10 ms·

Age verification tech could put children at greater risk, says think tank

215 points by robtherobber 4mo ago

lloydatkinson 4mo ago
It was never about the children
iso1631 4mo ago
If you wanted to actually empower parents in helping their kids, you'd make sites emit some form of standard as TXT, SRV, /.well-known, whatever end points Then you'd make sure that the owner of the device has the ability to enable this, factoring in some tags for the category us-min-age:21:drinking gb-min-age:18:drinking au-min-age:16:socialmedia us-min-age:13:socialmedia Then I can use my existing parental controls (including on a linux laptop if I don't give my 13 year old root) to apply or not apply rules If I don't want social media regardless, then I apply a rule "no scoial media". Or I can apply "1 hour max" per day for the category If I'm happy with my 16 year old spending half an hour on playboy.com or whatever, then that's fine too -- I'd rather they went somewhere like that then some of the shadier sites This gives no power to large companies, but helps the parents, who can apply "default" profiles -- hell you can distribute default profiles as part of the onboarding process.
- stavros 4mo ago
  Yes but that's not what this is for, it's for boiling the frog of enforcing ID checks online.
  - rho138 4mo ago
    I’m pretty certain they understand that and are offering a workable solution instead of just repiping “age tech bad.”
    - stavros 4mo ago
      You can't offer a workable solution to an excuse. Nobody pushing this wants to protect the children, therefore offering a solution that will protect the children is irrelevant.
      - blockmarker 4mo ago
        While the powers pushing this aren't doing it for protecting children, there are many people who want restricting the internet to protect children. This is why it's a good cover instead of an obvious power grab, because parents want to stop their ten year old children from seeing porn or getting addicted to social media, but they don't know much about how to do it, the technology involved or who is pushing it. You might not want any child control, as many in HN don't, but in general the people do. And if you make parents choose between the current free for all and the government knowing the identity of every user, they will choose the second. Sure, the government would probably not protect the children even after requiring ID, but by then it would be too late.
        jMyles 4mo ago
        I'm sorry, what?! I have an 11yo. I know a ton of parents. And I don't know a single person - not one - who thinks this is a good idea. And I've asked. Obviously this is just an anecdote and not a substitute for data. But... is there data on sentiment? I don't think it's actual parents who are pushing for this.
        pmg101 4mo ago
        I have a 10yo. I know loads of parents too. I don't think I've ever heard the "freedom" position taken apart from on HN. To non-techies it just seems self evident we should block kids from seeing beheadings and donkey porn. They haven't usually thought much about how that would be achieved and what the knock on effects would be. But they do want it.
        SoftTalker 4mo ago
        Yep, and the social media and other tech companies could have solved this 10 or 15 years ago on their own terms but chose to pretend that it was all just a "parenting" issue and not their responsibility. Now they are facing the heavy and clumsy hand of government regulation.
- Scaled 4mo ago
  FYI for adult content, there's a standard called RTA-Label that already integrates with all parental controls and is already deployed on all major adult sites.
  - its-summertime 4mo ago
    https://web.archive.org/web/20260215201718/https://www.rtalabel.org/?content=terms https://web.archive.org/web/20260215201718/https://www.rtala... seems a bother, nevermind the lack of granularity that RTA has. The competing options seem to have a Christian focus as well, from what I recall. There does not seem to be any good option currently.
  - fc417fc802 4mo ago
    Yes but isn't that limited to only tagging adult sites? That's great and it works but it only applies to a small piece of the stated problem. It seems to be largely social media that's driving popular support for this latest go round. RTA is an excellent demonstration that a self categorization system can be expected to work provided it's standardized and service operators make use of it. What's missing then is granularity and a way to coerce the vast majority of sites to adopt whatever gets standardized. Given the current browser duopoly coercing adoption should prove relatively straightforward. So we just need an RFC document and then to somehow gain public support for it.
    - SoftTalker 4mo ago
      Simple, sites without a rating are not viewable if parental controls are enabled. That will be motivation for site publishers to get their ratings in order.
      - fc417fc802 4mo ago
        No, the browsers would need to reject the sites unconditionally since no one is going to enable parental controls if it breaks everything. Otherwise I expect the current situation of parental controls not working and thus everyone avoiding them and complaining would continue. Recall that this is exactly what happened with TLS. When browsers started gating all new features behind TLS being active suddenly all the mainstream sites had it working across the board in record time. The first step is to get Google and Apple to set a date after which adoption is mandated. Provide an easy out for site operators, such as placing a text file at "/.well-known/content-rating" with "tag:all ages" inside to opt the entire site out rather than sending a header per resource or tagging html elements or whatever. The second step is to approach legislators with this standard and a now very high compliance rate in hand and suggest that they enact a law requiring that such ratings are accurate for certain specific categories (presumably porn, gambling, social media, and user generated content). The third step is getting governments to do spot enforcement often enough to prevent the system from falling apart.
