it comes to protecting kids on the internet because you're so worried about a policy for which I'm not advocating.
We've been running essentially a social experiment on our kids for the past two decades and it has not gone well. Social media has had a toxic impact on kids. CSAM and child abuse are rampant, and most "privacy services" like disposable email and VPNs are the primary source. These are facts, whether you like them or not. There are, in fact, kids dying, school shootings, grooming, etc. which are all the direct result of our failure to regulate social media companies. Section 230 being the primary problem.
OS-level age verification is likely the best route, as private information can remain on a device in your control, and a browser then just needs to attest to websites whether or not the user should be allowed access, without conveying more detail. Obviously anyone with a Linux box will have ways around it, anything based in your own device will be exploitable in some way, but generally effective for the average child.
[Citation Needed] As I understand it, the debate on whether social media is responsible for actual harms in kids is still open and ongoing. Social media has been found to do both harm and good for kids, and for some kids the good outweighs the harms [0]. Scientists are hoping to get some verification from the actual social experiments that we're conducting in the UK and Australia on this.
Mandating OS-level age verification effectively means not allowing kids access to OSS platforms, a step way too far in my opinion. For instance, we would have to outlaw Steam Decks for kids.
[0] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12165459/ "Social media and technological advancements’ impact on adolescent mental health is complex. It can be both a risk factor and a valuable support system. Excessive and problematic use has been linked to increased rates of MDD, anxiety, and mood dysregulation, while also exacerbating symptoms of ADHD, bipolar disorder, and BDD. Simultaneously, digital platforms provide opportunities for social connection, peer support, and mental health management, particularly for individuals with ASD and those seeking online mental health communities. The challenge is finding a balance. Although social media offers benefits, it also poses risks like addiction, negative social comparison, cyberbullying, and impulsive online behaviors"
This is entirely false scare tactic nonsense, and you really need to look at where you sourced that idea and no longer use them as a reference point. There isn't even a concept of a method of doing this that would make that true, and certainly not in any of the implementations being considered in the US. The federal bill is called the Parents Decide Act, if it gives you some idea where the goal in decisionmaking is supposed to be.
We have not just woefully bad parental controls, but in the name of privacy, modern platforms make it exceptionally hard to implement parental controls. What is being pushed here is largely a mandate that a system for parents to control what their kids can reach needs to exist and Internet companies need to support it.
(Steam is, FWIW, probably one of the best actors in this regard already, Steam Family is incredibly nuanced in the features and tools it gives parents. I have a lot of gripes about Steam but this is not a place they will have difficulty complying with the law. Heck, Steam is better at parental controls than Nintendo and Disney).
The Parents Decide Act (PDA) goes considerably farther than superficially similar sounding laws like California's.
The California law requires that an OS allow the parent or guarding to associate an age or birthdate with the account when setting up a child's account on a device that will primarily be used for the child. It does not require any verification of the age information that the parent provides.
The PDA requires that the birthdate be provided for anyone who has an account on the device, and leaves much of the details up to the Federal Trade Commission to work out in the first 180 days after is passed. The wording of the list of things the Commission is to do suggests that the OS is supposed to actually verify age information, rather than just accept whatever a parent enters when setting up the child's device and account, and that it also has to verify that it will require the birthdate of the parent and verify that.
the conclusion from that discussion was that kids should not be allowed Steam Decks because that would provide them a way of getting around age certification.
Indeed. For example, the strongest evidence for harm shows that negative mental health is correlated with increasing social media use, but it's an important question of whether using social media more causes mental health problems, or mental health problems mean more social media use (or both, which would suggest a spiraling effect is important to look out for and prevent).
The best route is better parental controls, that are not enabled by default. Locking down the OS like ransomware until the user submits to age verification is the wrong approach, and what Apple did in the UK needs to be highly illegal.
So I'm not necessarily arguing for age controls here, but purely on a technical level what do you think of schemes like Verifiable Credentials, which delegate verification to third parties that have already established your identity?
In theory you can set up a system that works like this:
1. User goes to restricted site and sets up an account
2. Site forwards them on to a verification service with a request "IsOver18?"
3. User selects their bank from a dropdown on the broker site
4. Broker forwards them to the bank, with a request "IsOver18?"
5. User logs in and selects "Sure, prove I am over 18 to this request"
6. Bank sends a signed response to the broker "Yep"
7. Broker verifies and sends its own signed response to the site "Yep"
8. The site tags the account as "Over 18 Status verified"
In this situation, the restricted site doesn't get anything other than a boolean answer from the broker. The broker can link a request to a given bank but doesn't get anything that gives away your identity. The bank knows your identity and that it has approved a request, but not necessarily where the request came from.
Also your solution requires a bank account, not something everyone has. Many do, but not all. Also the bank may not know "which" site you are visiting, but it does now know you are visiting sites which require age verification and how often.
How? What personal data?
The broker doesn't get anything other than "Site X wants to verify over 18, the user selected forward to Bank Y" and "Bank Y responds with TRUE"
> Also your solution requires a bank account, not something everyone has
True. Banks are only one example of an already trusted identity provider in this situation. But I get that there are gaps.
> Also the bank may not know "which" site you are visiting, but it does now know you are visiting sites which require age verification and how often.
Verification need only happen once per site, when setting up an account. This does introduce the possibility of a secondary market for approved accounts though, sure.
But restricted-site.com doesn't trust everyoneisover18.com's key, it only trusts realbroker.com's key, so the response isn't accepted. If it is found to trust fake brokers like that it gets in trouble with the law.
Doesn't work. The response won't be signed by real-broker.com.
The permission request/response itself goes direct from the server at restricted-site.com to the server at real-broker.com over TLS, so you can't MITM it, it's not controlled by the client and you won't be able to just pass out a cached response.
Your malicious client plugin could potentially forward the client session details to you, so you could operate the broker page, then log in to your bank's portal and approve that request, but I don't think that's going to scale very well and I imagine your bank is likely going to rate limit you.
But sure, you could subvert it on a small scale, just as you can borrow someone else's driving license to register in 'normal' systems already. You could also register an account, validate it and then sell the login details, regardless of what proof of age scheme you use.
The point is the scheme is no worse at validation than asking for ID and it protects user privacy by keeping all ID details away from individual websites, which is the more important part IMHO.
My cellphone provider will be pleased be paid to deliver all those 2FA text messages. Who's sending them? How are they getting paid? Maybe I'm actually my own phone company, so I get paid for delivering them to myself.
Your bank, like they have 2FA for every other access to your account. 2FA also doesn't need to be via SMS, and even when it is that's dirt cheap. Rate limits can be a couple of approvals per hour with daily limits of a small handful. Or a leaky-bucket style algortihm where you can do a few at a time, but you only get one more per hour. Whatever way it's done it precludes your large-scale automation attempt.
I tire of this now. We've entirely wandered off from "Here's a way to prove age without the privacy implications, that works just as well as handing over scans of ID"
So if you have an actual point, please make it.
We are pre-supposing for the sake of this thread that proving you are over 18 is desirable, but that giving your ID to unknown third parties is not.
That being the case, having a rate-limit on site approvals would appear to be a relatively reasonable tradeoff to stop the system being exploited for gain by third parties like the commenter upthread.
If you don't want any of that in the first place, cool, but I'm not making an argument for it here, just saying that a system that meets these two requirements is possible.
The entire impetus for these bills is for Facebook (the sponsor of these bills) to escape liability for how they're currently harming kids. Facebook's only goal here is to be receiving headers that say the user is over 18, so they can continue business as usual under the assertion that any users must be adults.
That being said, the antiregulatory wonks are not all working for Facebook, and some are indeed manifestly just always opposed to any regulation at all no matter what harm is occurring.
Bear in mind the alternative: Things like Discord collecting personal data to do verification at the website level. A push for a simple "user is over 18" header is incredibly preferable from a privacy standpoint and parents being able to control and monitor it themselves.
FWIW I personally would be supportive of legislation where the data flow went the proper way of server->client, for the user-agent to decide. Consider: Any website over a certain size must publish an appropriate set of well known tags asserting whether its content is suitable for kids of certain ages, has social aspects, the type of content, etc. Any device preloaded with an operating system over a certain marketshare must include parental control software that uses tags, as an option in the set up flow. The parental control software "fails closed" and doesn't display websites without tags. The long tails of the open web, bespoke devices, new OSes, etc remain completely unaffected.
Note that this design does the exact opposite of giving parents control to protect their own children - rather it puts the ultimate decision making ability into the hands of corporate attorneys! For example, we can easily imagine a "Facebook4Kidz" site that does the bare legal minimum to avoid liability for addicting kids to dopamine drips, and no more. Client side software based around RTA headers would allow parents to choose to filter things like that out, whereas when the server is making the decision its anything goes as long as the corporate attorneys have given it the green light.
But also, does the California law actually prohibit Faceboot from locking your account and requesting "extra documentation" including government IDs and whatnot? That would be news in its own right.
The reason that mainstream politicians are pushing is because the public wants something done to protect their kids.
Are there likely to be bad actors pushing for it for nefarious reasons as well? Sure. Are the 'solutions' inadequate and often tech- and privacy-illiterate? Absolutely. Is the entire impulse to demand that government 'fix' this issue wrong? Maybe.
But the idea that this is all a smoke-screen from top to bottom needs to die. Not just because it's wrong, but because it's also unhelpful. If you wade into the debate saying "It's all a lie, this was never about the kids!" you're easily dismissed as a nut and an absolutist who doesn't appreciate that real people want their real kids to be protected.
If school demands the kids have a variety of devices to do their work, and they have no idea how to lock those down to exclude (for example) social media services that we know have been designed to be as addictive as possible, can you not see why they might want someone to intervene?
(edit: Beyond that there are also tons of bad reasons, I'm not going to try and justify them. There are a lot of bad parents and just in general people who are not firing on all cylinders out there. And many of them absolutely love a government regulation to be brought in for just about anything.
We can and should argue with these people and point out why they're wrong. But saying it's "nothing to do with actually stopping kids seeing the content" fails here too.)
But coming at it from the angle that "It was never about protecting kids!" is itself incorrect and unhelpful to the debate.
