16
submitted 1 week ago by Beep@lemmus.org to c/technology@lemmy.world
top 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 week ago

The problem with "age" verification is that politicians are confusing it with identity verification.

I should not have to prove my name and other biometrics to prove age.

Age verification is the fascist way to get people to identify themselves and their online activity. Almost every state that has some sort of age verification law has zero method to actually verify age. No digital ID service, no way to share a credential for verification.

They want people to upload an ID.

This isn't about keeping children safe and it never is. It's about identifying critics of the government.

[-] pastermil@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago

I hate to point out the obvious, but they didn't accidentally confuse the two..

[-] Limerance@piefed.social 4 points 1 week ago

It is possible to build an age verification system, where you use your actual ID with a cryptographic process without any personal data. The technology has existed for decades now.

[-] lost_faith@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

Force the building of a light "honour based" age verification system (just enter your birthday, we trust you not to lie to us), then as more comply add more requirements to it til all accounts are linked and they know when you shit

[-] billwashere@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Age verification wouldn’t be a problem if there was a service I trusted that could verify my age, generate an anonymous one way hash or public/private key pair that could verify my age, and then dispose of all information that would could tie me to that info, I’d be ok with it. The problem is there isn’t a group that I’d trust (well that would be willing to do it) and everyone wants to hoard information and create a central repository that will be broken into. It’s not that there is a possibility it could be, but a certainty that it would be. This isn’t really an unsolvable technical problem, but an unsolvable trust problem.

[-] RisingSwell@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 week ago

YouTube's can be broken and that's the only one I cared about. I guess steam would be an issue if they tried it.

Pretty sure anything else I can easily just bail on.

[-] deadymouse@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

If you've put your real identity on your passport on some platforms and you're going to use those platforms for purposes other than work, get ready to be a good and loyal dog.

[-] NarrativeBear@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

People have been forgetting that home routers come with something called parental controls.

This is the most privacy respecting solution that puts all the power of parenting into a parents hands.

If the government were really "thinking of the children" I would propose a group of bipartisan curators to curate the Internet. Thinking of how libraries function, we have librarians that classify books by age and genre. The same can be done for websites, and these curated lists be made available to parents. This can be funded by local government and be region and country specific.

These lists would effectively function as whitelists, blocking everything that's not on the whitelist. Parents can then turn on a specific whitelist for their kids if they so choose, and they gain access to a curated list of age approved websites.

Parents can then, if they so choose, add or remove items form the list to grant their children access to specific sites.

All this tech is already available and it would prevent children and adults from having to provide a website any extra information. It would also mean websites would now not need to build infrastructure to collect this information.

Could you imagine a publisher of books needing you to send them a picture of your face to verify your age and identify before you even opened a book? Why are we proposing the same equivalent concept for a website or "digital book".

[-] lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Governments know about parental controls. They know it's the most effective, most efficient, and least destructive way to deal with this. They don't care. And they don't care about the children. If they cared, they'd develop their own parental control software, offer it for free, and encourage it's use.

If they really wanted to get draconian about it, as they are doing now with age verification, they would pass laws to prosecute parents who don't use parental controls for negligence.

But it's not about the children. At all. It's about preventing you and me, and all of us from talking to each other and entertaining ourselves. It's about turning the Internet into TV, a one way faucet of entertainment and information controlled by the wealthy .001% where us peons can't talk back.

These age verification laws are just the first step. They kill small forums and games like Urban Dead, and leave only sites controlled by megacorporations that can afford the age verification infrastructure and the massive corporate fines if a single kid sneaks in. Once you get used to this, it's easier for you to accept not being able to communicate online at all, or start your own forum, or YouTube channel.

[-] Sturgist@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

People have been forgetting that home routers come with something called parental controls.

When my wife and I first signed up with Virgin as our ISP there was parental control turned on by default. Had to put in my credit card info to be able to flap.(Edit: Goddamn Autoassume! FAP not FLAP) This was 2021ish? So before the current stupidity.

Also, it's easy to feel like this is all being pushed by parents who just straight up refuse to properly parent their children...but it's mostly being championed by Puritan lobby/pressure groups. They think even totally consensual, CIS/HET amateur porn is disgusting and sinful. They don't want to see, so they're on a mission to make it so literally no one can see it.
With help from companies and people who have a vested interest in creating a panopticon-esque surveillance state. And the rest of the people involved in passing it are too old or ignorant or paid too well by the other two groups to stand in the way of it, or to have cut out the really egregious shit from these bills before they were passed.

[-] NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Also, it’s easy to feel like this is all being pushed by parents who just straight up refuse to properly parent their children…but it’s mostly being championed by Puritan lobby/pressure groups.

No, its being pushed by corporations who are interested in identifying you. They pressure the government who ALSO now takes an interest in tracking your for wrong think and power grabbing. The two work together for power and money, and to stay in power.

Parents are just pawns who get manipulated into thinking this is a problem at all.

[-] Sturgist@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

With help from companies and people who have a vested interest in creating a panopticon-esque surveillance state.

First sentence of the last paragraph.

[-] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

These lists would effectively function as whitelists, blocking everything that’s not on the whitelist. Parents can then turn on a specific whitelist for their kids if they so choose, and they gain access to a curated list of age approved websites.

