> > B) schools aren't in fact obligated to enable those, and some don't.

> The technical problem is solved, if they don't want to implement the solution that's on them.

Just to be clear - do you not understand that a parent might be parenting, but some times their children is in care of a school? Your focus on "a technical solution exists" is missing the real issue here, and it's not a technical one.

I'm talking about both parents and schools: the technical solution exists. If parents/schools don't want to implement it, that's on them.

This answers your objection A and B. C is also a non-probem with a trivial fix, as I showed.

What we're discussing is whether age verification is needed. Based on the existence of other, perfectly fine solutions, it's not. "But schools don't bother implementing those other solutions" is not a counter-argument to this discussion.

>but some times their children is in care of a school?

And not only that but some of those times are dinner break, on a school campus with a thousand other kids and barely any supervision. Even if phones are banned, it's easy to hide one and for a child to be showing their friends unhinged stuff they found on 4chan.

And some of those times are on a bus carrying at least 50 kids when they're 'supervised' only by a driver ... and so on.

Same argument(s) can be applied to age verification.

But this thread is discussing the technical solution and how many jurisdictions are pretending there’s no technical solutions just so they can pass surveillance legislation?