this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2026
386 points (98.0% liked)

Privacy

48129 readers
345 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1dalm@lemmy.today 33 points 1 week ago (6 children)

It's so funny to me how badly people want this to be some nefarious governmental conspiracy. Listen, the government already has much better tools to track you online. Your computer has, on a hardware level, sent unique identifiers to ISPs and websites since Pentium IIIs. This age requirement thing isn't a government conspiracy to track you, they already track you.

It is a *corporate *conspiracy. It's Meta and other major websites, games, and applications companies that want to off load their liability. Meta and Alphabet just lost major lawsuits for their negligence in protecting kids on their own websites. There is a liability dam about to break for these companies and schools and other advocacy groups start their own lawsuits. That's what this is about. That's the real conspiracy.

[–] Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml 25 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Your computer has, on a hardware level, sent unique identifiers to ISPs and websites since Pentium IIIs.

Source?

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Source.

I'm not the person who made the claim but Device Fingerprinting has been around for decades and Hardware ID is certainly part of that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Device_fingerprint

[–] Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago

That's not the computer doing it, that's the services you use going out of their way to gather one by combining data which has other legitimate purposes. Not so much being "sent" as it is being "abused".

Unless we want to count Microsoft's "advertiser ID".

[–] 1dalm@lemmy.today -3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Google "Protected Processor Identification Number (PPIN)" to learn more.

[–] shadowtofu@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 1 week ago

When is this being sent

to ISPs and websites

as claimed?

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They also want a reliable way to differentiate between chatbots and real users, because advertising isn't very effective on chatbots.

But also, one benefit of ID laws for the government is that it makes court proceedings much faster and cheaper. Sure, they're tracking everyone online, but a lot of that information is locked behind procedure. By just requiring ID to log in they can sidestep the procedures, because they can just ask corporations nicely for ID information and they'll eagerly comply.

[–] 1dalm@lemmy.today 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I didn't know about that. Maybe that's plays into it too. But I'm generally a "simpler answer is more likely the most correct" type of guy.

In this case the simple answer is that Meta and others just had their "Tobacco Lawsuits" moment in court and liability floodgates are any to open wide, and they are pushing these laws to divert their liability onto someone else.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

"Corporations want a way to verify human users" is a simple answer.

"Governments want a way to easily prosecute users" is also a simple answer.

I don't see why it can't be all of these things. There is actually a more complicated answer that I didn't bring up, which is that smaller websites will have a hard time complying with ID laws, which gives preferential treatment to large websites. That locks out potential competition, hinders smaller projects like lemmy or mastodon, and helps secure the current social media monopolies.

That one might just be a useful side effect, rather than the intentional outcome.

[–] whydudothatdrcrane@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Let's say this is the official narrative. My argument:

  1. Meta stands to consolidate power and revenue from further mapping devices to real people.
  2. Meta was also originally backed by Peter Thiel, who trades in data mining for secret services, now much more energetically. Zuckerberg is a sexist idiot and his app had no more merit than MySpace. Thiel saw the potential of mapping real idenities to online behavior, and it is no accident Palantir was later implicated in Cambridge Analytica.
  3. A redditor came up with concrete data that others have already posted, that show that Meta's dark money are all over this case. As for the fine you say that completely explains this, is a very modest for Meta, who is used to pay such fines as a cost of doing business.
  4. Amongst the orgs taking Meta's money to push this are many conservative organizations, like Heritage but also others (anti-sex, anti-abortion, and anti-trans organizations), who know that these laws will effectively suppress speech. Much like the trans moral panics, the laws are not as stupid as they appear, but carefully designed to obliquely achieve their goals (e.g. police bodies with wombs, in line with the same orgs' anti-abortion positions).
  5. Governments watch closely as the new corporatist technofascism undoes regulations and checks and balances. They stand to gain from the turmoil and increase their surveillance capabilities even more. Alternatively, some EU goverments might be thinking that this is a way to stick it to US tech monopolies that brainwash their constituents, but they are wrong.
  6. In fact, the approach and outcomes hints toward government contractors in cahoots with surveillance agencies, that it would be surprising if there is no adjacency to Analytica personnel and/or the benefits for state actors and spooks are just an unplanned side-effect.

Conclusion: There is sufficient basis to consider that the official narrative is not the whole story.

[–] EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

It is in fact a government conspiracy to track you. Not necessarily to gather data on you, which can be purchased from brokers, but so that they can also control what you can access.

There’s no mechanism that the government currently has that can track you as effectively as these age verification laws can.

[–] 1dalm@lemmy.today -5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"There’s no mechanism that the government currently has that can track you as effectively as these age verification laws can."

I honestly can't tell if you were serious or not.

The governments just buy your data from Google. Do you have any idea how much information on you Google has?

[–] EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Buying profiling data from Google is not nearly as effective at tracking and controlling your online activity as integrating facial scans and government ID checks into every website or even directly into your operating system.

Frankly a brand new account pushing the “The government is already tracking you, there’s nothing you can do about it, don’t worry about all the new ways they can track you, just give in” narrative is a little suspicious.

[–] 1dalm@lemmy.today 0 points 1 week ago

Just to clear something up, my brand new account is only new because lemmings.world is closing and I had to migrate to a new server.

[–] avocado@programming.dev 2 points 1 week ago

Source: trust me bro