I... didn't say that? Not sure if you replied to the wrong person? But I'll try to respond to what I can?

Oh whoops, if I did, my bad. That's what I was understanding your comment about "it's literally the same check we already have" to be. You're saying there are already age checks for certain sites (and analysis of your web traffic and associated data being sold) and that this is no different, if I understand correctly. It is worth pointing out that while the California law requires no verification, the New York law potentially requires more than just a declaration of age. It's worse elsewhere in the world.

All of that is the same thing. It is about building profiles...

Right, but you see how this is also a bad thing right? Given that the FBI has now spoken about buying this data and uses it to target people, I would think that we would all want better privacy protections, not fewer.

1. This is not exclusive to the US.

I don't see how that should sway opinion about this being a good or a bad thing. It's a bad thing for everyone, right?

2. I never said this is "the first step towards something >worse".

No, I am saying that. I was saying that calling this a slippery slope doesn't feel like it is based in the history of privacy erosion. I'd love to learn more about the original sin in all of this, but just because it isn't the first step doesn't mean we shouldn't fight against consolidated, government-mandated privacy violations, right?

Yes? I am sorry that protecting your privacy takes effort? I am >sure that if you pay a random sponsor on an LTT video that >they'll claim to do everything for you? Like... I really don't know what to tell you?

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not complaining that it's difficult. I'm asking why we don't try and just fix the problem instead of letting something like this slide by because there are other, similar issues.