Yeah, i'd say if they were serious about "protecting children", they should provide a "child safe" DNS to log onto for your kids' devices.

[-] ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 week ago

I am actually not fundamentally against the idea of age verification for some things online. We have many things with age restrictions in real life, for various reasons, it kind of makes sense to have it online as well for some things.

but...it has to be done with zero-knowledge proof so we limit the amount of private data exposed to the absolute bare minimum.

[-] Deestan@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Zero-knowledge proofs are a good concept. They've been possible for a long, long time, and allow age check without surveillance.

So why are they not being used? Because age check is just a cover. These people want to do surveillance, not protect kids.

So it's a good counter. Want age check? Do it like this. Oh, you don't want it that way? Why not, pray?

Whether it works (it has, previously) or not (as with the current bullshit from the US), it does bring to the public debate that this is unnecessary surveillance.

[-] Kissaki@feddit.org 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

There's also precedent you can point to. Germany has implemented a reasonable system of digital identification and (seperable) condition confirmation (age gate).

[-] Wammityblam@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Maybe in alternate timeline where tech companies have historically acted ethically.

In this timeline where each new company and/or ceo is more slimey than the last, I know that any type of identification will be mismanaged at best or used maliciously at worst

All trust is gone between these companies.

[-] breezeblock@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago

Or — just make it easier for parents to install filters for their kids??

[-] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It's already easy as fuck. Most parents just don't bother. The mandates should be on ISPs and cell carriers to provide network-level filtering. I filter adult sites on my home network and there's no getting around that without cracking the password on the service or factory resetting the gateway.

[-] username_1@programming.dev 0 points 1 week ago

Your point of view: We have so many fascists in reality, why couldn't we tolerate some fascism on the internet?

[-] ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 week ago

Do you also think age restrictions in real life is fascism?

[-] username_1@programming.dev 0 points 1 week ago
[-] ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Care to elaborate which you think are fascist?

Regarding age verification I think that things we generally don't allow kids access to in real life could make sense to age restrict online as well. Something like gambling comes to mind, and I wouldn't personally consider it a fascist action to limit access to that.

Edit: again, under the prerequisite of properly implemented zero-knowledge proof so the site only knows if you're old enough but not actual age, name or anything.

[-] Kolanaki@pawb.social 1 points 1 week ago

"Why don't you just trust me that I was born January 1, 1900?"

[-] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 week ago

Nice, same birthday

I'm born 1.1.1970

[-] aceshigh@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I changed to 2000 because it’s less scrolling.

The fact that 01/01/01 is old enough to rent a car without an issue now does make that date seem nice.

[-] TheOctonaut@piefed.zip 1 points 1 week ago

Fucking ouch bro

[-] super_user_do@feddit.it 1 points 1 week ago

Same for me my man. I hate the fact that anonymity on the internet will eventually fall before the end of this decade. The west is not that far away from the authoritarian regimes it claims to be fighting against

IMO steam does a reasonable job of age verification - if you've registered a credit card, you're obviously old enough to have one.

[-] SomethingBurger@jlai.lu 0 points 1 week ago

But they still ask for my DoB when I open a store page for a horror game.

[-] BreadstickNinja@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago
[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

1/1/however far back the wheel scrolls before I click the year.

And it's distressingly common for it to under-report my age - stupid march of time.

[-] thesmokingman@programming.dev 0 points 1 week ago

In the US it is becoming common for federal services to require ID.me verification. I’ve never really had a problem with social security requiring ID verification. I do have a problem with data portals requiring it.

[-] dan1101@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

I even have a problem with ID.me, it's a private company that the US government wants you to give your driver's license and other information to. I don't trust that.

[-] thesmokingman@programming.dev 0 points 1 week ago

Absolutely valid. In the context of identity verification, I trust ID.me more than random companies that do not have government contracts because government contracts come with security and compliance regulations that require regular audit and make the chances of breach less likely. In either case, it’s a private company and, as any security nut would have told you, when it gets sold all bets are off like 23andme. Even more importantly, in the US, any kind of ID verification is a terrible idea, government or private, because we have no data regulation or privacy constraints. I call out the US here because we have no GDPR equivalent (CCPA wouldn’t hold up to federal data). Even if ID verification were conducted by the government, it can still be used for gnarly shit like we saw with ICE and DOGE.

On a sliding scale of evil, ID.me is the evil I know will currently fight to continue remaining the only evil which is the only solace I have in the US.

[-] TwilitSky@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

ID.ME is awful and buggy.

[-] MortUS@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I do think each Nation does need some form of online verification.

It's pretty clear what kind of damage malicious actors can do by posing as a Nations citizens online, especially en masse and orchestrated. This problem is going to continue to get worse with the rise of LLMs.

The solution is better media literacy, better education, yatta yatta but that straight up ain't happen, and certainly not at the scale needed to circumvent that kind of damage.

What other solutions do we have other than Nation wide online verification systems?

[-] masta_chief@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

Seriously. We need a functional government and world leaders who can manage id systems and verification with privacy and security in mind, and act reasonably in the public's interest, just like they do for driver's licenses, voting, taxes, etc.

looks outside

Oh no

this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2026
16 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

82620 readers
591 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