Famously children can only access internet from wifi paid for by their parents.

I'm not for these draconian age verification nonsense, but this isn't a valid argument.

It is a valid alternative avenue towards a legal implementation of "child safeguarding" IMO. Someone pays for the internet, that person is responsible for what minors do on their connection. If they have trouble doing that we can use normal societal mechanisms like idk social services, education, and government messaging.

This is the way it works with e.g. alcohol and cigarettes, most places. Famously kids can just get a beer from a random fridge and chug it, but someone 16/18/21+ will be responsible and everyone seems mostly fine with this.

▲

nazgulsenpai 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If protecting children were the actual intended outcome, this would have been the logical way to do it. Since it isn't what they're actually doing, instead using personally identifiable information to establish your age, we can only assume it's an attempt to deanonymize the internet.

▲

alt227 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This will never work.

I regularly talk to other parents at the school gates who have no idea that permissions on mobiles even exist, let alone that they can choose what they let each app have access to.

The general public people just dont care.

	▲	bondarchuk 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, it's hard work to build a society where people behave responsibly and in their best interests. But I'd prefer we actually put in the effort rather than go for the easy authoritarian option out of basically laziness and contempt for your fellow man. (fwiw I regularly talk to parents who are quite aware of various parental controls and use them effectively, combined with talking to their kids and just general good parenting practices)