If you want to reject the nefarious actors you have to separate them from the other goals that are reasonable and sorely needed. If you treat it as a whole package, you'll fail because those other goals are too important not to try to achieve, and the package is going to get passed. If you separate them, we can advocate for the pretty sensible California-style law where it's a flag on your user account that root can change, instead of the utterly insane New-York-style law where you have to scan your face every time you open your phone.
For private schools, the parents are more involved in the first place, but I would expect them to also have guidance for parents to help the less tech savvy among them.
Yet when it comes to internet/social media technology, it's suddenly a parenting failure if they don't pre-vet every platform and website and device before allowing their kids to use it.
As a society, we collectively protect kids from stuff they aren't ready to handle. We don't let them gamble, or buy alcohol, cigarettes, or porn. For the most part, everyone buys in to this and parents can pretty much count on it. Are there exceptions, sure but they create scandals and consequences when they are discovered.
But social media and content platforms didn't feel that they had any social obligations. They did not honor this societal convention to keep inappropriate content away from kids. And the top people at these companies actually don't let their own kids use the platforms, they know how harmful they are and they know about all the addictive hooks and dark patterns of engagement that are baked into them.
The entire point of this scheme is mass surveillance and shifting responsibility away from big tech companies. It has nothing at all to do with "protecting" kids. Preventing kids from accessing adult material is not even remotely a goal, it is a pretext. Just like every other "think of the children" argument.
I actually think it was giant wads of cash.
They can feed you an conspiracy and you'll eat it up because you were primed to have a cognitive bias, and will ignore the actual, real-world harms going on.
Rupert loves people like you
And on what date does that change?
I didn't understand your second question.
You will however follow the law if it mandates you to do else.
Which is we "age verification" should be stopped before it's too late.
There are issues today with this approach such as lacking granular information for sites that have many kinds of context, but if you stop investing in the central control infra and invest in this instead that could be remedied.
the goal is eradicating anonymous publishing. the goal is making strong government ID mandatory to use the internet.
any privacy preserving age gating system is useless toward that goal, so it is irrelevant.
Anyway, yes, that would just solve the problem and not destroy anything. What is the reason why nobody is talking about it.
The future of your family and your legacy is up to you, not the government. We don't need age verification to restrict the social darwinism of raising children.
I would rather have parenting licenses than online age verification
Letting the govt dictate what is age restricted is an easy way for the govt to control speech and narrative. For example, children's books that feature LGBT characters are being reclassified as adult [1], thus requiring additional verification. If I do/don't want my kids to read LGBT books, it's my decision. The govt should not dictate that. What else will the govt reclassify? Anything involving people of color?
I can’t tell if this is a joke, is this a joke?
I am in fact a terrible parent. I rarely try to get better, and when I do I make it worse.
Maybe we need to turn it on its head, point out that if we want legislation to help out with this, we could choose legislation that gives power to parents. Age verification laws put the power directly into the law itself, they're a blanket solution that gives all the power to legislators and that prevents parents from making decisions about what's appropriate for their kids and what isn't.
If the market isn't delivering the level of parental controls people want, then sure, maybe legislation is needed. But it should be legislation that improves parental such that parents can make decisions about what's appropriate for their children.
It's called "software." It already just exists. It's sold for the purposes of locking devices down so they're safer for children to use.
> point out that if we want legislation to help out with this
Make this software tax deductible. The end.
The government does raise children. It's called the public school system.
It was difficult enough back 20 years ago when you have TV advertising that just shot gun out the messaging in the hope of landing a target, now it is algorithmically targeted. Even if you can keep this stuff under control in the home, outside of the home these influences can still bleed in from others.
But having the government use mandatory age restrictions, that is a wild over correction. They shouldn't be parenting kids in the same way corporations shouldn't be doing it either.
Alas we are walking into the wild contradictions of libertarian thinking and authoritarianism. Liberal companies have no checks and balances, authoritarian governments take peoples freedoms in the name of "safety".
The deeper questing is to all of these technologies that have have imbalanced positive and negative outcomes. If you cannot balance it, you either have the worst outcomes happen or you end up with an authoritarian reflex to control the technology and those that use it. Rarely do we take the middle path, that being government control of the businesses.
That is seen as touching the political third rail, but that instinct is now by design.
You can see the thinking that goes, the best solution was to never invent it to begin with, but that is just wishful stuff that doesn't really contribute.
I have no solutions and barely any responses other than, this is some predicament we find ourselves in.
The first 6 weeks: 90% of average weekly earnings
The remaining 33 weeks: £187.18 or 90% of average weekly earnings (whichever is lower)
So not much after the first 6 weeks
Some data for non-statuary maternity pay https://www.incomesdataresearch.co.uk/resources/insights/mat...
Later
From the people I know, the financial pressure seems to build around 6 months as their employer's maternity pay is fading into the distance, but they struggle on a bit longer.
I admit there may be different definitions of "as soon as possible" between the USA and other countries. Most people here would love to be able to afford at least 1 year if not more.
Just because the the US provides zero paid leave by law doesn't mean women don't take maternity leave - it's often self funded of course. How about you look into that and compare, instead of trying to ask specific questions to arrive at a gotcha
And to add salt to the wound, it's the people on the positive side of the economic bell curve that have strong familial support networks where grandparents and uncles and aunts can contribute to childrearing, while those on the other side of the curve can't always rely on having those support networks. A generalisation of course, but a relevant one.
Bad argument, bad outcomes. These are exactly the "bad parents" I was referring to in my original comment. The government HAS no responsibility in raising your child, but they would LOVE to change that. It's absolutely imperative for the human race that that does not happen.
Blaming the parents for their failures is not going to help the kids.
That being said the current approach really has nothing to do with protecting kids and everything with tracking us.
it seems to me the left already opened this can of worms.
If one or both of your parents shut down your emotions all throughout your childhood, you have will likely have far bigger issues than anything an identity check can solve.
I went on vacation to Tennessee and tried to log in and it said I needed to verify with their identity verification provider. Of course I refused.
Now I am home in a different state and still cannot log in. I contacted support and because I was detected in TN once irrespective of my name and address and credit card info in their system they refuse to let me back in.
Support said they canceled my subscriptions for me because you can't even access that part of your account.
It's ridiculous this is where things have landed. And it's not even stopping porn in the slightest it's just making it harder for honest people to pay for what they like. And so the government can track us more easily. Wish I could do something other than vote with my wallet.
I have a female friend who creates that kind of content. Her take is that this is very much intentional. There is a general crackdown on porn in the US. They're not just trying to make it difficult for the clients, but also difficult for people to make this kind of content, distribute it and get paid for it.
Of course none of this makes sense. There are VPNs and there is bittorrent. All of this is just making this kind of stuff more underground. In China porn is fully illegal, but people still share bootleg porn on thumb drives.
I moved to asia about 1.5 years ago. But b/c my credit card's billing address is still in the state of WA, Apple and other subscriptions think they should still charge me a sales tax. To remove the sales tax, I have to cancel the subscription and re-create it (losing my grandfather'd rates).
It's insane.
Mandatory age surveillance everywhere is only going to result in massive, normalized ID fraud. You thought fake and stolen IDs were a problem before? You haven't seen anything yet.
And half of it will be from adults trying to avoid privacy invasion.
A tech company doing scans for validation could actually connect to a state database to verify the ID is legit and is not already being used for a different account. It would then be saved. I don't think real world vs tech world usage of fake IDs are the same at all.
> Sophisticated places might have a scanner that does what ever validation it does, but again, it's just another cursory check of the photo.
Many/most bars do scan IDs now. Ostensibly it's to verify that it's real, but they do use those systems to keep a log of everyone who enters.
Functioning as a bar where people come in, drink and eat - generally not checking ID's at the door.
Functioning as a night club, generally checking ID's at the door. Almost no places I've been to scan ID's. I'm also middle aged and not going to night clubs hardly ever. Pretty much just a couple concerts a year in the big city. Those venues scan ID's.
They just want a plausible defence should it ever end up in court.
That's bad enough if you're a U.S. citizen. If you're a non-U.S. citizen, now you're in the situation where all these U.S. social media sites are collecting personal information from you and reselling it, but you have no legal protection unless your government risks tariffs and invasion threats to pass legislation against it, which the U.S. will probably ignore anyways.
This might just be the impetus that finally drives enough users to non-U.S. social media platforms to get the snowball rolling downhill.
I guess, but like, who? During the time TikTok was not available on an app store (even though the service wasn't stopped), people were trying some of the other Chinese apps, and they were not very compelling as the exodus never happened.
If I'm being honest though, I don't think privacy concerns will be what does it. The TikTok generation doesn't give a fig about privacy. You can build a panopticon around them and they won't even notice.
That's the point, and it's a big part of why opposing online age verification is a hill to die on.
Not necessarily true. There's a local stripclub that scans and saves the scan to fight chargebacks and the like. It is definitely logging stuff. They've told me that they were going through the logs once and the bartender ended up googling my fullname. We're cool and I didn't care, but this what you said is not a blanket true statement. I trust a physical business that I can visit far more than some ID verification company that is going to get hacked at some point.
Some of the bars in the party areas of my college town have a digital scanner they hold the ID up against, and they even had a screen showing a scrolling Wall of Shame of fake IDs. And they had this like 20 years ago. So I would not necessarily agree with you here
You don't use it when just browsing randomly on the internet. You don't use it to buy games on steam. Your computer isn't forced to store it because a law arbitrarily says so.
> The technical solution for an EU age verification app is privacy-preserving, open source and user-friendly.
> First, the user downloads the app onto their phone and sets it up by certifying their age. This can be done with a biometric passport/ID card, a national eID (e.g. national ID Card or other electronic identification mean), a pre-installed third-party app (e.g. a banking app), or in person (e.g. at the post office). Only the information confirming that the user is over the age will be saved in the app. No name, no birthday, or any other data is saved.
> After completing this step, the communication between the app and the provider certifying the user’s age (e.g. eID, third-party app) ends. No further data is exchanged.
> The app is then ready to be used online. When an online platform asks to verify the user’s age, the user can use the app to communicate they are over a certain age (e.g. ‘Age over 18’: true) to the platform.
https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/faqs/eu-age-verific...
When ID is tied to your bank account you guard it like you guard your bank account. Because it is the same thing. This will drastically lower the incentives to "share" your identity with anyone.
What's more this system is already operational in many countries.
