This pattern of thought is exactly the issue. Stop offloading the responsibility for creating a reasonable environment! That won't end well for neither children nor adults.

It's an extremely American religious belief that everything is an individual problem. Luckily, almost no other country has this religion.

▲

lII1lIlI11ll 2 days ago | parent [-]

Firstly, I'm not from the US. Secondly, I don't agree that forcing bunch of random web sites and apps (i.e. not government or banking sites/apps) to demand ids from their users is a "reasonable environment".

▲

immibis 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Luckily, they aren't doing that - the Australian law actually bans them from demanding IDs, unless they provide an alternative as well.

Here is the law: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display....

▲

p2detar 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It’s quite simple really - you have the choice not to use those services. I don’t get what the anger is about here.

▲

lII1lIlI11ll 2 days ago | parent [-]

You are being obtuse. The anger is about services I'm used to may be forced to demand my id in the future because modern parents can't be assed to configure parental controls on their brat's phones (or are too afraid to do that).

▲

2 days ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

immibis 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I agree it would be more privacy-conscious to do the banning in the opposite way, by putting the banning logic on the end device, and mandating websites to send a signal that they are banned for minors. This header already exists (and for some reason it's a really long random-ish string). Someone should propose this to lawmakers.

Since the law doesn't actually say how it should be implemented, it's compatible with existing law. Actually I wonder if simply sending the "I am 18+" header would already be legal in Australia. Probably not, on the basis that it doesn't actually work right now, but maybe they could convince a judge that it's actually the browser's fault it doesn't respect the header.

▲

lII1lIlI11ll 2 days ago | parent [-]

You are giving authoritarians benefit of a doubt for no good reason. Vagueness in such laws is usually to allow selective enforcement by the people in power and not for you (a regular user) to have an "escape hatch" from negative consequences of the law. The reality of the situation is that there are currently no other ways to enforce age checks besides asking for an id and any kind of theoretical parental-controls-configured browser headers are years away from deployment, best case.

▲

immibis a day ago | parent [-]

The Australian law isn't vague in saying that it's illegal for websites to require you to upload your ID. The penalty for requiring users to upload their ID is the same as the penalty for deliberately allowing minors.

▲

lII1lIlI11ll 20 hours ago | parent [-]

You are repeatedly making big claims about the Australian law without citing any specific parts supporting them. I don't see anything in the law that:

- Makes it illegal to ask users for ids.

- Sets the same "penalty" for requiring ids as for "deliberately allowing minors"

Please either provide supporting evidence or stop making misleading claims.

▲

immibis 8 hours ago | parent [-]

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display....

Section 63DB.

Please actually read before making me waste rate limit slots.

	▲	lII1lIlI11ll 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I did actually read it - section 63DB allows them to ask for and collect ids as long as they also provide "alternative means". Which in reality means that they will first ask for a selfie video, then for id unless you have lots of grey hairs and wrinkles. Which makes it even worse because they will also have your biometrics in addition to bunch of personal information from your id!