The problem is privacy activists and free speech activists (though there's some overlap between the two they aren't the same) oppose age verification by any means since it has the potential to infringe on both ever so slightly. Meanwhile age verification gates are being demanded and thrown up all over the Internet at a frightening pace. So we get only the maximal data collection solutions implemented by people who don't give a shit about privacy or free speech. And the mass surveillance cheerleaders egg them on.

If privacy and free speech activists understood that a proactive, privacy-preserving approach to age verification is the best outcome we'd be better off.

JoshTriplett 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You need to process that other people disagree with that claim, and do not believe we'd be better off.

We should not accept the Overton window shifting here, and say "well, if we do it to ourselves, in a privacy-preserving way, that's less bad".

▲

ImPleadThe5th an hour ago | parent | next [-]

It really would be less bad though wouldn't it?

The more we resist turning this into a state-sided solution which provides a service to private companies with a YES/NO age verification, the more likely your data is going to be given to botton-of-the-barrel third party private companies.

I'm genuinely curious what the argument is against state-run privacy focused age verification is here. We already protect real life adult spaces with IDs. You hand your ID to a random store clerk who scans it with a random device when you want to buy alcohol or cigarettes.

What makes these social media platforms special that they have entirely different rules?

I will say, if they came for small privately-hosted communities, I can understand the cause for alarm. But so far it appears to be limited to massive misinformation machines.

	▲	triceratops 36 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> You hand your ID to a random store clerk who scans it with a random device when you want to buy alcohol or cigarettes. Or, as has always been my experience, gives it a cursory glance without scanning or recording it.

▲

triceratops 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> You need to process that other people disagree with that claim

I think I already said that in my original post.

> We should not accept the Overton window shifting here

Great! Let's say you and I refuse to accept it. How do we keep Discord from demanding passports or selfies? How can we get France[1] or Finland[2] to roll back age restrictions on social media?

You'll never convince a majority of voters in democracies that nothing online should be age-restricted. These are the people that the enemies of anonymity and free speech are counting on to advance their agenda.

At the same time a majority of voters is currently quite content with the state of age verification for access to tobacco and alcohol. Both its strictness (or lack thereof) and privacy preservation (almost perfect).

I'm not saying my proposal is the one that should be adopted. I honestly don't care which idea gets picked and I don't want anything from it. But it's a virtual guarantee that in the absence of a competing good-enough, privacy-preserving implementation, only the most privacy-invasive idea will be implemented.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46776272

2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46838417

▲

JoshTriplett an hour ago | parent [-]

> How do we keep Discord from demanding passports or selfies?

Build and promote alternatives that don't.

> How can we get France[1] or Finland[2] to roll back age restrictions on social media?

Host services elsewhere, and ignore claims that a country's laws extend beyond its borders.

	▲	triceratops 39 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Build and promote alternatives that don't. How well has that worked? Social media and messaging apps have network effects. > Host services elsewhere, ignore claims that a country's laws extend beyond its borders. That doesn't help the French or the Finns. Unless they use a VPN. And access the fragmented, lightly-used alternative services from the IPs of the fewer and fewer countries that don't pass such laws. Your vision leads to a world where the privacy-conscious 1% congregate in echo chambers on Mastodon instances hosted in international waters. Everyone else uploads their passport to FaceSnapTok. That's not a real solution. It's a cope. That's my opinion and I have no illusions I've changed your mind about anything. I already alluded to that in my original post. Privacy activists think age verification is not a problem that needs to be solved. By maintaining that belief they're ceding ground to bad actors who will "solve" it in a maximally privacy-invading fashion. This will leave the vast majority of internet users worse off.

▲

johnnyanmac 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The issue with your solution still comes down to yet another centralizing middleman with no real incentive to be efficient. And all the incentive to lobby governments and extract more wealth from the people.

This can of course be done government by government, but that isn't scalable for a global company.

	▲	triceratops 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It doesn't have to be 1 middleman. Multiple companies can issue the cards, just like there are multiple beer and cigarette and lottery companies. I wish I could edit my post because a lot of people had the same misconception when I first wrote it.

▲

frumplestlatz 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> ever so slightly

It’s not “slightly”. They’ll start with claiming to protect people under 18 from obviously problematic content — porn, grooming, etc.

It won’t stop there. The scope creep will extend to expressing or reading “incorrect” or “dangerous” views.

They’ll probably call some of it “hate speech”, but hate speech is whatever the people in power say it is; on X, “cisgender” is designated as a slur and gets your post censored.

The slippery slope fallacy is only a fallacy if the slope isn’t slippery — “think of the children” is a wedge bad actors are once again trying to use to open the floodgates of censorship.

They don’t even need to target adults; if you control what children can see and express, you have enormous control over all future generations of voters.

▲

tavavex 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I agree, but the powers that be loathe the phrase "hate speech". I'm betting the next encroachment will be on "violence", "terrorism" or even Russian-style "promotion of nontraditional values".

▲

triceratops 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's already happening. What's your alternative? Not VPNs because every jurisdiction and website will eventually have equivalent laws or terms of service.

▲

tavavex an hour ago | parent [-]

Nearly all big websites, probably, but there are enough tiny countries that I think at least one will opt to act as a safe haven for VPN servers and website hosting services, acting as the only remaining window to the free internet. It could be a lucrative practice, similar to how Panama and some other countries position themselves as places to register ships to avoid regulation.

▲

triceratops an hour ago | parent [-]

So VPN in from Panama to access shady sites no one else frequents? That's your solution?

	▲	tavavex an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Who said anything about a solution? I'm not saying this is good, I just brought it up as a potential end point of what's currently happening to the internet. I don't think there is anything that people like us can do, we can only watch.
	▲	an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]