You don't prove it. Under California AB1043 (often called the "age verification law" by propagandists) it's illegal for a social media website to demand you to prove your age.

▲

mdp2021 2 days ago | parent [-]

> Under California AB1043

We are talking about "Brits" here. But you seem to be stating that California has tackled the issue and deliberated that - do I understand correctly? - somebody installs an OS on a machine and sets manually, without verification, a date of birth for the user (setting that will be shared with relevant servers).

Are you sure that that would be the way Britain is going to implement it? Why have not britons raised to get that crucial detail very, very clear? We understood that past limitations involved people using webcams in the uk to access forbidden sites.

And the eu? That Californian decision does not seem to have conditioned the eu much: the eu idea is that you should have an "official OS" with the technical capabilities required by the open source age-verifying "app" to get access.

(And I would insist: forbidding access to the video museum to those in the formative age is one of the most blatant events in history. That happened in britain, it just happened. To call the world reaction disproportionately absent is an understatement.)

▲

inigyou 2 days ago | parent [-]

If we want a good thing we should push for the good thing instead of remaining silent while worse people push for the worse thing.

▲

mdp2021 a day ago | parent [-]

Not clear. What would be the good thing. And what is "we", what is that silence: I denounce that of the britons as a set. We are pretty vocal.

The good thing to push is demanding decent administrations and operators (e.g. in information systems), selected from and evaluated by decent neighborhoods.

▲

inigyou a day ago | parent [-]

sorry that's not a coherent thought

	▲	mdp2021 19 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I said that your statement «If we want a good thing we should push for the good thing instead of remaining silent while worse people push for the worse thing» is not clear. I specified that it is not clear what you mean with «good thing», who do you mean with «we» and what do you mean with «silence» - I remarked that the "we" I am part of is pretty vocal. I also said that if we should "want a good thing" and push for it, that would be a decent society of capable people from which capable administrators (and journalists and communicators all the interfaces from decision makers to public) are selected: decent societies would vocally demand what is due and decent administrations would provide it, and that would radically avoid the horrible mess and subsequent terror that incompetence and feeblemindedness and twisted incentives are instead currently generating.