The state establishes your identity at birth. The bank already has access to your identity. If a service needs to know your identity, it asks the bank and it is illegal for them to store than information anywhere on their servers. It means only the bank is repsonsible for the safety of your id and selling and buying id information will be illegal.
I wonder how many months until this suggestion becomes slightly embarrassing. I barely want my banks to know what I buy and to be responsible for my money. I really don't want them knowing everywhere I go online. Especially when "my" bank goes under and all of my data gets sold off to whoever takes it over.
Bank ID systems, at least the ones I’m familiar with, don't work like that. Your bank confirms your identity to the authentication provider, and the authentication provider sends you on to the site you are logging into. The bank does not see the site you are visiting.
But the real problem is that governments again try to censor online content, nothing else.
My country doesn't even run children's homes without many incidents and nobody cares for that. But it tries to track citizens through things like corona apps. It cannot propose any trusted entity that could verify and ID information about me.
It's addressing a real problem in a bad way.
Or perhaps protecting kids isn’t really ageism at all.
Calling it ageism is an emotional appeal, not a principled stance.
In the US at least there’s also no such thing legally as age discrimination against minors so far as I’m aware.
Edit:
Let me frame this differently. “Ageism” is basically by definition bad, so applying the term “ageism” to a restriction is a an attempt to label the restriction bad without establishing that on its own merits.
If you try to provide a consistent definition of “ageism” that applies to restricting access to the internet but not restricting access to alcohol, you will most certainly have to resort to phrases like “reasonable restrictions” (if not, I’m very interested in your definition), which means that there’s still a need to establish what is reasonable. Applying the label “ageism” without establishing reasonableness is then a circular argument.
In effect you are saying “that’s bad!” without accepting the burden of establishing why it’s bad, but hiding this behind a different term that carries more emotional weight. It’s a very politically effective strategy but it’s not logically sound.
* actually jMyles
We can argue the merits of restricting children’s access to the internet, or certain books, or alcohol, or pornography, or whatever else. We can debate the merits of those various restrictions based on the benefits and costs to both the children and society at large.
But it is not ageism to attempt to protect children. It is not ageism even of the restriction is a bad idea. To claim it is ageism is an emotional appeal (“ageism bad!”), not a logical one.
I don’t know how you can seriously come here and accuse me of engaging in bad faith when I’ve taken the time to make my viewpoint explicit multiple times in this thread now, including directly to you.
Just because I had a hard time following your logic doesn’t mean I didn’t engage in good faith. You also seem to be arguing in a heated way with every person who responds to you.
Either way it’s probably best if we both move on
I don’t think I responded to anyone in a heated manner, though I will readily admit to being annoyed when you accused me of bad faith.
Agree we should move on.
The burden is still to demonstrate that a restriction is wrong. If that can’t be demonstrated, then labeling it ageism is a purely emotional appeal.
The real world analog would be if you could buy beer at the store with anyone's ID because they didn't make any effort to reasonably check that the ID was yours or discourage people from sharing or copying IDs.
The systems enforce identity checking because that's the only way age verification can be done without having some reason to discourage or detect credential sharing.
The retort that follows is always "Well it's not perfect. Nothing is perfect." The trap is convincing ourselves that a severely imperfect system would be accepted. What would really happen is that it would be the trojan horse to get everyone on board with age verification, then the laws would be changed to make them more strict.
I’m sure there wouldn’t be a brisk illicit trade in these tokens either. Certainly no one would be incentivized to sell these tokens to teenagers for easy profit.
The two methods that seem feasible are making it hard to copy (putting it in the secure element in your phone, for example, which I don't love) or doing tokens that can only be used a limited number of times per day, like in : https://eprint.iacr.org/2006/454
Finally, a way to use blockchain for good.
Let's say Facebook has verified my age somehow. I could share my Facebook login credentials, or the token that their authorization server sends back in response. You can create some hurdles to doing that, like requiring a second factor, but I can just share that too.
You might as well go down the route of accepting that possibility. These systems are never going to hold up in the face of a determined enough teenager.
I think a lot of age verification systems are the solution to the real core of legislation - to make companies liable for underage viewing of content. To put such legislation in place without providing a feasible way to accomplish age verification would be argued as discriminatory.
In that sense, a zero knowledge system which doesn't give a company non-repudiation so that they can defend themselves in court may very well be insufficient. And that will require tracking identity long-term, although it could be done with a third-party auditor under break-the-glass situations with proper transparency.
The app also requires that you first send your personal information to a closed source backend, in exchange for easily trackable tokens used as "proof".
Do you have a link where I could read more about this? GrapheneOS is known for being the alternative Android where many bank apps in the EU still work, and this is the first I have heard that the age verification app definitely wouldn’t run on GrapheneOS.
Even if you could anonymously verify age to issue a “confirmed adult” credential, the whole chain of trust breaks down if one bad actor shares their anonymous credential and suddenly everyone is verifiably an adult.
The solution to that attack is naturally to have some kind of system for sites to report obviously-shared credentials. Which means tracking.
This isn’t even getting to the issue that mandating government-issued credentials is the “foot in the door”. If you mandate the use of government creds for accessing websites, it’s an obvious step to turn around and demand that sites report credential use to “fight credential fraud”.
Of course the EU solution isn't perfect and there are bypasses (there will always be and have always been), but let's appreciate it that way rather than too many PII, if it must come. I'd prefer the Age/RTA header and parental responsibility too.
Yeah its extremely simple. You provide a simple message asking the user if they are an adult, and they either click "yes" or "no". That method requires exchanging zero personal information with anyone, other than a simple boolean value to the site/service you are using.
Any other system requires letting a third party violate your privacy.
I grew up around a lot of the hacker ethos, open internet, Information Wants To Be Free etc… feels like a part of my identity is being striped away by my government.
You can win the battle but lose the war. By the time the average folk realize the extent of these issues it will be way too late.
I think back to how the technology space was 25 years ago. When the biggest privacy fear was that a Pentium 3 had a processor ID and Windows XP would send your system specs to get a security update. Look at how far we have fallen since then and the pace is only speeding up.
That solution doesn't negate parental freedom of choice, it facilitates it.
I am baffled at how often the "they don't want it, because of their ulterior surveillance motivations, therefore it isn't a solution" argument is made. "They" don't want it because it is a solution to the nominal problem, that they cannot abuse, and would negate their ability to use it as a cover with a large well-meaning voting constituency.
Two problems, nominal and ulterior, resolved in the right way by one solution.
When a nominally sensible problem is used as a cover for overreach, solving the nominal problem in a healthy way is the best offense. The alternative is an endless war of attrition, and the "hope" that politicians resist the efforts of well-paid lobbyists and tens of millions of well-meaning voting parents forever. That is a ridiculous strategy, doomed to fail, delivering irreversible damage. As is already evident by the abusable laws that are accumulating.
I worry at the lack of political acumen and foot-gun reflexes in the ethically-motivated technical community.
Stop endlessly fighting to lose less. Just play the winning move already. Stop the irreversible damage.
Russia for example aims to sow discord. One classic example is the Black Lives Matter movement. This was not a Russian disinformation campaign - but they did propagate views that exist outside the bell curve of the moderate. They push scenes of cops being under siege for the right and racist policing for the left. They amplify the voices of the most angry, the most extreme and the most radical on both sides of the spectrum to create confusion, distrust and societal division.
China by comparison takes a much more subtle view. They choose to erode what they call "civilizational confidence" by highlighting systemic failures, inconvenient truths, or otherwise undermine institutional credibility. When you read an article and find a moderating factor buried in the last paragraph that is the flavor of Chinese action. The general malaise about American exceptionalism failing and China's inevitable ascent stems from their work. Rather than pure division they aim to emotionally exhaust you into "acquiescence from inevitability".
There is hardly a nation on the earth that is not involved in some way in the American discourse - each pushing and pulling to their own aims and individual agenda. Historically there was a sort of Nash equilibrium with Americans caught somewhere in the center. But as the loudest voices, or rather the most well funded, begin to dominate the discussion via social media and covert funding, we are seeing it become increasingly problematic for American democracy. That is why you are starting to see this consensus over 'verification' and 'identification' begin to coalesce. The government, both left and right of center, has begun to realize the long term ramifications of these actors.
So how do you solve that inherent tension between our intrinsic right to free-speech and those who would abuse it to cause us actual harm? An independent, 3rd party verifier with limited scope makes sense - but would that solve the greater geopolitical implications? In truth I've long expected social media like Reddit, Facebook, et al. to formulate a body of their own like the MPAA. But likewise I don't think there is a clear answer here. Do you trust the Tech Oligarchs with this power over the Government itself? This is core to the problem. How do you 'censor' the internet without really 'censoring' Americans? I think this is part of what the last administration was trying to do with the failed "Disinformation Governance Board". And that failure is what has led us to where we are now.
The original twitter thread is right to say this isn't a left-versus-right issue. This is undeniably a censorship mechanism designed to exclude a set of voices from the internet as we know it today. As with the patriot act, they choose to wrap the bitter pill in a bacon-flavored rhetoric of safety and protecting the youth from perverts and degenerates. But what has failed to be acknowledged is the intrinsic cost of having an open society in a world where that openness has become an attack surface. Make no mistake: the goal is censorship. But the solution space to what you call 'the nominal problem' is less trivial than I think you believe.
I think at an individual level the best thing to do is to opt out of this stuff and not use these corporate systems with algorithmic feeds. Only those will have the intrusive age verification anyway.
> China by comparison takes a much more subtle view. They choose to erode what they call "civilizational confidence" by highlighting systemic failures, inconvenient truths, or otherwise undermine institutional credibility. When you read an article and find a moderating factor buried in the last paragraph that is the flavor of Chinese action. The general malaise about American exceptionalism failing and China's inevitable ascent stems from their work. Rather than pure division they aim to emotionally exhaust you into "acquiescence from inevitability".
The only reason these approaches work is because there is generally a lot of truth in the things they push and a complete lack of transparency on that reality from powerful Americans, both government and oligarchy. If it wasn't "a lot of truth with some bullshit mixed in" but "only bullshit", it wouldn't work. If the state of the US hadn't made the bullshit realistic and plausible, it wouldn't work.
Those are the issues to fix. You name the PATRIOT Act, yet another thing that has caused much more harm than benefit.
