The government will want some way to uncover who bought the token. They'll probably require the store to record the ID and pretend like since it's a private entity doing it, that it isn't a 4A violation. Then as soon as the token is used for something illegal they'll follow the chain of custody of the token and find out who bought it.

No matter what the actual mechanism is, I guarantee they will insist on something like that.

▲

john_strinlai 8 hours ago | parent [-]

if the goal is to "protect children", or just generally make parts of the internet age-gated, my proposal is 100% fine.

if the goal is "surveil everyone using the internet", yes, very obviously my proposal would not be selected, and you will have to upload your id to various 3rd-party id verifiers.

▲

mothballed 8 hours ago | parent [-]

I think something like your proposal actually sounds the most logical. I just think they will bolt on chain of custody tracking to it, while promising it will only be used for finding "terrorists" or something.

	▲	procflora 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Yes, while I was reading the article I couldn't help but think about notaries public. Seems like something like that would be government's go-to for this if they weren't quite so overfed on tech industry contributions that lead them down the path of AI solutions. I'm not sure that's the right answer here, but I think it ticks a lot boxes for the state.
	▲	Seattle3503 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The nice thing about something bolted on like that is that it is not an essential feature of the core design and has no bearing on the original goal. It can be removed or reformed. The same isn't true of the approaches we are heading towards now.