- its-summertime 4mo ago
  There is an unfortunate lack of unity for such things. It would work if governments made it easily understandable how to categorize content, but the vast majority is handled by closed boards of people, so no "case law" exists for the difficult edge cases. Additionally, some jurisdictions have laws based around religious and cultural values which are not immediately obvious, I'm sure many webmasters would be happy to spend 30 minutes or so writing something for such a framework, but the current subsequent obligation of learning the laws of relevant jurisdictions, the decisions of age rating boards, etc. would blow things out to weeks of research and potentially quite a bit of lawyer money.
  - hnlmorg 4mo ago
    > There is an unfortunate lack of unity for such things. It would work if governments made it easily understandable how to categorize content, but the vast majority is handled by closed boards of people, so no "case law" exists for the difficult edge cases. Who cares if some sites get it wrong? It would still be a better scenario than we have now where people either announce who they are, or they hunt for some other site that doesn't enforce age verification. At least if some sites get it wrong, then they're still better than sites that presently out-right refuse to follow all the different laws of the different lands. > Additionally, some jurisdictions have laws based around religious and cultural values which are not immediately obvious, The beauty of the GPs suggestion is that site owns don't need to learn that. They just submit what the site content roughly is, and parents get to chose what they want to expose their children to. Also we already have a jurisdiction problem here were some countries, or even sub-division of such as US states, are passing law that affect the websites and software of people worldwide.
    - its-summertime 4mo ago
      Because liability is likely to be weird in a lot of jurisdictions. I could see incorrectly tagging content as having bigger ramifications than not tagging content. How does one know what to tag their content as, if they do not know what tags are used by the other party? A standard where every party makes up their own rules as they go along, doesn't exactly work well.
- kneel25 4mo ago
  This would do nothing to prevent sending explicit content within chat apps, which appears to be a big focus at the moment.
popcorncowboy 4mo ago
I am shocked, shocked to hear that there are ulterior motives behind age verification and that the stated benefit is in fact exactly the opposite of what happens irl. Shocked!
its-summertime 4mo ago
https://fipr.org/20260526-GrowingUpInTheOnlineWorld.pdf https://fipr.org/20260526-GrowingUpInTheOnlineWorld.pdf Actual response, instead of an article reporting on an article reporting on a response. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Information_Policy_Research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Information_Pol... Context of FIPR
garbawarb 4mo ago
Obviously? I'm shocked that lawmakers are so okay with giving up their sons' and daughters' personal information.
- basilgohar 4mo ago
  It's not for the Fortunate Sons, silly.
- twiclo 4mo ago
  What law requires that? From what I've seen laws like the one in Utah require any account to be in "child mode" until you can prove you're an adult. Also these law makers don't want their kids on social media.
  - EmbarrassedHelp 4mo ago
    > require any account to be in "child mode" until you can prove you're an adult. That means unacceptable privacy violations that hurts every child and adult.
ameypandey 4mo ago
[dead]
musha68k 4mo ago
Another instance of pure power games if you track the political "reasonings" and technological "solutions". It's the same fight with yet another face; we must keep pushing back at the hydra.
- mobiuscog 4mo ago
  The other 'side' is playing the same power games. None of this is truly about the people (even though the sentiment is) - it's the elites vying for power against each other. The internet is not tribal, but humans are. Those seeking to divide are pushing their hardest right now, because they know division will empower them more.
  - musha68k 4mo ago
    void-kampff pattern matching is failing me here
Scroll_Swe 4mo ago
It's not about the children, never was. The goal is to use one ID system for everything. I sound like Alex Jones, but we already have a system for bank login, and other trusted identity login. They want to use this for everything.
- big85 4mo ago
  I think it's rather that they want to de-anonymize internet users by linking all activity to one or more identifiers. An IP address only links you to a physical address, at best. Account requirements with identity verification link the user's real-world identity via government ID, credit card, or face photo.
- trumpdong 4mo ago
  It's both. Most people want to protect children, some other people (concentrated among the rich and powerful) see this and use it as an excuse to push surveillance.
- baobabKoodaa 4mo ago
  This is already reality in Finland. Want to schedule a doctor's appointment? Bank ID. Want to pay your taxes? Ban ID. Want to check your pension? Bank ID. The worst part of it is that a significant swathe of the population does not have access to bank ID, so they can't access these services anymore. It's a kafkaesque dystopia that is going places that I never thought would be possible.