> China by comparison takes a much more subtle view. They choose to erode what they call "civilizational confidence" by highlighting systemic failures, inconvenient truths, or otherwise undermine institutional credibility. When you read an article and find a moderating factor buried in the last paragraph that is the flavor of Chinese action. The general malaise about American exceptionalism failing and China's inevitable ascent stems from their work. Rather than pure division they aim to emotionally exhaust you into "acquiescence from inevitability".
They mostly bring light to the worst things that happen in the US, which would otherwise go underreported because the people suffering them have no power and the media is already entirely controlled by Bezos et al.
It's laughable to defend this on the basis of foreign influence. The bad actor influencers are inside the house. They're called Jeff Bezos, Rupert Murdoch, and so on. And the information they spread isn't any more truthful or beneficial than that spread by the likes of China.
Rupert Murdoch has done more for misinformation, polarization and extremism over the last 2 decades than China and Russia combined. He's foreign, by the way.
Perhaps we NYers should organize a rally outside his office in Manhattan like we did for PIPA/SOPA?
Adam B. Schiff
Sorry, this legislator cannot be contacted with our tool. To message them, visit their website instead.
Alex Padilla
Sorry, this legislator cannot be contacted with our tool. To message them, visit their website instead.>Thank you for contacting me regarding the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA). I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.
>Keeping children safe and holding accountable bad actors online is an important priority for the 119th Congress, and I am grateful for your input. My staff and I keep track of every message we receive from constituents like you, and your feedback is invaluable in guiding my priorities.
>As you may know, KOSA seeks to establish new guardrails to protect children online by requiring that social media platforms give parents the option to enable the strongest privacy settings possible on their children’s accounts. It also would require audits of how online platforms affect the health and well-being of children. Further, it would create a “duty of care” instructing online platforms to mitigate content seen by children promoting eating disorders, suicide, sexual exploitation, and other dangers. KOSA has been introduced and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, of which I am not a member.
>As a parent, I believe that we must do everything we can in Congress to safeguard children online and will continue to support strong solutions to combat child exploitation. That is why I voted in the Judiciary Committee to advance the Strengthening Transparency and Obligations to Protect Children Suffering from Abuse and Mistreatment (STOP CSAM) Act to crack down on the proliferation of child sex abuse material online, support victims, and increase accountability and transparency for online platforms.
>Please be assured that I will keep your concerns in mind should this bill be considered by the Senate.
>Transparency has been a goal of mine throughout my time in Congress. You can find detailed information on every bill introduced in the Senate on Congress.gov, including the summary and full text of the legislation, which Senators have co-sponsored it, and the most recent action taken by Congress.
>An ongoing job of a Senator is to help constituents solve problems with federal agencies, access services, and get their questions answered promptly. On my website, I offer a guide to the services my office can provide, as well as a contact form where you can share your priorities with me. You can also connect with me online via Facebook or Twitter, and you can always reach my office by phone at (202) 224-3841.
>Thank you again for your thoughts. I hope you will continue to share your views and ideas with me.
Example, Discord wanted my ID to enable certain features, I declined, I now can't use those features, fine by me. If they started asking for ID anyway, I'd say no and see what happens, even if that means they lock me out entirely. There's no universe where they get my ID.
If you are going to implement age controls, you should implement a ban on underage influencers as well.
That just makes it even worse, why deprive the younger generation of one of the few remaining methods they have to make a decent income? We should be encouraging youth entrepreneurship, not making them spend even longer in classrooms learning things that LLMs will do better than them.
In the weekends they can stock shelves, deliver pizza, deliver newspapers, wash dishes, babysitting, feed animals or other typical jobs for children in the age range of 12 to 16.
Why? Presumably so they can go to college and get a high paying job that may not exist in 10 years? The direction we give kids coming up always seems to lag behind reality by 10 or 20 years. Perhaps we shouldn't stand in the way of the new generation figuring things out for themselves in this brave new world. The old playbooks to a solid middle class life are increasingly outdated.
Also so they don't end up stupid and useless like a potted plant. People with too little education are easy to manipulate and dim. They're perfect fodder for the propaganda machines.
It would be nice if we could just let kids loose like wild animals and they'd, somehow, figure everything out. But no, we actually have to try. Otherwise they end up illiterate and eating so much candy they throw up. Because they're kids.
They have their whole entire lives to be a cog in the capitalist machine. We don't need to speedrun children getting a soul crushing office job. They can spend time learning how to critically analyze text or how to learn choreography for a musical.
But to what end? There is zero value to many of these kids in learning to do these things. Again, we're pulling from a playbook on how to live a successful life that is decades out of date. A kid who has a potentially successful side hustle should be encouraged to follow it. And besides, we're only talking about a small number of kids here. Those that have shown aptitude and initiative for some alternate path. In many cases opportunity is fleeting and must be grasped when it appears. On the other hand, school will always be there.
How many skilled high school aged programmers in the late 90s were encouraged by their parents to stay in school and missed out on a decade head start on their careers? How many potential founders missed out on the golden era for computer startups? (Imagine if Bill Gates had followed his parents advice!) How many kids wasted years in college only to be saddled with a crushing debt burden and no relevant jobs to show for it? Those who have suffered for following the standard advice never seem to get a mention in these discussions. Not everyone must or should follow the same path. We as a society need to be more tolerant to experimentation and outliers.
Again, kids do not need to speedrun being cogs in the machines. Could SOME of them hypothetically become millionaires like 5 years earlier?
I mean... I guess? But that's frankly one of the stupidest justifications for anything ever that I have ever heard. The reality is 99.9999% of people are destined for the same thing: a normal career, with a normal salary. Most people are not going to be "entrepreneurs", and most "entrepreneurs" that I have met are not even entrepreneurs, they're scam artists. Which is a different thing, although you could say technically they're both self-made.
Look, it's a game of average. Are there SOME people out there who could benefit from less education? Sure. For the majority of people, education leads to higher lifetime income, and it's not even close. We have the statistics on this. We don't know ahead of time which one someone will be. So, we should optimize for the best odds.
> hose who have suffered for following the standard advice never seem to get a mention in these discussions.
No no, those people get WAY too much mention. What actually doesn't get enough mention are the people who are forced into lifetime poverty because they never graduated high school and are therefore essentially unemployable. Which is about 10,000x more common than the Bill Gates types. So, give me fucking break.
I know some people who didn't graduate high school, and I know a lot of people who opted to go straight into the workforce post highschool instead of getting a degree. None of those people are doing good.
It's not about speedrunning being cogs in the machine, its about finding their place in a world where nothing is guaranteed and there is no longer a "golden path" to a happy middle class life. Forcing everyone down the golden path that is guaranteed to not work for some sizeable percentage of kids is moral disaster. But it makes some of us adults feel good, so we encourage it regardless of the outcome.
>The reality is 99.9999% of people are destined for the same thing: a normal career, with a normal salary.
Of course. My argument is not that some small number of people will miss out on being millionaires. The argument is that parents don't know what the future looks like, yet they insist on forcing their children down paths that resemble their own success stories regardless of how much society has changed in the intervening decades. It's asinine.
>Sure. For the majority of people, education leads to higher lifetime income, and it's not even close. We have the statistics on this. We don't know ahead of time which one someone will be. So, we should optimize for the best odds.
It is exactly this thinking that has so utterly distorted the education market that it's now mostly worthless as a signal. Yes, high school education correlates with some amount of success. College education correlates with a lot more success. But it's not about having the piece of paper, it's about what the piece of paper signals about the person. But degrees now have little value as such signals because we've engineered society so that far more people go to college and get a degree, or graduate high school than are suited to it. To accomplish this we've had to dumb down both college and high school. We've created an education arms race where we need increasing years of education just to signal the same quality that many fewer years signaled in the past. We've done large scale damage to students and society with the kind of thinking you're exhibiting here.
>What actually doesn't get enough mention are the people who are forced into lifetime poverty because they never graduated high school and are therefore essentially unemployable.
Are they unemployable because they didn't graduate high school, or are they unemployable because they don't have the traits of someone who graduated high school? What's stopping them from getting a GED? The high school degree has little causal relevance here.
Children do not need, nor are they entitled to, any kind of "freedom" to work for a living.
My nieces and nephews really don't know what they are going to do in their futures because so much is uncertain right now.
If it feels like a longshot to expect normal 9-5 office jobs to be around in 5 years, and it's also a longshot being an influencer, then why not go for the influencer thing?
I bet there is a 15 year-old much smarter than me making political videos and I wouldn’t necessarily want them to be forced to stop. What if they’re on my “team”! ;) (I kid)
Recalling how we had lots of political debates in high school: if some of those kids made videos and got really popular, and the law made them stop, they would have been incentivized to vote $responsibleParty out.
(Socials bad for kids though maybe they could selfhost their monologues instead)
Its not about intelligence. Else a whole lot of over-age-of-majority wouldn't pass either.
Theres also no old-age cutoff, when their mental faculties significantly decline.
Yeah, the voting majority keeps 'under age' from voting. But at least in the USA, we have children as young as 11 being tried as adults but with none of the benefits.
—
After posting, I questioned whether political speech is special. Like should fifteen-year-olds who love film be able to make videos about them and get lots of followers… but I couldn’t be thought police. So maybe-
The platform just has to be designed non-addictively.
Is this accurate?: In reality, Facebook was so powerful the regulators could never make them stop at any turn. Now that they finally got sued big time, we finally educated ourselves enough as constituents to raise enough of a stink to trigger straight up bans. (educated ourselves, or politicians legislate based how bad headlines are, or it was so egregious it genuinely ticked them off… …)
Anyone who has hone so far as to become an influencer is already a lost cause. No law could save them.
The most embarrassing thing is that our Government thought the idiotic idea was workable in the first place... But of course now they've gone and made things worse, because now kids' profiles pretend to be older, so more inappropriate stuff (like gambling ads for those who put an over-18 birthdate) can get targeted at them - great job, eSafety Commissioner!
But it's a good lesson, I suppose. It changed the lesson to my kids about lying from "lying is bad", to a more sophisticated "lying is bad for these reasons, and so these lies are bad, but those lies are not."
But it feels like by making silly laws like this that aren't likely to be respected by much of the population is bad for the rule of law, which is bad for society. But fair enough, the rule of law is only a good thing as long as the laws are (on the whole) good.
