this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2026
544 points (99.6% liked)
Technology
82516 readers
6135 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yep, you're not wrong. The people currently pushing for age verification are specifically doing it to destroy online anonymity, because they realise what a threat it is to them. I just want people to understand that they are peddling a false necessity. You do NOT need to give up privacy or anonymity to have a viable age verification system. Like I said in another comment:
At some point, I sincerely hope that the current regime will end and be replaced by something more sane. At that point, I don’t want people to immediately think “age verification = bad”
What you're describing is essentially the Great Firewall with an exemption form. It wouldn't solve the problem of underage access to social media, and it would cause a whole slew of other, worse problems in it's place. For so many reasons I don't even know where to start, no!! Don't do this!!
Ok, lets start from an age verification POV: What you're suggesting is at the account level. If YOU want to access social media, then everyone in your household gets access to is as well. Even if YOU decide you don't want it, nothing stops your kid from connecting to your neighbours wifi, or going to their friends house, or even public library/cafe wifi. It will not address the core issue.
On the flip side, you've now given your ISP permission to decide what information you are allowed to see. Sure they may block porn, and social media, but hey, maybe "kids" shouldn't be allowed to access information on LGBT issues, or political ideologies, or "upsetting" news about unrest at home or abroad. If YOU want to access that information, well that's ok, we'll just add you, along with the address of service, and all your contact information to our "whitelist"
Believe me, it's the wrong approach
Actually there's mountains of evidence to the contrary here. It's pretty widely accepted now that social media is not a place for children.
In an ideal world, you're right, parents would be responsible for protecting their kids, but we're not in anything remotely like an ideal world. You could say the same about anything. It's the parents responsibility to prevent underage drinking or smoking too, yet we still do what we can to restrict those at the point of sale, rather than just shrugging and going "Not my problem"
Sure, but that's true regardless of implementation. Your Great Firewall approach is by far the easiest to circumvent, and comes with by far the biggest drawbacks. Even worse than handing a face scan and a copy of your ID to every website that asks.
Who said anything about perfect? The system is NOT perfect. What it IS though, is private, and better than the alternatives.
Says who? It doesn't have to be that black and white. "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good" as the saying goes. You don't have to accept your privacy being violated, AND you don't have to just roll over, give up, and let kids access anything they want.
No. My whole point is that the privacy/anonymity and age verification are NOT mutually exclusive. You CAN have both.
Your idea LITERALLY lets those in charge decide what information you get access to, so maybe you should be a little more skeptical.
I trust neither. That's why I like the system I'm describing. It puts ME in charge of MY data, and gives me controll over who gets to use it, and exactly what they're allowed to do with it
Yes, and by turning it on you are opting in to allowing your ISP to decide what information you get access to. Making that the default is a TERRIBLE idea.
There is nothing linking your account to you IRL. This is what I'm having a really hard time getting through to people. That situation cannot happen. "The people who wrote the system" don't at any stage get access to information that could expose you. Your data never leaves your sphere of influence. That's what makes the system so great.
Yes! What I'm trying to describe is that process, but in a digital space. Swap the store with a LOCAL app (ie: one that doesn't phone home, and can generate the tokens on your device), and swap the ID with the cert file, and you've got the same process in the digital space, with all the same benefits
No! That's the great part, because it's just fancy crypto maths, there's no reason it couldn't be a FOSS app. Estonia has several 3rd party providers, and they do get certified, but that's not a necessity
Tell that to the people in China. Seriously, if you get a chance, read the article I linked. It'll do a much better job than I ever could at explaining why what you're describing is just about the worst possible solution to this problem imaginable.