> If you love your family, you must stop online age verification.

> If you want the best for your children, you must stop online age verification.

> Your children are being targeted. The infrastructure being built under the cover of child safety is designed to enslave them for the rest of their lives.

Jumped the shark on that one, and really off-color. I'm less inclined to listen to guy, not because of his actual points, but because of how unreasonable he sounds when articulating them. A great lesson in how not to do rhetoric.

When I read those seemingly outrageous claims, I didn't immediately dismiss the author. I allowed him to substantiate the claims and kept reading. I found myself agreeing with his argument and his train of thought of how, once digital IDs are accepted as a norm, they won't be unwound, and all online activity will likely require them and then, as he says,

"Your children will never know what it was like to think freely online. They will never explore ideas anonymously. They will never question authority without it being logged in their permanent profile. They will never speak freely without fear that every word will be used against them.

They will grow up in a digital cage. And you will have to tell them you saw it being built and did not stop it when you had the chance."

So I'm with the author on this one. Under the cover of child safety, digital IDs will cage us (or at least children entering the verification age), and it will probably never be rolled back.

A lot of people dismissed RMS's "Right to Read"[1] essay long ago. All the things it was warning about have come to pass, in spades.

1: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

Responding to tone but not to content is what a dog does.

>They are counting on you caring more about sounding reasonable than protecting your kids from a system designed to control them forever.

Do you actually have an argument to make?

He’s 100% correct.

For a start, child are parents responsibility, and the state should stay out of that as much as reasonably possible.

Nothing more would need to me said on the matter if that’s as far as it went, but it isn’t.

There can be no free speech if the state can imprison you for what you say, and they know everything you say.

I dropped the word ‘online’ from the above paragraph, because on is the real world. Touch grass, but there’s no way online isn’t real. Are these words not real simple because I telegraphed them to you?

That’s not a world I want to live in.

The kids are our future adults. It should be pretty obvious that getting them used to the state yanking access is a future problem. I don’t see anything off-color or unreasonable.

Maybe you're not the target, then.

I haven't heard too many people say these extreme-sounding, yet at least arguably true points out loud.

Someone should be saying them, and the fact that it's not your particular cup of tea may not be the biggest issue here.

I’ve been noticing a trend among a lot of HN members where instead of contending with the arguments made in an article, they focus on the “off putting rhetoric” used by the author.

Make no mistake you are engaging in your own form of rhetoric when you respond like this. You are in effect moving the discussion away from the subject at hand, and towards the perceived faults in the author’s communication style. This is a rhetorical slight of hand and it’s highly disingenuous.

> how unreasonable he sounds

It's important to remember that they're targeting your children. You grew up with freedom from surveillance and constant identification. You were able to communicate anonymously and without the content of your speech being sold to Walmart and the cops. They are putting in effort to make sure that your children will never have that reality as a reference point. The idea of the government and a dozen corporations not knowing everything that they are doing at all times, and not using and selling that information freely, will sound like the ramblings of a delusional old fool.

It's important that you engage with that. Denial is not something to brag about.

Ironic that he's relying on the same ridiculous "think of the children" rhetoric that's being used to promote age verification. Really says a thing or two about online discourse in our day and age.

5 years ago I would have agreed, but seeing how the GOP has been fighting tooth and nail to protect actual child sex traffickers, I don't think so anymore. There's just no possible way that the safety of children is an actual concern to any of them. To these people, kids are little more than sex toys for billionaires.