We have a lot of this problem in Australia because as much as we pretend not to be, we're pretty authoritarian in regulating personal behaviour. For example in my state they're currently criminalising riding EN15194 compliant e-bikes above 10 km/h (literally 6 mph, slower than a jog) in my state on 90% of the bicycle path network (90% of the network are 'shared paths' so you'd only be allowed to ride at the bike's full 25 km/h (15 mph) motor limit on the small amount of dedicated bicycle paths). That and requiring anyone with any e-bike to have a drivers license - which cuts out people who can't have a license due to disability, medical issues but who could still ride a bike, or anyone under-16.
It's very silly, almost completely unenforceable and again just going to create huge non-compliance and further teach people that laws are silly things to be ignored... I really don't think that is good for society, and I've observed that the more Government has tried to regulate our behaviour, the less responsibility people seem to take, and the more the Government tries to further regulate.
So I think a big criteria of evaluating any new bill is "are most people actually going to respect this law", but all my experience with politicians is that they prefer magical thinking of believing that anything you make a law will immediately be fixed, even if it's impossible to adequately enforce or even technologically impossible to implement. Every time I've been involved in public consultation processes I'm constantly arguing practicality of the actual bill and they're arguing about the ideals that drove the poorly thought out laws...
You could define a set of 5 or six categories (nudity, sex, drugs, violence, etc.) and have a scale from 1 to 10 for each. Each content producer would rate each category according to defined criteria.
Then each user, or their parent, can set what their own acceptable level is. If you set your violence level at 4 then nothing level 5 or higher will load.
A) Change the laws in all countries (a non-starter), or B) Restrict access to only countries that obey those laws
And Option B is a non-starter to the freedom crowd.
Not to mention all the other issues with labeling, such as:
A) How to label in an internationally-agreeable way B) How to prevent abusive mislabeling
It's fraught, this path.
It's no better.
Really depends on the context. Email works because of its limits. Remove those limits and weaknesses start to appear.
Yes.
A mesh network isnt point to point. Its a mesh.
Really the "fix" the ultimate goal has to be direct point to point.
Would you vote for that? Prove who you are to visit this website? Would you do it to access Hacker News? Your newspaper?
Didn’t think so.
But keep in mind that these laws don’t result in your identity being public. They will ultimately result in the sites you’re posting on know that you’re an enumerated individual. The ultimate benefit as I see it is removing outsized leverage over public opinion by botting likes on your statement or otherwise operating tons of accounts. It should also eliminate threats of violence from the digital public square, since building a prosecution pipeline against those would be easy to do. Same with child grooming, but I’ll acknowledge there’s a way to make that argument in a glib way, as an excuse to realize some of the other goals. It is a real problem though.
I don't see how these laws wouldn't make your identity public to someone, even if it's not the public at large. But it'd be enough for that someone to be an individual or entity who turns out to be interested in silencing your voice. Their knowledge of your identity would probably give them power to silence you not only on their platform but also on other platforms, if access to those other platforms is also tied to one single identity.
Bots are a problem but I suspect there are other ways of dealing with them, ways that don't involve making anonymity or pseudonymity impossible.
I attribute it mostly to bots, whether from corporate, state, or NGO activity. It’s almost impossible to tell what the organic consensus is on anything. Lies spread faster than ever, and it’s confusing the public enough that this is a very real crisis.
It’s nice that you suspect that botnets could be handled in some other hypothetical way. But in a technical sense, there’s not really a way to do that without enumerating real identity in some way.
There are a dozen ways to handle your “corrupt town” scenario without anonymity that are concrete and not at all hypothetical.
It’s plenty easy to silence you when you’re anonymous and speaking out. Just look at what Twitter and Facebook did. And look at what Reddit does every single day.
Anonymity will always exist in corners of the internet. But it does not belong in the mainstream, easily accessible parts that most people use.
But I’m not even anonymous here. My name is Mike Keen, and my address isn’t hard to find.
Also, if something like that happens, that's a blatant 1st Amendment violation and will be enjoined as fast as the case can run up the judiciary. Today's SCOTUS is very 1st-Amendment-friendly (to the chagrin and delight of various flavors of both left and right).
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/13/california-advances...
It's bad when the choice one has is between 1) using a platform that's significantly problematic or 2) being disconnected from everyone you'd like to connect with because they're only using that platform.
You’re not connected with anyone. It’s a surrogate activity.
Separately I still don't fully agree with concerns raised regarding social media and identification for everyone. Bots, people who are online just stirring up trouble, &c. are causing pretty significant challenges and problems for society. If you spew a bunch of racist stuff for example I think people deserve to know who you are.
And you know we do this all the time. Folks want gun registries and things like that (and I agree, as a matter of practice, but not principal) so I'm not sure why we're ok with that form of requiring identification to exercise your rights and against this one other than political priorities.
We haven't even mentioned the censoriousness that already takes place in various online forums not because a user said something racist or was stirring up trouble, but because moderators were vindictive, petty, or lazy, or because the automated moderation tools in place were heavy-handed and unintelligent. I don't look forward to that kind of moderation spreading everywhere and made more efficient by reducing everyone to a single identity. (Maybe Joe Contrarian has some opinions worth listening to, but it's just easier for the moderator of a forum to see that he was already publicly blacklisted by another unrelated forum, and just blacklist him on this one, too.)
> Maybe requiring identification to speak online is not the intent but it would likely be the practical effect of the laws that were originally intended just to help children. It's not enough to think about laws' intent, but also their practical effects.
Right we should analyze trade-offs. But you are quite focused on censorship which I am also generally concerned with. But are you really being censored by being identified and associated with what you say online? In public you aren’t anonymous - why must that extend to this digital public square?
In the US for buying games online we've had age verification for a long time. For in-store purchases you see that too. Same with movies.
Humans are inherently social, and social networks are based on trust. Trust is primarily a function of reputation, peer pressure, and legal consequences. Reputation requires tying behavior to a stable identity. Peer pressure only works when you’re not anonymous. For there to be legal consequences for bad behavior, we must identify bad actors. I don’t see why anyone would want to remove any of this. To protect some freelance journalists in Iran?
Also I don’t think that the “pro privacy” activists really understand the scale and severity of harm being done to children through the internet. I as a programmer who makes my living on the internet, would gladly support the shutting down of the whole internet if it would save the life of a single precious child.
My point is that the data that you don't provide cannot be leaked
The trust is somewhat of a one-way street. We are supposed to trust the entities in power. If we break their trust, there are consequences. If said entities break our trust, we can do little about it.
> I don’t see why anyone would want to remove any of this. To protect some freelance journalists in Iran?
For some, perhaps. However, I also would rather protect people from a potentially grim future. What is permissible and acceptable now may not always be the case in the future. The Holocaust, for example, only ended 81 years ago. The notion of another one, even against different groups, seems completely infeasible -- the same as the first one.
> I as a programmer who makes my living on the internet, would gladly support the shutting down of the whole internet if it would save the life of a single precious child.
Tone is hard to read in text, but are you be facetious? If not, you are essentially saying that you would support shutting down the Internet to protect even just one child. Yet, despite these real and active harms that already exists, you will continue to still use and profit off the Internet in the meantime?
The German one stands out only because they fought us.
You do have a point that Holocaust stands out because we fought Germany, but I would also argue that what makes the Holocaust unique was the speed and efficacy in which it was systematically carried out.
If I stop my internet use that won't save anybody, so there's no point in doing it. If shutting down the whole internet is necessary to save a life, I would support it. The only reason I don't is because that's not possible and even if it were possible it would not actually save more people than it would harm right now.
We should sedate everyone and lock them in secure concrete cells, with food and water provided through tubes. My proposal will save far more than a single child from being killed. I really think the "pro existence" activists don't understand the scale of the harms, and how we can prevent them all by having everyone be permanently unconscious!
You speak positively about peer pressure, but on a basic level, peer pressure is power excercised against non-conformists. Robbers and abusers are non-conformists, but activists and reformers are also non-conformists. Peer pressure is often used in certain highly oppressive societies to enforce values I'd consider downright evil. Such societies take great care in limiting independent, anonymous access to digital tools and networks. Personally, I'd really like to keep living in a free society where there are ways to communicate and express non-conformist ideas without having to worry about who can easily stamp out such ideas. I think digital ID opens the way to oppressive societies which can wholesale block specific individuals' access to any effective communication tools. Digital ID us an overcorrection to a problem that DOES need to be corrected, but not in a way that destroys various essential aspects of free societies.
Extremely powerful entities like the CIA or NSA could easily personally identify me from my HackerNews profile if they wanted to, as could a dedicated attacker. The problem with "privacy" on the internet right now is that it's a lie - you only have privacy from your peers and ordinary citizens, but not from powerful entities. It would be better if we had a level playing field and everyone could be identified by everyone. Then the normal evolved human behaviours of trust-based social networks could function properly, and we could also fight AI-bot-based social media control, scam, and fraud.
It's not "privacy" it's "information asymmetry" which I'm attacking.
Bad: some still entertain the idea that we should do age verification using some sort of crypto primitives
There is no reason for age verification at all.
I am from the goatse generation. Rotten.com. steakandcheese. Horrific stuff tbh, I mostly stayed away from it, and I didn't need a helicopter government to protect me from it.
The moment you accept the narrative that kids need to be protected from the Internet you have already lost.
You've already condemned those kids to a life of slavery. So much for protecting them.
What we need is not online verification, but a competent government that does its existing job well.
Who's been arrested over the Epstein files? Who is protecting those kids?
No one.
That same government wants to "protect" your kids by KYCing everyone.
Give me a break.
We are back to perceiving viewing boobies as an existential threat to people. Currently, sexuality is being demonized all around, and sexual morality is once again becoming a currency in society.
I encourage people to talk to some Gen Z kids. They're much more puritan than millennials. They're focused on virginity and the moral superiority of monogamy. It's bizarre.
At some point you'll realize the contradiction in not trusting these "multi-billion-dollar businesses" to the point that you are risking enslaving humanity and "dying on this hill" and yet at the same time trusting those same businesses to implement this dystopian system in a privacy-preserving way.
When that realization hits, it will be a loud sound, possibly heard by nearby telepaths.
Their guide:
https://www.eff.org/files/2026/04/09/condensed-age_verificat...
