The insistence on perfect age verification requires ending anonymity. Age verification to the level of buying cigarettes or booze does not.

Flash a driver's license at a liquor store to buy a single-use token, good for one year, and access your favorite social media trash. Anonymity is maintained, and most kids are locked out.

In the same way that kids occasionally obtain cigs or beer despite safeguards, sometimes they may get their hands on a code. Prosecute anyone who knowingly sells or gives one to a minor.

▲

pryce 3 days ago | parent [-]

> Flash a driver's license at a liquor store to buy a single-use token, good for one year, and access your favorite social media trash. Anonymity is maintained...

Ask a woman in a liquor store whether her anonymity is maintained by this scenario...?

The current liquor store approach for buying liquor is hazardous for a good chunk of people and we need to acknowledge that - even if acquiring a token somewhat ameliorates the compounded risk from presenting ID multiple times

So many of these internet ban proposals feel like someone creates a single cartoon scenario that captures ~2% of the use cases, and happily charges ahead to a proposed solution as though they've sufficiently thought about the people affected and the harms involved.

▲

triceratops 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

I've seen many women buying alcohol and cigarettes. After a certain age you aren't even carded. It isn't obvious to me that it's a big worry for women in general.

However, I accept it may be a concern for some due to a history of stalkers. They have alternatives.

They can ask a friend to buy a token on their behalf. It's always legal to give alcohol to a friend you know is of legal drinking age. Same thing.

They could find liquor or tobacco stores with women cashiers. And rotate between stores to avoid showing their ID to the same person multiple times.

> So many of these internet ban proposals feel like someone creates a single cartoon scenario that captures ~2% of the use cases

I think the "problem" with my proposal you're harping on is the "~2% of use cases" you're talking about. My proposal isn't foolproof but it is anonymous. Just like alcohol and tobacco sales today.

If we're saying social media is the new tobacco and must be kept away from kids (I agree on both counts) then we must not intrude on the privacy of adults any more than we would when they buy actual tobacco.

It makes no sense to want to control access to certain websites more strictly than access to actual poisons that cause disease, violent behavior, and death. Otherwise it's clear it was never about "the kids". It was about control, speech policing, and ending anonymity online.

Forcing everyone to upload IDs makes all women vulnerable to stalking and harassment. It's strictly worse.

▲

Dylan16807 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Ask a woman in a liquor store whether her anonymity is maintained by this scenario...?

Is she not going to say "pretty well compared to a surveillance database, one or two people that are probably going to forget immediately"?

> The current liquor store approach for buying liquor is hazardous for a good chunk of people

What chunk of people?

Are you trying to imply that this chunk includes women in general? It's really easy to find random women without looking at an ID. If this is about addresses, anyone taking actions based on "a woman probably lives here" has about the same effect as picking houses at random.

▲

pryce 3 days ago | parent [-]

> Is she not going to say "pretty well compared to a surveillance database"

No, instead she is likely to avoid talking in abstractions and instead talk about personal experiences of getting stalked online by multiple people she has had to show her details to in the past, who may include storekeeps, police, university staff, etc, etc. Eva Galperin is an excellent source on the way many of our procedures are designed in ways that do not at all account for the potential of stalking and harassment, though her focus is on how this continues to unfold in the technology space.

	▲	triceratops 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I can't really follow how a woman showing an ID to a lecherous cashier allows said cashier to stalk her online. Where she is, presumably, speaking about personal experiences anonymously. Generally you can't get through life with no one knowing your name; even women at risk of stalking. As you already pointed out they may have to show ID to police, university staff, employers, landlords, medical staff, banks, social workers or other government employees. Buying a single-use token annually to get on social media doesn't meaningfully increase that risk profile. And as I already said, if they're that worried, they can ask a friend to buy it for them.
	▲	Dylan16807 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Very big citation needed for saying it's "likely" she has been stalked by multiple people because they got a glance at her name. Especially because someone that just wants info on an attractive woman can find a hundred times as many candidates by scrolling facebook. I'll believe it if you have proof, but you need proof.