  - Scroll_Swe 4mo ago
    I am Swedish so I know. BankID I like as it is now for authority stuff and I understand its need. The alternative would be everyone rolling their own auth and MFA, would be bad. Now imagine all social media tied to your BankID. This is their wet dream.
    - baobabKoodaa 4mo ago
      I don't agree with you wrt "the alternative". Things like scheduling a doctor's visit could be done without authentication. If some authentication is needed, it could be a traditional username/password setup (no MFA). Blocking part of the population from accessing basic services is just inhumane.
M95D 4mo ago
The nice solution would be <adult age="18"> content </adult> tags, standardized by w3c.
- bluGill 4mo ago
  Those can only work if there is some way to ensure that everyone uses them correctly. I guarantee there will be many sites that don't - every single week the kids will discover a new one and spread it to all their friends (in their school)
  - M95D 4mo ago
    Same if they find a new porn site that doesn't ask for ID check.
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
CrzyLngPwd 4mo ago
"with nine out of 10 parents saying they are in favour of a ban in response to a government consultation" I wonder why those 90% of parents don't cut their children off from social media right now. They have the power to do it.
- Hugsbox 4mo ago
  Yeah, this I will seriously never understand. When I was a kid, if my mother didn't want me doing something then she would make sure I couldn't do it. Is nobody parenting their children anymore? Do they just let them do whatever they want these days? I've got a 2 year old of my own and can't imagine just handing him an iPad and ignoring him all day like I see other parents do. I can't tell if it's laziness, or ignorance, or some combination of the two.
  - Broken_Hippo 4mo ago
    Uh-huh. For me, that meant that I didn't do something At Home, and was pretty much unsupervised other places. My mother was strict at a time when a lot of kids had freedom. I couldn't do much that other kids did. When I could, I had to jump through hoops. I lied to my mother a lot. My mother still isn't in the loop with my life - I'm in my late 40s now. It would have been much better to have been able to talk to my parents honestly about stuff I went through. It would have been much better to talk to me about things and get honest information about dangers.
    - Hugsbox 4mo ago
      I relate to this quite a lot, to be honest. There has to be some happy medium somewhere, though.
      - Tade0 4mo ago
        The happy middle is you not using social media, or smartphones for that matter, in front of them. Kids scrutinize everything you say and do and will notice the discrepancy.
jmyeet 4mo ago
I believe we could solve a lot of these problems by making it illegal to advertise to minors. I'm reminded of the settlement with Facebook where it was illegally allowing racial targeting in ads for housing, which is illegal [1]. If platforms were suddenly liable for allowing or failing to stop the targeting of minors, they'd suddenly have a lot of incentive to figure this out. The beauty of this is that they already do it. Your profile with FB, Google, etc has a lot of implied demographic information based on your activity because they want to sell audiences with certain demographics. As an aside, whenever I see "think tank" my first question is "who is funding this?" and I learned something I didn't know previously. In the UK, these bodies often aren't legal charities. Instead they are non-profit companies limited by guarantee [2]. One consequence of that is that they don't have to reveal their funding like a 501(c)(3) would (and, yes, US think tanks are generally 501(c)(3)s). I didn't see any obvious red flags in the trustees for Foundation for Information Policy Research for what it's worth and it's an almost 30 year old organization. [1]: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-secures-groundbreaking-settlement-agreement-meta-platforms-formerly-known https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-s... [2]: https://www.funded.team/advice/charity-vs-cic-vs-clg https://www.funded.team/advice/charity-vs-cic-vs-clg
- trumpdong 4mo ago
  How would you know if someone was a minor? Facebook knows even if you don't tell them, but I don't. Would it be combined with the California-style OS age header?
  - jmyeet 4mo ago
    Google, as one example, uses a bunch of information including profile information and behavioural data in sophiticated ML to imply demographics [1]. This is what I mean when I said they already do it. The suggestion I'm talking about doesn't "solve" the adult content issue. It's more targeted at social media, which I think is the bigger problem. If it's illegal to show minors ads and advertisers can't target minors then you've just removed the economic incentives. Youtube tends to be included in age verification legislation. Personally, I would be happy if you simply limited advertising and (IMHO) you dind't show commetns. Roblox I think is on the right path here, at least in theory. Roblox segments users such that you can only interact with people one segment above or below you. The issue with social media (again, IMHO) is in big part that minors can interact with adults and vice versa. Really you want more of a sandbox so people can't prety on children. [1]: https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/2580383?hl=en https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/2580383?hl=en
fxj 4mo ago
[flagged]
big85 4mo ago
If you make law-abiding sites like Pornhub hard to access, consumers will move to black markets like the Dark Web, which hosts illegal content. As the article mentions, kids are able to bypass the age verification with ease, so it doesn't even fulfil its stated purpose. We didn't even need age verification, because parental controls have been an option the entire time.
