Online threats to children are real, but the headlong pursuit of age verification that we’re seeing around the world is unacceptable in its approach and far too broad in scope — and we simply can’t afford to get this wrong.

To be clear, parents’ concerns are valid and sincere. Few people would argue that kids should have unfettered access to adult material, to self-harm how-tos, to social media platforms that manipulate them and expose them to abuse.

But it’s the very depth of those worries that is being cynically exploited. Age verification as is currently being proposed in country after country would mean the death of anonymity online.

And we know exactly who stands to gain: The same tech giants who built the privacy nightmare that the internet is today.

  • TheUniverseandNetworks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    43 minutes ago

    Surely it’s the death of anonymity for those who want to access stuff which would be age restricted in any other scenario (like a real shop). The rest of the population (most?) don’t care to access that stuff & don’t want it and can carry on being anonymous.

    And yes that gives the likes of Facebook et al a problem because they’ll have to categorise their content, but the whole point of this current fad for governments to legislate to restrict stuff is that the big tech companies could have (made efforts to) fix it but chose not to because it’s (waves hands and wails) hard.

  • fodor@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Kids don’t have unfettered access if they are supervised, lol. And age gating will fail regardless. So it’s a failure followed by another failure, sigh.

    • sircac@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      55 minutes ago

      Indeed, unfettered in a literal sense cannot happen even with the most minimum supervision, but regardless of the threshold in parenting (I am not going to pardon parents responsibility on this, but good luck asserting 100% supervision), circumventions will always take place, so with more reason it cannot be used the “kids safety” argument to bring Orwellian levels to everybody’s lifes

  • Doorbook@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 hours ago

    The positive thing about age checks is the technology that will come out to by pass the system.

    • elucubra@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 hours ago

      I’m working on ways it right now. Aliexpress wants me to do a face check for some items. I’ve been a customer long enough to have been born and become a legal adult as a customer!

      They don’t want my face for verification. It’s an excuse to feed their AI, which is already scary good at voice.

  • emeralddawn45@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    7 hours ago

    If this becomes widespread, I just won’t use any websites that require it. There will always be ways around it or alternatives for people opposed to losing their privacy. There already are at least 2 Internets. There’s reddit and Facebook and Twitter and all the corporate news sites, and then there’s Lemmy and archive.org and the dark web and dev pages and independent websites and piracy. I find I rarely care about the former anyway. It’ll just mean being blocked off from all the corporate slop, which may be a blessing in disguise.

    • Diurnambule@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I am readying myselft for the end of internet since years. I guess we are at the end of the dead internet theory where they have to ID humans to be able to differentiate them from bots and be able yo target them more specifically.

  • treesquid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    11 hours ago

    “Could” is a funny way of saying “are obviously intended to”. Stop playing around, call it out directly. Points where you must have your ID checked are, in fact, ID checkpoints.

  • Randelung@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Man, parents not wanting anything to do with their kids’ upbringing will believe anything, huh. They’d rather offload any and all responsibilities to automation than spend one minute teaching kids how to protect themselves.

    Then again, they probably don’t know, either.

    • FLAGSHIP@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      16 hours ago

      I think you’re correct in both aspects for sure. Parents are certainly less involved, for the most part, in informing their kids of literally anything. It is much easier to ‘offload any and all responsibilities’ as you put it. iPad kids are a good example of this. Handing a 2yr old a video device and walking away is not parenting. This is an issue with many many topics from internet safety, to general life things, to talks about their bodies. Parents do not want to parent.

      I’d also agree, largely, the parents just don’t know, or care. Privacy is, unfortunately, a niche thing to know and care about.

    • innermachine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      14 hours ago

      I see this as more like the patriot act- gover ent and big tech are pushing to elevate concerns of “the children’s safety” to violate our privacy and sell data. Same way the patriot act is so you can “keep all the evil bad man terrorists” at bay but really it’s an excuse to violate our rights “legally” in the name of “safety”.

    • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      I have siblings like that. Literally never seen them parent. I’ve changed more of their kids’ diapers than I have seen them do, and I have no kids. It’s kind of irritating in an understatement kind of way. My poor niblings

    • Zink@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      14 hours ago

      It seems like a pretty common thing for people to expect that the luxuries of modern technology include not having to do anything you don’t want to, including being present for your own life.

      People make self-destructive choices every day. (insert “always have been” 🌏🧑‍🚀🔫🧑‍🚀)

    • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      18 hours ago

      “Age Verification” is just them attaching “THINK OF THE CHILDREN” to their push to have every single bit of information about every person on the planet.

      • Clbull@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        17 hours ago

        All the more ironic when you realise that some of the big businessmen and lobbyists pushing for mandatory age verification checks are in the Epstein Files. Basically the kind of people who you don’t want to be thinking of the children…

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Social media functions as a kind of gatekeeper for public interactions, not unlike credit scores, driver’s licenses, and college degrees. The absence of a presence on social media is not only socially debilitating (you’re cut out of the information stream for local events and public amenities) but a red-flag for college recruiters and employers. It’s much like how not using a credit card regularly in your teens/20s impacts your ability to access low-interest lending in your 30s/40s. Or not having a driver’s license interferes with your right to vote.

