this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2026
781 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

84828 readers
5675 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
781
Age checks could turn internet into an ID checkpoint and would kill anonymity, Proton CEO says (proton.me)
submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by Deep@mander.xyz to c/technology@lemmy.world
223 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Online threats to children are real, but the headlong pursuit of age verification that we’re seeing around the world is unacceptable in its approach and far too broad in scope — and we simply can’t afford to get this wrong.

To be clear, parents’ concerns are valid and sincere. Few people would argue that kids should have unfettered access to adult material, to self-harm how-tos, to social media platforms that manipulate them and expose them to abuse.

But it’s the very depth of those worries that is being cynically exploited. Age verification as is currently being proposed in country after country would mean the death of anonymity online.

And we know exactly who stands to gain: The same tech giants who built the privacy nightmare that the internet is today.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 1 points 3 weeks ago

And you kind of just did exactly what you said you didn’t, using these interactions as a validation of your claims against those of the people you disagree with.

You mean I claimed it invalidates their points? I really don't see how. Again, the points about usefulness of anonymity (which few people actually made) are not invalidated by the toxicity. People say "we need anonymity because X" (I don't think any real argument was made here so I don't even know what X is) and I say "the toxicity and misinformation outweigh the benefits of X". The arguments for X are still valid and if someone can give examples of X that outweigh the negative results of anonymity I will change my mind. So far all I've seen is "it's a slippery slope" and "you're a fascist".