3 ms·

I'm not a fan of online age verification, but this is completely absurd: > Every website. Every platform. Every app. Every service. Your children will never kn

I'm not a fan of online age verification, but this is completely absurd: > Every website. Every platform. Every app. Every service. Your children will never know what it was like to think freely online. They will never explore ideas anonymously. They will never question authority without it being logged in their permanent profile. They will never speak freely without fear that every word will be used... No. Nobody's proposing you need to verify your identity to read articles on the New York Times or Wikipedia or political blogs. And nobody is proposing you need to verify your identity to leave comments on a news article or blog post. And any proposed law around that would run into massive first-amendment constitutional hurdles. It would be struck down easily. There's always going to be a spectrum of websites that range from open and anonymous (like news and political discussion) to strongly identity-verified (like online banking). I don't like online age verification for particular sites, but at the same time I think it's completely misleading to see it as this slippery slope to a world where anonymous speech no longer exists. We can have reasoned arguments around how people's usage of sites is tracked and how to prevent that, without making this about free speech and "the hill to die on".

ibejoeb 6mo ago
We've spent the past three decades trying to invent ways to deduce identity and build profiles of what would otherwise be anonymous users. When the government steps in and compels people to formally identify themselves by their government names, what would you expect these companies to do? They're not gonna say "no thanks."
- crazygringo 6mo ago
  Why the heck would the government compel people to formally identify themselves to read or comment on a newspaper or a blog? That's absurd and unconstitutional in the US. You're starting from an assumption that is invalid to begin with.
  - ibejoeb 6mo ago
    I don't know. Why would the government compel someone to formally identify himself to put cash in a box at the bank? Why would the government compel people to take off their shoes to get on a plane? Or submit biometric data drive a car? KYC for a phone line... It's not invalid. I have no reason to believe that this isn't going to creep.
    - crazygringo 6mo ago
      We have extremely strong first amendment protections that form part of our constitution. That's why it's not going to creep. It would be a blatant violation of the first amendment.
      - ibejoeb 6mo ago
        I think your interpretation, even if correct, is not the current position of the legislature. This post and the thread attached to it is about how it's currently happening. Personally, I don't see a future where you don't have a digital ID. If the government can compel you to provide an ID to, say, travel or operate a vehicle in public, I don't see a compelling 1A argument that it can't do the same to operate computing device on the public internet.
        crazygringo 6mo ago
        While I don't agree on your characterization of the legislature, it doesn't even matter. That's the whole purpose of having checks and balances, and a Supreme Court that can strike down unconstitutional legislation. And your analogy between driving a vehicle and posting on a website doesn't work because there is no constitutional protection for driving vehicles or taking commercial air flights. However there is a constitutional protection for speech, above all political speech. That's the difference.
domador 6mo ago
I agree that it's an exaggeration to say that every website, platform, app, and service will require identity verification. I don't think it's inconceivable to think of a future where every website, platform, app, and service that matters will require identity verification (every one that has a significant userbase.) I can easily envision a future where it's impossible to anonymously or pseudonymously post a controversial opinion on any online forum where it's likely to be seen by a significant number of people. Such platforms are likely to be targeted by whoever mandates identify verification and imposes penalties for not implementing it.
- crazygringo 6mo ago
  To the contrary. America has incredibly strong first amendment speech protection. Any kind of legislation that would prevent people from reading or posting political speech unless they verified their identity, especially where it is popular, is going to immediately be ruled as unconstitutional. That's the difference. Porn sites aren't places intended for the free exchange of political opinions so age verification can pass muster. If anyone tried to do that with newspaper sites or political blogs or anything like that, the courts would shut down that law instantly.

ibejoeb 6mo ago

We've spent the past three decades trying to invent ways to deduce identity and build profiles of what would otherwise be anonymous users. When the government steps in and compels people to formally identify themselves by their government names, what would you expect these companies to do? They're not gonna say "no thanks."

crazygringo 6mo ago
Why the heck would the government compel people to formally identify themselves to read or comment on a newspaper or a blog? That's absurd and unconstitutional in the US. You're starting from an assumption that is invalid to begin with.
- ibejoeb 6mo ago
  I don't know. Why would the government compel someone to formally identify himself to put cash in a box at the bank? Why would the government compel people to take off their shoes to get on a plane? Or submit biometric data drive a car? KYC for a phone line... It's not invalid. I have no reason to believe that this isn't going to creep.
  - crazygringo 6mo ago
    We have extremely strong first amendment protections that form part of our constitution. That's why it's not going to creep. It would be a blatant violation of the first amendment.
    - ibejoeb 6mo ago
      I think your interpretation, even if correct, is not the current position of the legislature. This post and the thread attached to it is about how it's currently happening. Personally, I don't see a future where you don't have a digital ID. If the government can compel you to provide an ID to, say, travel or operate a vehicle in public, I don't see a compelling 1A argument that it can't do the same to operate computing device on the public internet.
      - crazygringo 6mo ago
        While I don't agree on your characterization of the legislature, it doesn't even matter. That's the whole purpose of having checks and balances, and a Supreme Court that can strike down unconstitutional legislation. And your analogy between driving a vehicle and posting on a website doesn't work because there is no constitutional protection for driving vehicles or taking commercial air flights. However there is a constitutional protection for speech, above all political speech. That's the difference.

domador 6mo ago

I agree that it's an exaggeration to say that every website, platform, app, and service will require identity verification. I don't think it's inconceivable to think of a future where every website, platform, app, and service that matters will require identity verification (every one that has a significant userbase.) I can easily envision a future where it's impossible to anonymously or pseudonymously post a controversial opinion on any online forum where it's likely to be seen by a significant number of people. Such platforms are likely to be targeted by whoever mandates identify verification and imposes penalties for not implementing it.

crazygringo 6mo ago
To the contrary. America has incredibly strong first amendment speech protection. Any kind of legislation that would prevent people from reading or posting political speech unless they verified their identity, especially where it is popular, is going to immediately be ruled as unconstitutional. That's the difference. Porn sites aren't places intended for the free exchange of political opinions so age verification can pass muster. If anyone tried to do that with newspaper sites or political blogs or anything like that, the courts would shut down that law instantly.