Unfortunately, their most prominent call to action doesn't seem to address the various state-specific and non-US legislation (focusing on KOSA instead). Here it is:
What do you mean by this?
Responsible parents don't have separate OS accounts for their children.
This is not only unnecessary, but will with 100% certainty lead to negative downstream affects, either via leaks, or the state being able to find people for things that aren't crimes once they're adults.
There's simply no good reason for it that outweighs the bad. But what it really boils down to is completely unnecessary.
I find it disgusting that most laws today are based on creating a perfect world instead of addressing harms in the least intrusive way. There is no balancing of interests, even when they state that there are. Every side complains about the others and potential future abuses, except when it is their plan. Nobody tries to design the law with a devil's advocate perspective to make as effective as reasonably possible (not perfect!) while limiting overreach.
The real problem is the pursuit of perfection. A perfect world does not exist, nor will it ever (laws of nature, physics, etc). One person's view of perfect is not the same as another's. We've lost the capacity for legislative empathy through are impatience and self importance. It's no longer about restricting government and providing people with rights. It's about how we can use government to shove the desires of a majority or plurality onto the total population.
There are ways to do age verification with reasonable anonymity, but they aren't perfect and can create underground markets (see gaming in China). At a certain point, we need to step back and put the responsibilities where they belong - with parents, instead of causing massive negative externalities on everyone else.
Yeah, yeah, but the children...
Not if it's done in a half arsed way. I'm in the UK and so far my age verification has involved doing a selfie with the webcam for Reddit. That's it. No one needing my name, ID number etc. (Apart from banks of course).
Really this is just the modern equivalent of putting the porn mags on the top shelf at the newsagent to stop the kids getting them. We don't need more.
I believe if you are a "minor" then you can go the post-a-selfy route.
I could imagine it ending with a court ruling that people are responsible to protect their own personal documents which... yeah, that would muddy the waters in a world where every website expects to see your ID.
That's not just the plan - that's what's already legally required in many US states.
These laws were introduced by the explicitly religious right-wing groups like Exodus Cry and Morality in Media, as ways to de facto outlaw pornography (in their own words). They've since been laundered into the mainstream so the general public is unaware of the root cause.
I understand they could do facial recognition on my photo. If I want to post something criminal or some such I'd make a new account.
a convenient record of your face is all we need
First, that's easily enough to identify you from biometric data, and it's naive to assume it won't be resold. Second, I kept getting asked for ID into my 40s because I looked young. People don't all age in the same way, so this system will fail for people at the tails of a normal distribution - some 15 year olds will easily pass for 25 and vice versa.
Of course, it's probably also been coopted by the neverending stream of nanny-state political power grabs in both the US and EU.
The push for online age verification started gaining momentum globally, with several countries implementing regulations. Here's a brief timeline:
- 2022: The European Union introduced the Digital Services Act (DSA), establishing a framework for digital services accountability and content moderation.
- 2023:
- *France*: Passed a law requiring age verification for social media and porn websites.
- *UK*: Enacted the Online Safety Act, requiring "highly effective" age assurance for platforms accessible to children.
- *Australia*: Announced plans to ban social media for under-16s.
- *Italy*: Implemented mandatory age verification for sensitive content websites.
- *Denmark*: Proposed banning social media for under-15s.
- *Malaysia*: Required social media platforms to ban users under 16. - *EU*: Rolling out digital age verification across member states.
- *Norway*: Proposed banning social media for under-15s.
- *Spain*: Announced plans to ban social media access for under-16s.Evident when the fight against "hate" was suddenly everywhere, and also during covid.
Saw it with the UK laws. It just gets rammed through. Whether it’s ignorance, malice, hidden force, a desire for surveillance state, genuine concern for children - doesn’t matter, the forces in favour are substantially more and seemingly motivated to try over and over until it sticks.
Much like brexit or for that matter trump reelection I just don’t have much faith in wisdom of the democratic collective consensus anymore and I don’t think it’ll get any better in an AI misinformation echo chamber world. Onwards into dystopia
Exceeding gloomy take I know
Took forever to get a response and likely achieved little, but to their credit the response wasn't entirely canned and did at least give the impression that they understood what I'm saying
(it's because it's not about protecting children)
Shall we just abolish all laws? None of them have any effect whatsoever, if they are even slightly imperfect... by your rule.
My question is: are digital age verifications the best way to protect kids from harmfull effects of pornography? And my worry is: what unwanted side-effects will age verification have for our society as a whole.
And porn companies should always be held responsible for not doing their due diligence and freely distributing porn to minors. Which is already illegal in teh US and most places.
The Cashier Standard – Age Verification Without Surveillance
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47809795
https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/7fe74381-a683-4f49-9c2b-1...
Did aliens land in multiple states already? Strawman deflections aside, scanning is the natural evolution and has already happened across multiple kinds of exchange (money markers, various ids, various phone apps, etc). Government issue has a benefit of an independent verification system. It's super expensive for various government agencies to integrate into businesses. Constituents and businesses don't want that, leading to a much more comfortable adversarial relationship, imo.
Nobody who understands how adversarial systems like this work is seriously expecting a 100% flawless performance of blocking every single minor and accepting every single adult, the question is how much risk is acceptable, and the risks posed by this system are acceptable for alcohol, cigarettes, and other adult items that can arguably pose much more acute risk of serious injury or bodily harm to kids.
It doesn't have to be perfect.
1) the cards can just be re-sold which creates a black market and defeats the "cashier physically saw the person buying the card" angle
2) nickle and dimes people for simply browsing the internet (verification can dystopia anyone?)
3) related to #2, it creates winners in the private sector since presumably you need central authorities handing out these codes
I abhor the idea of digital ID verification, but if we're going to do it, let's not create a web of new problems while we're at it.
I imagine this could be done with appropriate zero-knowledge measures so that the combination of Alice's age token and Bob's private key creates a capability to exercise the option, but without the service (e.g. a social media site) knowing that the token belongs to Alice, and without the ID provider (e.g. the state) knowing that Bob was the one who exercised it.
While honest customers have no reason to make use of this option, if Alice blindly sells her tokens to anybody willing to pay, there's bound to be some trolls out there who will do it just for the laughs.
This is far from a perfect system since a dishonest site could also make use of the option. But it theoretically works without revealing anybody's identity (unless the option is used, and then only if the service and the ID provider collude).
Second - The codes would be priced on the order of magnitude of pennies per verification - think 10 cents or less, accessible even to low / fixed income folks without really making a dent in their budget.
Third - the proposal explicitly mentions a nonprofit running it as an option, and the idea would be that law codifies the method to be approved, not a specific vendor, so competitive markets could emerge, too. Would you argue that restrictions on the sale of alcohol are creating artificial winners in the private sector of alcohol manufacturing?
I don't think it applies, the difference is that codes are digital and can be sold over the internet, anonymously, in a scallable manner.
I still like this solution because all the solutions I've seen have flaws and this one being so easy to explain makes it great to campaign for.
Second, it doesn't matter what it costs, it's inconvenient and I already spent time (possibly money too) obtaining a government ID... on top of a theoretical mandate that says I need to show the ID on a bunch of websites.
Third, I'm not sure I follow your point on alcohol restrictions creating winners? The non-profit idea could potentially be good, but I'm not hopeful that real world legislation would be crafted that way.
EDIT: also more on #1 and "severe consequences" for re-selling... yes that's exactly what we want to avoid: creating more reasons to put people in prison and a bigger burden on law enforcement and the court system.
How did you think this was going to be enforced?
People should not be able to misrepresent themselves on the internet, it may have been safe in low volumes but it is scary now and will be outright dangerous as a modality in the hands of AI agents. If you think teen mental health is bad now, wait until social media campaign capabilities previously only available to nation states fall into the hands of ordinary school bullies.
Maybe age verification isn't the way to mitigate this obvious risk, but there has to be something that can be done to stop rampant sockpuppeting.
Now, the question is: what should the implementation details of online censorship be?
But we don't have that, so he's probably right.
> Every website. Every platform. Every app. Every service. Your children will never know what it was like to think freely online. They will never explore ideas anonymously. They will never question authority without it being logged in their permanent profile. They will never speak freely without fear that every word will be used...
No. Nobody's proposing you need to verify your identity to read articles on the New York Times or Wikipedia or political blogs. And nobody is proposing you need to verify your identity to leave comments on a news article or blog post. And any proposed law around that would run into massive first-amendment constitutional hurdles. It would be struck down easily.
There's always going to be a spectrum of websites that range from open and anonymous (like news and political discussion) to strongly identity-verified (like online banking). I don't like online age verification for particular sites, but at the same time I think it's completely misleading to see it as this slippery slope to a world where anonymous speech no longer exists.
We can have reasoned arguments around how people's usage of sites is tracked and how to prevent that, without making this about free speech and "the hill to die on".
You're starting from an assumption that is invalid to begin with.
It's not invalid. I have no reason to believe that this isn't going to creep.
And your analogy between driving a vehicle and posting on a website doesn't work because there is no constitutional protection for driving vehicles or taking commercial air flights. However there is a constitutional protection for speech, above all political speech. That's the difference.
That's the difference. Porn sites aren't places intended for the free exchange of political opinions so age verification can pass muster. If anyone tried to do that with newspaper sites or political blogs or anything like that, the courts would shut down that law instantly.
Your nextdoor neighbor whose misbehaving child that's permanently on their phone? Help them out.
Your friend that joked about sending death threats to someone? Scold and report him.
That girl endlessly scrolling Instagram? Get her help.
Please take a step back and examine how insane the internet is and how it's affecting our everyday lives. Political violence and mental illness is increasing, and the internet is solely to blame for this.
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." Federalist 51
We're all too familiar with the latter part of that quote, but we're completely oblivious to the former. At this point, we've all but proven that the government needs to step in and regulate internet access. And unfortunately for us, they're going to do it in the most dystopian, authoritarian way possible.
I want to be on the side of freedom and strike this bill down. But when it is struck down, everyone is going to cheer, go on their merry way, and continue to let demorilization, radicalization, and mental illness infect the psyche of the everyday human being, and do nothing about it. And then the cycle will repeat itself.
At this point, I actually hope this bill passes. Not because I want it to, but because maybe then everyone will stop using the internet for everything, and some sanity will return.
