6 ms·

We don't want age verification, and we do want E2E encryption. Yet, because Meta is an evil company, we cheer on this judgement. Reality, folks: you can't have

• dgxyz 7mo ago
  Can we just agree we just don’t want Meta?
• vaylian 7mo ago
  Those two things are unrelated to each other. And yes, we can do without age verification and we can have E2E encryption. Age verification is causing more harm than good. It also doesn't meaningfully help with any of the problems mentioned in the article.
• duskdozer 7mo ago
  Well, assuming you won't also think it's okay for Meta to just be held liable anyway. There are people who are against age verification just on principle and others who are against it because they know any realistic implementation is going to be abused.
• deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
• pocksuppet 7mo ago
  I think we don't want mandatory age verification or banned encryption for everything. However, you can't hide behind "it's not the law" as a shield for everything. Thanks to ubiquitous spyware, Meta knows damn well the age of almost all of its users, and if someone who's 40 is sending first-contact messages to 10 unknown 13-year-olds every day, it seems important to know what those messages say. They know this stuff is happening and they care about not being liable, not about your security. We can assume Meta has backdoored its E2EE somehow anyway.
• Henchman21 7mo ago
  Why can we not have both? I don't see the assertion backed up at all.
  • xigoi 7mo ago
    With E2EE and no age verification, there is no way Meta could have any control over messages sent to children, so it does not make sense to hold them responsible.