Just requiring it for social media companies is probably enough of a win to not have to pursue any further. We require age verification for sports betting and things like that, I'm not sure why we wouldn't do the same or some variation of that for other massively addicting products that we know as a matter of scientific study have a very bad impact on some number of kids.

▲

afh1 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Because it's not about children but requiring identification to speak online.

▲

ericmay 2 days ago | parent [-]

That's the cynical view, yes, but we can see educational standards and performance going down in the United States, we have seen plenty of scientific and medical studies showing problems with children and more specifically teenagers using social media. I'm not one to want to want to limit someone's rights, but it seems like the trade-off here is in favor of requiring age verification at least for social media companies.

Separately I still don't fully agree with concerns raised regarding social media and identification for everyone. Bots, people who are online just stirring up trouble, &c. are causing pretty significant challenges and problems for society. If you spew a bunch of racist stuff for example I think people deserve to know who you are.

And you know we do this all the time. Folks want gun registries and things like that (and I agree, as a matter of practice, but not principal) so I'm not sure why we're ok with that form of requiring identification to exercise your rights and against this one other than political priorities.

▲

domador a day ago | parent [-]

Maybe requiring identification to speak online is not the intent but it would likely be the practical effect of the laws that were originally intended just to help children. It's not enough to think about laws' intent, but also their practical effects.

We haven't even mentioned the censoriousness that already takes place in various online forums not because a user said something racist or was stirring up trouble, but because moderators were vindictive, petty, or lazy, or because the automated moderation tools in place were heavy-handed and unintelligent. I don't look forward to that kind of moderation spreading everywhere and made more efficient by reducing everyone to a single identity. (Maybe Joe Contrarian has some opinions worth listening to, but it's just easier for the moderator of a forum to see that he was already publicly blacklisted by another unrelated forum, and just blacklist him on this one, too.)

	▲	ericmay 21 hours ago \| parent [-]
		At the end of the day they are private websites and the owners get to decide all of that stuff. Start your own, or just stop posting and let such folks have their echo chambers. One of our problems in society is that folks seem to think there is a need to post on the Internet on some forum - stop giving others power over you. You’re just posting to a bunch of anonymous people. They may be bots for all you know. Who cares? > Maybe requiring identification to speak online is not the intent but it would likely be the practical effect of the laws that were originally intended just to help children. It's not enough to think about laws' intent, but also their practical effects. Right we should analyze trade-offs. But you are quite focused on censorship which I am also generally concerned with. But are you really being censored by being identified and associated with what you say online? In public you aren’t anonymous - why must that extend to this digital public square?

▲

EmbarrassedHelp 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It will spread to everywhere else if we allow it for social media. In Australia for example, mandatory age verification has already spread to video games.

	▲	ericmay a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I'm with you on the slippery slope argument. I do mean that I think we would solve most problems with just an implementation on social media. In the US for buying games online we've had age verification for a long time. For in-store purchases you see that too. Same with movies.
	▲	HerbManic a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Shows what my gaming preferences are when I have never come across these restrictions here. Sonic Mania is not exactly risque stuff.

▲

cmiles74 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Indeed, social media companies seem to big proponents of the US legislation.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/13/california-advances...

▲

walrus01 2 days ago | parent [-]

Big social media companies are likely overjoyed to be able to get discrete, government issued info of a person's full legal name, date of birth, residential address (as is printed on US drivers licenses) for advertising and demographic profile targeting purposes. And then be able to correlate it with their existing social media history/clicks/profile, browser fingerprinting, IP address, daily usage patterns, geolocation. It's a massive gift to them.

▲

ericmay 2 days ago | parent [-]

I doubt they need that to identify you. There are also lots of other problems like algorithmic manipulation. But also just stop using these junky websites. Everyone always complains about Meta doing this, TikTok doing that, and it's like if all they do is make you mad, stop being their user/customers?

▲

domador a day ago | parent [-]

It's very hard to stop being their users/customers when they're the only platform where people are gathering for that particular purpose. The nature of walled gardens and network effects often mean that there isn't a viable alternative.

It's bad when the choice one has is between 1) using a platform that's significantly problematic or 2) being disconnected from everyone you'd like to connect with because they're only using that platform.

▲

ericmay 21 hours ago | parent [-]

It’s pretty easy. I haven’t had social media besides LinkedIn since, I think 2013? I participate in all sorts of events, I know about things going on in my neighborhood and city, and I have quite a few friends. You don’t need this stuff and it’s just going to suck up more and more of your time and attention misleading you in to believing you need it.

You’re not connected with anyone. It’s a surrogate activity.

▲

pirates 20 hours ago | parent [-]

Be careful saying you don’t use social media or soon you’ll have a wholly off-topic sub-thread about whether or not HN is social media too, even though we’ve all read the same tired arguments from both sides about a billion times in other threads.

	▲	ericmay 18 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You're right, and if someone wants to say I have social media because of this forum that's totally fine. I just mean I don't use any of the major social media platforms, well, except LinkedIn. And I just haven't gotten over the hump yet on deleting that one too.