States have broad power to do what is being feared in the thread and haven’t already and to think that they’re waiting for this final piece of the puzzle to enact some insane regime is laughable. They could do that right now without the internet at all.
Social media is probably not healthy and kids should probably not be on social media. Age verification and age limits for social media will be a good thing for kids.
Instead of fear mongering, finding a middle ground, like governments adding some rules and protections on how this information or system is used is probably a better response.
I might be in the minority, but I think incorporating an identity layer into the internet itself should happen with the right protections for users and should have happened at the beginning of the net and is probably a result of lack of foresight by the creators of ARPANET.
More generally you're committing I believe two separate fallacies of ambiguity? Like one in going from the institution of social media to its reification in the form of specific websites, and then a second fallacy when you go from the specific websites to all websites in general? Like if you said "Gun ownership is not a thing at all. Gun ownership is a piece of metal. Pieces of metal cannot be healthy or unhealthy." OK but, you owning a gun is known in the scientific literature to significantly correlated with a bunch of very adverse health effects for you, such as you dying by suicide or you dying from spousal violence or your protracted grief and wasting away because your child accidentally killed themselves. Like to say that it's impossible for the institution to have adverse health effects because we can situate the objects of that institution into a broader category which doesn't sound so harmful, is frankly messed up.
[1]: Bernadette & Headley-Johnson, "The Impact of Social Media on Health Behaviors, a Systematic Review" (2025) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12608964/ - the content you consume can promote healthy or unhealthy behaviors
[2]: Lledo & Alvarez-Galvez, "Prevalence of Health Misinformation on Social Media: Systematic Review" (2021) https://www.jmir.org/2021/1/E17187/ is notable not just for its content but also like a thousand papers that cite it getting into all of the weeds of health influencers sharing misinformation to make a buck
[3]: Sun & Chao, "Exploring the influence of excessive social media use on academic performance through media multitasking and attention problems" (2024) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10639-024-12811-y was a study of a reasonably large cohort showing correlations between social media usage and particular forms of multitasking that inhibit academic performance -- more generally there's broad anecdata that the current "endless scrolling constant dopamine hits" model that social media gravitates to, produces kids that are "out of control" with aggressive and attentional difficulties -- see Kazmi et al. "Effects of Excessive Social Media Use on Neurotransmitter Levels and Mental Health" (2025) (PDF warning - https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sharique-Ahmad-2/public...) for more on the actual literature that has probed those questions
[4]: The APA has a whole "Health advisory on social media use in adolesence" https://www.apa.org/topics/social-media-internet/health-advi... which is pretty even-handed about "these parts of social media are acceptable, those parts can maybe even be downright good -- but here are the papers that say that for adolescents, it can mess with their sleep, it can expose them to cyberhate content that measurably promotes anxiety and depression, it has been measured to promote disordered eating if they use it for social comparison..."
Or maybe you aren't being litteral and are just saying that what children see and hear has no influence on their developmemt. Either way, total bullshit.
> Our freedom is already being eroded, saying that it is being eroded more is just fear mongering.
> They want to hurt you, instead of fear mongering, find a middle ground where they're hurting you differently.
The author has said a lot about what kind of future awaits with mass surveillance and AI, but I believe it’s not enough. Technofascism Is not that far away.
It is easy to defend on the motte hill (protection of children, protection against abuse and heinous crimes), and easy to expand and farm on the bailey (universal surveillance, mass data collection, and the erosion of privacy).
When you set up kids devices in your family they ask you to provide the birthday anyway.
I’m keen to see the arguments against this.
Private entities being frontrunners in AI Fear either means that these companies have too much unchecked power or that they have are covert instruments of governments.
Braindead meme. "Age verification" is not a "Trojan Horse". No one, regardless of age, _wants_ to use age verification. They are being effectively _forced_ to ask for it or use it. Age verification (identity verification) is a tradeoff. A "Trojan Horse" is something that people actually want, not an obvious tradeoff, a sacrifice, a compromise. No one is being "fooled" into complying with identity verification in the form of age verification
The surveillance state is already operational. If you use "platforms" then you are already inside the gates with the enemy. The surveillance apparatus is operated by so-called "tech" companies that perform data collection, surveillance and online ad services as a "business model". These companies provide access to and information about internet users to advertisers and law enforcement
If "age verification" dissuades some people from accessing "platforms" (servers) run by so-called "tech" companies, then that is a loss for the companies and a privacy gain for those people. The "hill to die on" is not using "platforms"
These companies are the reason that "age verification" is proceeding. They push the allegedly harmful content because it makes money for them. Further, the companies' "platforms" make "age verification" possible. This is because they intermediate transmissions between internet users through these so-called "platforms". Governments need not comply with laws that protect individuals from government surveillance when they can target "platforms" instead
It is disturbing that anyone would want to "die on a hill" to save "platforms" from "age verification". These third parties are surveillance companies. They built the surveillance state. They already know who you are, they do not need government-issued ID
If the people spreading this "Trojan Horse" meme cared about surveillance, including identity verification, then they would not be defending "platforms" from regulation, they would stop using the "platforms"
This one-sided view has some good points, but for goodness sake, don't pretend that the alternative has no downsides.
State your well reasoned opinion where you have considered the facts. Or just say you are in support of this openly.
All it does is covertly promote the idea by presenting it as reasonable and on an equal level to the other idea. While at the same time being able to shut down debate, by pretending they don't actually think that.
Anybody can say something like "but what about the good side of the African slave trade" but they will be debated and the argument shut down if they present it as their actual argument and engage in good faith with the comments. Using the devil's advocate technique is an extremely useful way to argue in bad faith, anonymously on the Internet.
Critique of the author's style is fine. An opposing view should honestly be presented as such.
What is fascinating is to see how governments ALL fall for it. There is zero resistance. This is fascinating to me. It shows how little real effort is necessary once you have the lobbyists in place. Kind of scary to witness too.
It is an apartheid system. All apartheid slavery systems will eventually die, so age sniffing will die too. But it will most likely be a long fight as more and more money will be invested by crazy corporations such as Palantir and others.
The whole "debate" is already not logical by the way. Let's for a moment assume the "but but but the kids!" is a real argument rather than a strawman argument, which it is. Ok so ... I am a "concerned parent", for the sake of discussion. I have three young kids. I am not a tech nerd. The kids see "unfitting content" on the antisocial media such as facebook and what not. So, what do I do? Well ... they have a smartphone? Aha, so ... I am not so concerned? Having no smartphone is no option? Ok so ... I say they can have a smartphone, but they may not use antisocial media. Ok. First - in any free society, is it acceptable that this kind of censorship is done on ALL kids? What if I, as a parent, do not agree with this? Well, tough luck - the laws force you into the age sniffing routine suddenly. But, even those parents who want the state to act as totalitarian: why would I want to hand over control to ANY politician for that matter? That makes no sense to me. I am aware that some parents may think differently, but do all parents think like that, even IF they buy into the "we protect the children" lie? I don't want ANY information from ANY of my computers to go into private hands here. So the whole argument already makes zero sense from the get go.
Of course those who know how things work, they know that this is the build up towards identifying everyone on the world wide web at all times AND to make access to information conditional, e. g. if the state does not know you, you can not access information. Aka a passport system for the www. Built right into the operating system too. Windows already complied. MacOSX too. The battle for Linux will be interesting; it may be some hybrid situation, like systemd. And the systemd distributions will all succumb to age sniffing, courtesy of Poettering "this is really harmless if we store your age in the database, just trust me".
You're not qualified to say that because you aren't a proponent of age verification. That's just imputing motives.
As a proponent of age verification and can tell you it's absolutely about protecting kid from damaging services like porn. It's a common sense control and that's why it has bi-partisan support in the US during a time where there is nearly 0 bi partisan support.
https://www.euractiv.com/news/greece-to-ban-anonymity-on-soc...
Um, no? iOS is doing age verification just by your credit card. I never saw people all that upset about giving their credit card info to their phone wallet app or even to a bunch of websites.
I would say it's not really an ID no, which is the point. The post is claiming that a digital ID is necessary for age verification, but clearly it isn't.
Kids should not be able/allowed to buy/use devices that are dangerous for them
But the device itself should not care at the fallacious idea “it might be able to”
The reason we are up shit creek is because large companies didn't want to spend 2-5% of profits on decent editorial controls to stop bad actors making money from bending societal red lines (ie pile ons, snuff videos, the spectrum of grift, culture of abusing the "other side")
They also didn't want to stop the "viral" factor that allows their networks to grow so fucking fast.
This isn't really about freedom of speech, its about large media companies not wanting to take responsibility for their own shit.
meta desperately want kids to sign up. There are no penalties for them pushing shit on them. If an FCC registered corp had done half the shit facebook did, they'd have been kicked off air and restructured.
So frankly its too fucking late. Meta, google and tiktok will still find ways to push low quality rage bate to all of us, and divide us all for advertising revenue.
People will show what they are made of.
The writing style of the author is very annoying.
It's the same with tough on crime. "What, you want criminals to keep getting away with it?!"
I would substitute "deeply" for "superficially". Like, if my parents found some way to prohibit porn when I was an adolescent, I wouldn't say they cared deeply about me. I would say they were misguided and authoritary. The "care deeply" idea you are putting forward is just trying to distil whatever societal norm currently is into the youngs.
Protect the children refers to a type of property, not a type of human.
Regardless how stupid this argument is, rags will always pounce on it.
This is just a dirty trick of the creeps to make the resistance harder.
It's also ironic that this guy is so adamant about protecting the children on xitter. It's like preaching against racism on 4chan.
The Internet pretty much runs our lives now, so: I do.
Lots of things require having Internet access, an email address, being able to visit a website, coordinate with others on a Facebook page for a local group, etc.
No one requires me to buy a pack of cigarettes to register for classes, pay bills, submit something to the government, etc.
> register for classes, pay bills, submit something to the government
is that right?
No.
You asked a specific question, and I answered a specific question (which I even quoted in my response).
Even then your answer isn't really an answer, because you're giving examples of things the internet is required for. Certain situations can require having a car, that doesn't mean you need to care about cars more than the minimum necessary to operate one.
> If you want the best for your children, you must stop online age verification.
> Your children are being targeted. The infrastructure being built under the cover of child safety is designed to enslave them for the rest of their lives.
