this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2026
383 points (99.5% liked)
Technology
82460 readers
2583 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
Now that we see groups pushing for age verification are third parties like Palantir and the US government having demanded account info on those who were critical of ICE I don't think third party entities going forward can be trusted anymore to be unaffiliated with the state.
Maybe when Estonia got their program implemented. But, now such a system being put in place for other countries is going to be untrustworthy in their motives and methods.
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”
I think easiest method is one that has already existed before. Just do a blanket parental internet block for ISPs and mobile providers.
Account holders who want it lifted can contact the company providing them their Internet access to do it. Or leave it in place and use a login whenever they attempt to access blocked sites.
But, there's a reason that's not the method proposed or used as an example with it already existing. Government wants surveillance like 1984 over their citizens and companies want to collect and sell data like Meta.
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!!
Just starting it at the ISP level than a site by site basis handing over info for every site seems better to me. Its already a utility to begin with where people have to give their info, address, and payment method when they sign up. Its already a verification system to begin with. Instead of logging into your ISP account to toggle on parental block its just enables by default.
Let households themselves decide if they want parental lock or not, and ISPs already offer parental block. Only change now it is just enabled by default when you sign up for a ISP.
And I dont care about the social media justifications for verification anymore. You, me, and many other people accessed the Internet at a young age and turned out fine. And those sites would be on the block list or parents themselves able to add or remove sites from the block list.
This hysteria of parents not wanting to take responsibility for raising and monitoring their own kids and demanding the government remove everything seems like boomers back in the day wanting games banned.
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"
People will find a way around verification. I definitely would when I was little. To have a perfect system you'd need an authoritarian approach of complete surveillance.
You either accept that system isn't perfect or push for complete surveillance.
You seem willing to risk what will turn out to be surveillance in hopes of a perfect verification system. While I'm more skeptical and not trusting of those in charge that trying to protect people is even the goal.
Maybe it's the difference between how much someone trusts their government and corporations.
Your arguments seem more founded on an ideal government and corporate landscape to trust handing over oversight to them than what we actually have. Biggest red flag being some European countries making deals with Palantir.
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
My idea is already in place. When you log into your ISP to pay bills or manage your plan you can already toggle on or off parental control. Its just changing it so its enabled by default since so many parents seem clueless it even exists.
Log in and turn it off and its just the way it already is now.
Your new additional system puts trust that those who wrote the system will not end up exposing which tokens were used for your accounts by your ID that is linked to it. Either because the program was written for the government or corporations to do so, or eventual incompetence leading to an exploit that exposes it. And is based on an idealized view of government and corporations to even be willing to trust the program created by them or a third party the government chooses to approve as being truly be anonymous. Because you definitely aren't going to be the one writing it.
Only proposal I've liked is being able to buy tokens at a store without any ID being logged and buying new ones when it expires. Similar to how you can buy physical mullvad VPN gift cards.
Anyways, we aren't getting either. These verification systems are to kill off internet anonymity, so governments don't have to request subpoenas like the US did of reddit to try to figure out the people behind accounts that were being critical of ICE. So what's the point of even proposing or arguing possible solutions that secure anonymity.
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
So turn it off.
I dont trust the digital space version because you'd have to trust the code and to be an approved system would require the government to sign off on it. Third party doesn't exist in a independent space for something like this when government oversight is required.
But, it doesn't matter. Like I said before. The goal isn't verification to protect people. It's surveillance. That's why I remain so skeptical of people who despite the current world keep insisting and arguing for verification, because the ideal government doesn't exist. And even if it does governments change like Hungary.
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.