"Free Speech" in the American legal sense (1st Amendment to the Constitution) applies to government prohibition on speech, with a particular emphasis on political speech.

It doesn't prevent one person from prohibiting speech... I can tell a pastor to stop preaching on my lawn. But, the government cannot tell a pastor not to preach in the publicly-owned town square (generally, there are exceptions).

There are arguments that certain online forums are effectively "town squares in the internet age" (Twitter in particular, at least pre-Musk). But, I always found that analogy to fall apart - twitter (or whatever online forum) is more like an op-ed section in a newspaper, IMO. And newspapers don't have to publish every op-ed that gets submitted.

> Why they don't use zero knowledge proof?

Some proposed implementation do this. Without the requirement there is no chance of your ID or age being leaked, with zero knowledge proof, there is a chance they leak but can be made small, potentially arbitrarily so. Other implementations come with larger risks.

Onlyfans is legal prostitution so we need to protect that. Better to regulate the entire internet with taking your rights than question why it's allowed.

What parts and content should be "harder to access" in your view?

Realistically all but the largest sites are going to contract out age verification to third parties. There will probably be verification companies that will have a wide range of verifications.

How would internet access in a coffee shop be traced to the specific user?

I want this practice to remain in countries like India and Russia.