Jumped the shark on that one, and really off-color. I'm less inclined to listen to guy, not because of his actual points, but because of how unreasonable he sounds when articulating them. A great lesson in how not to do rhetoric.
"Your children will never know what it was like to think freely online. They will never explore ideas anonymously. They will never question authority without it being logged in their permanent profile. They will never speak freely without fear that every word will be used against them.
They will grow up in a digital cage. And you will have to tell them you saw it being built and did not stop it when you had the chance."
So I'm with the author on this one. Under the cover of child safety, digital IDs will cage us (or at least children entering the verification age), and it will probably never be rolled back.
Would that be such a bad thing? Frankly I would welcome a world in which kids are not using Instagram or TikTok. They don’t have to live in a cage if we don’t let them in the cage.
Personally, my plan is that when age verification laws get passed, every service that requires ID is a service I stop using. And I expect my life to be better for it!
Let’s take a basic example: Wikipedia, which hosts pornography, easily could be a target of such legislation. Now there is infrastructure in place to know when you read about “Criticisms of policy X” and maybe it’s handled safely or maybe it’s handed directly to the government.
What about news? It’s a hop skip and leap from “age verify pornography with ID” to “age verify content about sexual abuse or violence.” Now the infrastructure is in place to see the alt-news criticisms you read.
Twitch or YouTube wouldn’t even wait to comply, ID verification is something that these corporations are already perfectly fine with. Now, you watching a history of your government’s crimes is a potentially tracked red flag that you’re a dissident to be watched.
Do you think if this sort of legislation is enacted, it will stop at large websites? It will be an excuse used by the government and supported by big tech firms to shut down any small websites which don’t comply. After all, Google, MS, et al, they would rather that your entire concept of the internet start and end in a service they control.
But will your friends and family opt out? Their phones are always listening. They can just as easily listen to you, even if you go to great pains not to expose yourself to technology. They'll make a shadow profile of any avoidant user whether they want it or not.
Bullshit. These are all-encompassing monopolies and government services. More likely, they'll ban you and you'll end up having to go to court out of desperation to demand that they service you.
This is very limited thinking. If you lacked this sort of imagination 20 years ago, you wouldn't have been able to predict today.
> Frankly I would welcome a world in which kids are not using Instagram or TikTok.
This is the sort of passive reactionary nonsense that causes the danger that we're in. Everything isn't something to give up lightly, even if you think that it will force your neighbor to turn his music down, or get rid of bad reality television. I don't like kids on social media either. I don't like adults on it. I think kids are suffering more from surveillance than from TikTok.
The time to worry about not having a digital cage was quite awhile ago. Instead tech people pushed Chrome and Android and Gmail and ads onto us.
Curious about via Google Chrome versus not
Are you not alarmed at the possibility that a person's network access could be cut arbitrarily and at-will?
https://www.mediamatters.org/tiktok/tiktok-prompting-users-f...
https://www.dcu.ie/antibullyingcentre/recommending-toxicity#
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/feb/06/social-media-a...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/25/technology/facebook-like-...
https://news.sky.com/story/the-x-effect-how-elon-musk-is-boo...
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/gen-z-men-and-women-most-divided-...
I see the societal turmoil and strife this will feed as much more dangerous and concrete than some abstract high-minded discussion about slippery slopes. Our society is being torn apart as we speak. We don't have the luxury of philosophizing about what-ifs.
He’s 100% correct.
For a start, child are parents responsibility, and the state should stay out of that as much as reasonably possible.
Nothing more would need to me said on the matter if that’s as far as it went, but it isn’t.
There can be no free speech if the state can imprison you for what you say, and they know everything you say.
I dropped the word ‘online’ from the above paragraph, because on is the real world. Touch grass, but there’s no way online isn’t real. Are these words not real simple because I telegraphed them to you?
That’s not a world I want to live in.
Yes
That's why stores let kids buy alcohol and tobacco, of course, because no responsible parent would let them buy that, right?
That's why any kid can go watch any movie in the cinema right?
Yes it's the parents responsibilities. Do you think a middle class single mother has the resources to keep their kids entertained and out of social media for the whole day?
The problem with age verification is 100% the lack of anonymity in its implementation (which I do agree has ulterior motives) - but honestly not the age check in itself
Yes. At least in the U.S., the federal government does not regulate that, it is voluntary by the MPA (formerly MPAA) and theaters. A kid can buy a ticket for a PG movie and walk into an R-rated movie.
> Do you think a middle class single mother has the resources to keep their kids entertained and out of social media for the whole day?
Mine did. While not everyone has a backyard, things like pencils, papers, books, used toys, etc can be found inexpensively or for free.
In Australia, I’m fairly certain it is not an offence for a minor to purchase alcohol or tobacco.
It is an offence to supply alcohol or tobacco to a minor.
You want to force us to compromise when we were minding our own goddamn business.
If parents suck at parenting, they will suffer.
If porn companies distribute porn to minors, which is illegal in many places such as the US, they will not suffer. Unless you start holding them accountable.
And not distributing porn to children is a porn company's responsibility.
You are repeating a very common talking point but its not a good one.
Age verification laws make it possible to hold services providers liable for breaking the law (it's already illegal to distribute porn to minors in many places, like the US).
It's both true and completely irrelevant that parents should do a better job protecting their children from harmful services online.
Carefully note that I have neither affirmed nor contradicted anything of the substance of his argument. So defending his position to me is a non sequitur.
The goal should probably be convincing people at the margins, and not turning away those in opposition.
Preaching to the echo chamber is probably less productive.
Edit: yes it is hyperbolic and ridiculous to suggest people will be "enslaved" because they don't have access to the internet. Do you realize that makes everybody who grew up in the 90s or earlier a "slave"?
It seems reasonable to me to hold porn companies responsible for distributing porn to minors.
That does not detract from the fact that the people arguing for age verification are using "think of the children" in order to push surveillance.
I've read papers on the topic, and the good papers always point out that there is almost no focus on any potential positives. Many "authors" have already made up their minds before they've even started conducting research, and that's only if they manage to get funding (everything sex related gets very little or no research funding).
As for focusing on potential positives, I'd be surprised to see any studies focusing on the potential positives of gambling or doomscrolling.
Any arguments of "lack of evidence of harm" sounds a lot like what tobacco or asbestos companies used to claim not long ago.
Sex and sexual content interacts with the brain differently then addictive short form videos.
Make no mistake you are engaging in your own form of rhetoric when you respond like this. You are in effect moving the discussion away from the subject at hand, and towards the perceived faults in the author’s communication style. This is a rhetorical slight of hand and it’s highly disingenuous.
If I were the author of the post, I'd value the feedback.
You have accused me of "rhetoric", but that is no accusation at all. Rhetoric is the art of persuasive speech. I have not accused the author of "rhetoric" but of "poor rhetoric". Perhaps that is what you mean to accuse me of.
I haven't heard too many people say these extreme-sounding, yet at least arguably true points out loud.
Someone should be saying them, and the fact that it's not your particular cup of tea may not be the biggest issue here.
It's important to remember that they're targeting your children. You grew up with freedom from surveillance and constant identification. You were able to communicate anonymously and without the content of your speech being sold to Walmart and the cops. They are putting in effort to make sure that your children will never have that reality as a reference point. The idea of the government and a dozen corporations not knowing everything that they are doing at all times, and not using and selling that information freely, will sound like the ramblings of a delusional old fool.
It's important that you engage with that. Denial is not something to brag about.
Who is the "they" that you refer to? Did you know that many people are in favor of age verification? Like, many parents of children who are at a loss for how to protect them from early access to obscene material? Could it be that that is why a large segment of government actors are moving in this direction? Or must it necessarily be a secretive nefarious play by some evil tech companies in cahoots with that one administration?
Or is it actually the opponents of age verification who are the ones targeting my children by encouraging early access to obscene materials for grooming?
That last point sounds like a conspiracy theory. It should. I wrote it that way to be provocative, and I hope that you, as a result, dismiss it out of hand. But I want you to understand that TFA's argument also sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. If you want me to engage, you want to make a serious attempt at persuasion.
To that end, I do appreciate that you have not adopted the tone of the article.
I can see why it's unfortunate but the idea posited that that it's somehow illegal in the US is ridiculous. You have no right to watch porn anonymously at the expense of holding porn companies liable for distributing porn to minors.
Internet 1.0 was largely read only, ephemeral, or decentralized. Chat rooms, IRC, personal webpages, etc. There was anonymity and there were not age restricted services.
Internet 2.0 introduced age restricted services and the enforcement lagged. The enforcement is now catching up. You can still do all the Internet 1.0 things anonymously but you can no longer gamble online as a 14 year old and hopefully soon you wont be able to watch porn either.
The point of this is not to verify age really. It is to verify identity. There's no way to prove someone is some age without presenting a legal ID.
Also, it's not just porn, facebook, online gambling etc. It is the OS based on some bills. So ALL your activities.
Sure there is.
Verifiable Credentials and other similar standards allow this to be delegated in such a way that there is no need to present ID or even let the site know who you are. The site can issue a request to a third party that simply provides back "Yep, we attest that this request was approved by someone over 18".
Depending on the exact scheme, the request may forward you to a broker, who will then forward the request (and your web session) on to the trusted third party of your choice which has already performed ID verficiation (usually a bank). The bank sends a signed response back to the broker, the broker sends a signed response back to the requesting site.
Is it perfect? Maybe not 100%, the broker knows there was a request from a restricted site forwarded to a given bank. The bank knows you have approved a request. There is likely to be an identifier of some sort sent from the site all the way through to the back-end so you know you're not being MITM'd. But in theory nobody should have the full picture.
And private third parties are very shady. They have effective monopolies and no significant public face to care about. I think we have seen this pattern play out in healthcare, compliance and other industries already.
Also idk about banks being the effective gatekeepers to the internet and eventually all technology. Just feels like its not their place to do that.
There was porn before most everything on the web. Porn is also speech / art.
Anonymous access should be available for any website that wants to share their content on the Internet provided they have the rights to that content.
States that seek to limit that could make a legal argument that they have the right to limit access, but in the end it’s infringing speech. Worse, it’s unenforceable.
And yes, I would make the same arguments for people posting hateful shit or misinformation.