no, they want to pretend this is the issue, so that pervasive monitoring or permission and/or deanonymization is normalized. It is to serve the state apparatus, rather than any actual protection.
Maybe some want more control, but most certainly not everybody.
> so that pervasive monitoring
If you haven't gotten the memo, pervasive monitoring already exists. To sell ads.
> or permission and/or deanonymization is normalized
For age verification, it's possible to do it in a privacy-preserving manner. Now people spend their time complaining about the idea and claiming that all who disagree are extremists, so it doesn't help. But we could instead try to push for privacy-preserving age verification.
This topic is just unfavorable with this community... for good reasons.
Those who want less regulation are not hackers, but rich and powerful assholes.
"Being a hacker" does not mean "being stuck in the 80s", IMO. If TooBigTech cryptographically controls everything, it becomes harder to hack. Are you aware that the biggest restriction against jailbreaking stuff is that it was made super illegal... because it helps corporations?
You should ask the DIY diabetes community what they think of FDA regulations preventing modifications of medical devices.
Being reductive about this stuff is not a helpful framing.
Ah yes, so that's why Meta et al are the main ones behind pushes for more "think of the children" ID verification/attestation regulations.
For Meta, it's better to have age verification than to downright ban social media.
it'd be so easy to do, and would immediately make obsolete any measures taken digitally to preserve privacy