this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2026
533 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

88738 readers
3106 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Age verification proposals are often presented as a simple tradeoff: sacrifice a little privacy to better safeguard children online. But that framing overlooks a more fundamental question. What happens to people who cannot verify their age at all? This is particularly a problem when users are required to prove their age with identity documents.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] rizzothesmall@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 hours ago

Is it no internet, or no Meta?

[–] chahn.chris@piefed.social 126 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I really wish people would stop weaponizing children to encroach on everyone’s privacy.

[–] spacegoat@lemmy.world 21 points 3 days ago (8 children)

Fuck them kids

(Not literally)

[–] myyass@lemmy.world 18 points 3 days ago

POTUS intensifies!

[–] EmilieEasie@fedinsfw.app 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

This brand of edgy humor is so weird. The children aren't legislating your rights away, they're having their rights encroached on right along with you, by the Epstein class no less, a band of ghouls that have proven to be waaay more dangerous to children than adults

[–] spacegoat@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 12 points 2 days ago

We already have a means to protect children online. It's called having the adults who are responsible for them pay attention to what they're doing on the Internet and restricting their access via parental controls. No reason to drag the rest of us into that.

[–] tengkuizdihar@programming.dev 36 points 3 days ago

The argument against them is that, I dont want my kids to live in a world where surveillance is everywhere, the internet ain't libre, and safeguard is a replacement for morality and etiquette.

[–] zangwill@lemmy.zip 48 points 3 days ago (3 children)

The people who can verify their identity will be less willing to share their opinion on certain topics once they know they aren't anonymous. I'm certain this is one of the goals. The reactions to political news, world events, law proposals and atrocities will be far more muted and it will be easier to control the population.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 26 points 3 days ago

Moreover, people will be less willing to upload video of George Floyd dying, or of brutality and massacre in Gaza, or to stream from the streets during the 2014 Ferguson unrest.

Visceral video from the ground accelerates popular movements. They want us dependent on news agencies for our only window into the rest of the world.

[–] MrGeneric@lemmy.today 4 points 2 days ago

The amount of internet “needed” these days is staggering, to have that attached to a comment you made 20 years ago drunk online is terrifying.

Bank accounts, trading platforms, medical insurance, rent payments, car insurance, locks, restaurants, job applications, grocery shopping, gas stations everything is online and requires registration now.

[–] mr_satan@lemmy.zip 13 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Have you heard of Facebook? People use their real names and don't give a single fuck.

[–] echolalia@lemmy.ml 17 points 3 days ago

Some people do meth.

You're only seeing the people who don't give a single fuck. This won't affect them, this will affect anonymous posters and people who aren't even "posting" but are using online communication to talk to other people directly (chat rooms, direct messaging)

[–] meandering@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days ago

A close friend of mine was visited by police over a political joke they made on social media. People don't seem to give a fuck, but those same people might stop posting after some offline intimidation.

[–] Miller@lemmy.world 58 points 3 days ago (2 children)

What our glorious ill informed leaders do not seem to have realised as yet is that it will apply to them too. So everything they look at online will be linked to their actual identity and is thereby more easily discerned, to be spewed all over the internet when the time is right. Or maybe that is the point, delivery of prosecution or blackmail in neater and more convenient packages.

[–] YurkshireLad@lemmy.ca 66 points 3 days ago (20 children)

I’m sure the rich have a way of avoiding this somehow.

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 24 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

t will apply to them too.

No it won't. That's not how The Network State functions.

You have a very clearly designated In-Group and Out-Group. Just stay in the In-Group and you'll be fine.

You're not going to beat segregation by telling a bunch of coked up white boys "One day you won't be allowed to drink from a water fountain". Everyone knows that's not true. That's not how these barriers function.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 38 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

IMO, because this all centers on access to social media platforms, it's also a restriction on freedom of speech. Kids can't talk to other people just because of the form of communication? Fucking bullshit and does absolutely fuck all to fix the true underlying problems. The lack of ID also just puts the restriction on many unhoused adults and is very likely to be an intentional side effect.

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Am I the only one that saw Perry the Platypus?

[–] hansolo@lemmy.today 3 points 2 days ago

Nope. Not just you.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 35 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Age verification laws reshape who can speak, who can access information, and who gets excluded from the digital public sphere. In other words, age verification is not a neutral safety measure: it presents a structural barrier to disproportionately exclude certain groups—particularly those in the global majority—and alters the architecture of global online expression. Some of these groups are already marginalized offline, and age verification extends that exclusion into digital spaces.

For instance, 850 million people globally do not have ID. Most of these individuals exist in primarily low and middle income countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. The World Bank points out that many are members of marginalized groups and more than half of those lacking access to identity documentation also have children whose births have not been registered. Women are particularly vulnerable and are 8% less likely than men to have an ID. Other vulnerable groups, such as adults in low income countries, are less likely to have an ID when they fall below 25 years, as are those with a primary school education or less or those in rural areas.

[–] gandalfthewhite@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 days ago

It's very telling that these "humanitarian" globalist groups consider people not having documents and papers some problem that needs to be solved when it's really just about their desire for total control and domination. People are not meant to be tied to certificates and IDs and the idea that they are is born from an absolute lust for control by the 'system managers' and nothing more.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 17 points 3 days ago (1 children)

or if Im just not going to play along. im pretty willing to give it all up.

[–] innermachine@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Might end up with a fediverse on TOR at this rate...

[–] thegerald@lemmy.zip 8 points 2 days ago (2 children)

What do you think of freenet.org ?

[–] innermachine@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I had never heard of it before but visited their site and looks like a very cool concept! I'll have to download it and give it a try, although it seems their still in pretty early stages.

[–] thegerald@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago

Yes they are its true. The main developer created the original freenet I think. Ian Clarke. Its very interesting, although I do get confused. Tor Lokinet, Freenet, Usenet, I2P etc. I need to figure out what's going on.

[–] Darcranium@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

This is awesome

[–] HerbGrower@slrpnk.net 5 points 2 days ago

But how will AI agents access the internet without having ID?

[–] myyass@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago

Papers please, ja? Nein? Ins Lager!

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 days ago

Feeling represented yet?

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 days ago (8 children)

I'm payin $25/mo to join an online community by a YouTuber I follow and everyone is using their real names and real photos (or simulacra thereof). It's pretty crazy.

But I think what will happen is communities will be based on trust, and that trust will eventually be enforced by siloed environments.

Like, right now, I'm guessing that the site's software is probably hoovering up information and it's all centralized somewhere... but maybe in the future, if small communities become the norm, providing real privacy will be a thing.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I think small communities should be the norm.

Social media that makes it so that you're always anonymous and always speaking to strangers creates a lot of problems (Internet Fuckwad Theory)

Recognizing other users and knowing that your behaviour will result in a negative reputation goes a long way towards creating higher quality discussions. Moderation isn't as needed and it's harder for outside actors to manufacture a consensus by spamming bot accounts.

I think that'd go a long way towards resolving a lot of problems created by social media.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›