4 ms·

It's not really about kids looking at porn, it's about tracking everyone else and making it easier for state surveillance and corporations to identify people.

by cess11 5mo ago

It's not really about kids looking at porn, it's about tracking everyone else and making it easier for state surveillance and corporations to identify people. Kids don't have money and hardly ever manage to do crime without getting caught so they're profoundly uninteresting to surveil in this way, but adults are and here the interests of the state and corporations converge so they'll make a push for tyranny. But how to make people accept it? Tell them they want to expose kids to gruesome tentacle porn, or else they'd support this. Few adults are willing to admit they even look at porn, let alone argue that this is an important activity that needs to be protected, which it is.

palata 5mo ago
If you think that there is a need for new technology to identify people, I suggest you wake up and start getting informed about surveillance capitalism. There is absolutely no need for new technology to track people, it's there already. Also I feel like a big reason for age verification is social media. Many countries are trying to prevent kids from accessing social media (because we know it's bad for them), and age verification is the way to do that. Badly implemented, age verification is bad. But there are ways to implement it in a privacy-preserving manner, which wouldn't make the current state of surveillance capitalism worse.
- cess11 5mo ago
  Need is a very strong word. I'd call it a desire. Currently you can often identify people, sure, but there's hassle involved. What they want to do is to plug in a private corporation separate from whatever service that is likely to be more loyal with the state apparatus than the service, or else it is easily switched out for another. And corporations are having issues discerning bots from people without making access to their services a fuss or dependent on possibly idealistic and troublesome open source projects, like Anubis. It's truly, absolutely, not about "age verification". If it were about protecting kids from harm they'd take money from corporations post factum that are offending. Instead they're preparing to spend a lot of money. You could also look at who is heavily lobbying for this, you'll find it is fascist tech oligarchs from the US. They couldn't care less about kids except for obscene or profitable purposes. It would be weird for them to be cosy with epsteinian networks of power and at the same time be mindful about the wellbeing of children.
  - palata 5mo ago
    > Currently you can often identify people, sure, but there's hassle involved You vastly underestimate the current state of surveillance capitalism. > You could also look at who is heavily lobbying for this, you'll find it is fascist tech oligarchs from the US. Go in the street, and ask a bunch of random people: "If there was a way to prevent kids from accessing stuff that is bad for them, and it had no downsides. Would you want it?". I'm absolutely certain that not only fascists will say they would want it.
    - 1dontknow 5mo ago
      Well why did you say to them it doesnt have downsides? It has downsides and a very essential one like privacy.
      - palata 5mo ago
        > Well why did you say to them it doesnt have downsides? It has downsides and a very essential one like privacy. It is possible to do age verification in a privacy-preserving manner. So... you're wrong here.
        buzer 5mo ago
        No one is doing it that way though. Also to be truly privacy-preserving you cannot rely on anything that requires any specific OS (especially Android or iOS) as every single OS requires some compromises to privacy. The only privacy-preserving (effective) age verification is asking user if they are over 18 and requiring that they answer truthfully under penalty of perjury. Then prosecute the kids who claim they are over 18. For reason or another no one seems to be pushing for that option.
        palata 5mo ago
        > No one is doing it that way though Well it exists in Privacy Pass, which is deployed in production. And there are countries that are currently actively looking into privacy-preserving age verification. I don't think that "I keep saying that age verification fundamentally leaks your ID, which is wrong, but it's still valid because nobody will notice" is a good argument. > The only privacy-preserving (effective) age verification is asking user if they are over 18 and requiring that they answer truthfully under penalty of perjury. I disagree, I think that there could be a sane debate around ZK age verification, if we could elevate it to that.
- dmantis 5mo ago
  People who are actually interesting, are often aware of that fact and avoid surveillance at the moment. You can use tor/i2p, proper VPN setups, VMs, alternative mobile ROMs and other tech and cut most of the fingerprints, trackers and identification. Pretty sure the trash from state agencies doesn't like that. But the current push from all sides to provide id for everything and remote attestation through Google and apple will make the alternatives very hard to use as it basically cuts such people from the economy altogether.

by cess11 5mo ago

palata 5mo ago

If you think that there is a need for new technology to identify people, I suggest you wake up and start getting informed about surveillance capitalism. There is absolutely no need for new technology to track people, it's there already. Also I feel like a big reason for age verification is social media. Many countries are trying to prevent kids from accessing social media (because we know it's bad for them), and age verification is the way to do that. Badly implemented, age verification is bad. But there are ways to implement it in a privacy-preserving manner, which wouldn't make the current state of surveillance capitalism worse.

cess11 5mo ago
Need is a very strong word. I'd call it a desire. Currently you can often identify people, sure, but there's hassle involved. What they want to do is to plug in a private corporation separate from whatever service that is likely to be more loyal with the state apparatus than the service, or else it is easily switched out for another. And corporations are having issues discerning bots from people without making access to their services a fuss or dependent on possibly idealistic and troublesome open source projects, like Anubis. It's truly, absolutely, not about "age verification". If it were about protecting kids from harm they'd take money from corporations post factum that are offending. Instead they're preparing to spend a lot of money. You could also look at who is heavily lobbying for this, you'll find it is fascist tech oligarchs from the US. They couldn't care less about kids except for obscene or profitable purposes. It would be weird for them to be cosy with epsteinian networks of power and at the same time be mindful about the wellbeing of children.
- palata 5mo ago
  > Currently you can often identify people, sure, but there's hassle involved You vastly underestimate the current state of surveillance capitalism. > You could also look at who is heavily lobbying for this, you'll find it is fascist tech oligarchs from the US. Go in the street, and ask a bunch of random people: "If there was a way to prevent kids from accessing stuff that is bad for them, and it had no downsides. Would you want it?". I'm absolutely certain that not only fascists will say they would want it.
  - 1dontknow 5mo ago
    Well why did you say to them it doesnt have downsides? It has downsides and a very essential one like privacy.
    - palata 5mo ago
      > Well why did you say to them it doesnt have downsides? It has downsides and a very essential one like privacy. It is possible to do age verification in a privacy-preserving manner. So... you're wrong here.
      - buzer 5mo ago
        No one is doing it that way though. Also to be truly privacy-preserving you cannot rely on anything that requires any specific OS (especially Android or iOS) as every single OS requires some compromises to privacy. The only privacy-preserving (effective) age verification is asking user if they are over 18 and requiring that they answer truthfully under penalty of perjury. Then prosecute the kids who claim they are over 18. For reason or another no one seems to be pushing for that option.
        palata 5mo ago
        > No one is doing it that way though Well it exists in Privacy Pass, which is deployed in production. And there are countries that are currently actively looking into privacy-preserving age verification. I don't think that "I keep saying that age verification fundamentally leaks your ID, which is wrong, but it's still valid because nobody will notice" is a good argument. > The only privacy-preserving (effective) age verification is asking user if they are over 18 and requiring that they answer truthfully under penalty of perjury. I disagree, I think that there could be a sane debate around ZK age verification, if we could elevate it to that.
dmantis 5mo ago
People who are actually interesting, are often aware of that fact and avoid surveillance at the moment. You can use tor/i2p, proper VPN setups, VMs, alternative mobile ROMs and other tech and cut most of the fingerprints, trackers and identification. Pretty sure the trash from state agencies doesn't like that. But the current push from all sides to provide id for everything and remote attestation through Google and apple will make the alternatives very hard to use as it basically cuts such people from the economy altogether.