I am only interesting in protected the majority of children which I believe my proposal more than covers. There will always be exceptions. Today teens share porn, warez, pirated movies and music with small children in rated-G video games. I am not proposing anything for that. It is up to businesses to detect and block such things.

Point being, there will be a myriad of exceptions. I am not looking to address the exceptions. Those can be a game of whack-a-mole as they are today. I am proposing something that would prevent the vast majority of children from being exposed to the trash we today call social media and of course also porn sites.

▲

trinsic2 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Look, please don't sideline/marginalize people by using the "whataboutism" term. Thats being used more and more to silence dialog from people that see problems outside the focus of a specific area. Its important that we see ALL sides of the problem.

▲

Bender 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Fair enough. Even though I do not perceive it that way I removed it in the event a majority of others have come to this conclusion.

	▲	trinsic2 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Thank you for understanding. I know sometimes topics can get out of hand with comments about related things, but I this case. We might be better off looking at all the extremities.

▲

duped 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

These aren't exceptions or whataboutism. It's the debate being had on the floors of state legislatures.

> It is up to businesses to detect and block such things.

Which is exactly why age verification legislation is hitting the books. No one (serious) cares about whether kids can download porn and R rated movies. Parental controls already exist if the threat model is preventing access to specific content that is able to report itself as _being_ that content.

Your proposal also doesn't address the other domain that these legislators are targeting, which is addictive content. They define specifically what classifies as an addictive stream and put the onus on service providers to assert that they're not delivering addictive streams of media to kids. An HTTP header isn't enough, because it's not about the content being shown to kids but the design patterns of how it's accessed.

Essentially: age verification isn't about porn. 18+ content stirs the pot a bit with the evangelical crowd but it's really not what people are worried about when it comes to controlling digital media access with age gates.

	▲	Bender 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Your proposal also doesn't address the other domain that these legislators are targeting, which is addictive content. That sounds simple to me. If a type of content is addictive then require the RTA header. - Adult content, or possible adult content. - User contributed or generated content (this covers most of social media) - Site psychological profiles that are deemed addictive (TikTok and their ilk) Overall we are describing things that are harmful to the development of the minds of small children. If adults wish to avoid such content they can create a child account on their device for themselves to be excluded from this behavior as well. I use a child account in a couple of popular video games to avoid most of the trash talking and spam. I'm not hiding my age as the games have my debit card information but rather I opt-in to parental controls.