      State officials have been searching for a kind of uniform, iron-clad, easily verifiable public ID for ages. Linking your online presence (a thing that you need for a myriad of daily tasks) to your ID becomes a pathway to this goal. Universal, non-transferable digital ID becomes a wicked two-edged sword as it both exhaustively tracks the “documented” individuals and neatly severs the “undocumented” from society.

  • ReCursing@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    108
    ·
    22 hours ago

    He has a vested interest in saying that, but he’s right, and it would be awful

      • qqq@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        19 hours ago

        It’s interesting what people expect of Proton Mail. I’ve used it for a long time but for only one reason really: their revenue stream is my subscription and not ads. I’ve never even given a second thought to all their encryption claims. Even with Proton Mail if I ever wanted to send a “secret” email I’d wrap the content in my own personal keys.

        With respect to IP addresses of email logins, I’m surprised they ever claimed they don’t have logs. You’ve always been able to review the IP of a login through the web UI as far as I remember. Was the idea that that was also supposed to be encrypted?

        Personally I’m OK with them complying with court orders, but I understand that “the definition of criminal is state defined” and that poses serious issues. It kinda seems like if you want to do something that could be considered criminal at some point in your life by your country you should consider something other than a 3rd party email provider for those messages. Signal would be a step up in that regard if you still wanted to use a third party.

        • XLE@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          18 hours ago

          It’s interesting what people expect of Proton Mail.

          It’s quite mundane actually: people expect what they advertise on their front page.

          Their advertising is a stretch at the best of times, and (as seen on my first link) so terrible that it needs to be removed at other times.

          • qqq@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            17 hours ago

            Lol, ok, fair.

            I guess I see a lot of wiggle room in the marketing speak of their page and I haven’t actually “looked in to” Proton Mail’s claims in a loooong time. So I guess what I really wanted to say is that it’s interesting to me that people take that marketing at face value if they’re actually trying to maintain secrecy. I’ve always just taken it as a given that third party services aren’t particularly good at that, especially as they grow in complexity like Proton has. Signal has been easier for me to believe because of the singular focus and the reputation of the founder in the crypto community; although I guess he’s long gone.

      • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        18 hours ago

        They have to comply with court orders. You can’t run a business and ignore the government and legal system; they will throw the book at you.

        Don’t use proton to do anything that could be considered a crime in the EU.

        • XLE@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          17 hours ago

          This sounds like something you should take up with Proton’s marketing: “Outside of US and EU jurisdiction”

          • Wildmimic@anarchist.nexus
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            16 hours ago

            Which is both correct, but makes them still subject to swiss law, and swiss law enforcement will comply with foreign requests - although it took some serious misrepresenting by the French by citing terrorism laws to get the swiss courts to sign the warrant, forcing proton to log the next IP the user used to log in. Had the user used protons own VPN or TOR to login, the resulting data would have been useless.

            • XLE@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              15 hours ago

              If Proton users try to sign up with Tor, they are asked for an email address, which Proton stores and turns over to law enforcement. Your complaint is legitimate, but you are speaking to the choir here, they need to know. At bare minimum, so they don’t get in legal trouble for misrepresentation (although I hope people here presume they have a higher ethical standard than legality)

    • VeloRama@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      15 hours ago

      that space is already pretty much dead, at least here in germany. If you create your own website, you need to have a valid legal notice. if you set up a web forum, you’re liable for everything that gets posted there.

      • Jason2357@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        This is basically FUD. Pick a different jurisdiction if your own country are assholes. Its very easy to participate in the small corners of the internet. Just don’t expect to commercialize it and its easy.

    • WanderingThoughts@europe.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Basically don’t allow ads for kids and only show social media posts from their friends in chronological order instead of any fancy algorithm. Also make them liable for showing scams to minors. That kills most profit.

      • Jason2357@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        This would be awesome. I would buy myself a fake ID again! This time the other direction.

      • orclev@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        17 hours ago

        Kill it from the other direction. Make it illegal to algorithmically adjust a users experience to prioritize interaction regardless of whether that’s positive or negative. Ultimately that’s the problem with places like Facebook, they weigh an angry rant the same as a positive one, higher even in a lot of cases. Things that make people angry generate a lot more interaction than positive things so it drowns people in hate and fear. If you treat any interaction as a positive signal things just devolve.

      • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        18 hours ago

        Great, now how do you tell who’s an adult?

        They’ll just implement age verification anyway.

              • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                12 hours ago

                Facebook asks for ID nowadays, so does YouTube for adult content I believe. It’s been happening for years. It’s also easier than typing a password if you’re on mobile.

                It’ll be normalised whether or not there’s laws requiring it :/