- twiclo 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - big85 4mo ago
    You're citing Fight the New Drug, a Mormon anti-porn organization whose angle was to define pornography as an addiction to justify laws banning it as a health crisis. My point is, they operate openly and can be held accountable, as lawsuits demonstrate. The alternative to this sort of site is the Dark Web, where nobody is held accountable and the law is broken with impunity. Pornhub is by far the lesser of two evils in this context.
    - twiclo 4mo ago
      One of my 5 sources is from Fight the New Drug and you turn to an ad hominem because I guess Mormons can't make good arguments and it's ridiculous to say that people can be addicted to porn. Sounds like you're in denial of that for yourself. We don't have to choose between two evils. If adults want to watch porn they need to prove they're an adult. You wouldn't say we should stop age verifying people for online gambling just because there are "dark web" gambling websites.
      - mbesto 4mo ago
        The first link is the FTC punishing Pornhub for something they did wrong. That is the parent commentator's main point (e.g. it can be regulated), which you keep ignoring. > You wouldn't say we should stop age verifying people for online gambling just because there are "dark web" gambling websites. False equivalencies. Gambling and porn have VERY different dynamics to them.
0xbadcafebee 4mo ago
"Think of the children!" - Say the 40-year-old millennials who were exposed to the Wild West of internet content as children and are still fine. "We can't censor the internet on their devices!" - There's a $2.5B market in parental censorship software. You can censor their devices. "Our child will become a pariah without the internet!" - In what way, exactly? They still go to school, still play sports, still go to chess club/band/theater/etc, still ride bikes around the neighborhood, still hang out at friends' houses, etc. All the kids will not hate them because their parents refused to give them a smartphone. (How do I know? I know a kid who grew up without one. Has plenty of friends.) "But they need to be able to contact us!" - Dumbphones work fine. Teach them how to text and make calls. I guarantee they will use them. Parents are lazy and want us to do parenting for them, not really a newsflash. But none of that is the point. "Age Verification" laws are stupid because 1) the kids will get around the verification, 2) plenty of the internet does not abide by the law, 3) it is government mass-surveillance in a "think of the children" disguise, 4) it makes privacy (surfing the web without a Government-issued ID) illegal, 5) if it's taken seriously, the only way to actually enforce it is a Great Firewall of America. These laws are the gravest threat to personal liberty in the history of mankind. It cannot be understated how pervasive it is. At no other time in history has it been possible to not only track one's movements 24/7, but also the content of everything they read, everyone they talk to, etc, even in the privacy of their home. These laws don't work without that.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- looperhacks 4mo ago
  Before I respond, I want to point out that I'm against age verification as well. > "Think of the children!" - Say the 40-year-old millennials who were exposed to the Wild West of internet content as children and are still fine. While I'm not 40 yet: I was exposed to "the Wild West" and I was certainly not fine. And even then, I'd argue that today's social media is even more damaging for the psyche than everything I was exposed to. > "Our child will become a pariah without the internet!" - In what way, exactly? They still go to school, still play sports, still go to chess club/band/theater/etc, still ride bikes around the neighborhood, still hang out at friends' houses, etc. All the kids will not hate them because their parents refused to give them a smartphone. (How do I know? I know a kid who grew up without one. Has plenty of friends.) Not all communities are like this, but I have certainly seen it: - They still go to school: Sure, but they will miss out on class group chats that, depending on the school, might be important. Or, even worse, will miss information from teachers. - still play sports/go to chess clubs/etc: Sure, unless all club communication happens over chat apps/social media and is required to join. - All the kids will not hate them because their parents refused to give them a smartphone: Maybe not. Maybe they will be because they are the odd one out (How do I know? I was the kid who grew up without the back-then equivalent)
monooso 4mo ago
Disclaimer: not a parent, as will soon become apparent. Several people have made the argument that individual parents can't simply cut their children off from social media, as said offspring may be ostracised (or simply look at their friends' phones, assuming they still have any). That argument makes sense to me, to an extent. What I don't quite understand is the conclusion that this leaves parents with only two (equally unpalatable) options. Parents don't have to act individually. They could act as a collective, especially within the context of a small social group. Is that really such a naive suggestion?
- twiclo 4mo ago
  Parents will get their kids phones worrying that they're missing out. The more parents do that the more the kids without phones are actually being left out. If the government puts restriction on these things than parents are much less likely to worry. I've heard of parents of children for a certain grade getting together and all signing a pact that the kids won't have phones until a certain point, say 16. It only goes into effect if something like 75% of the parents for that grade sign on. I like that idea.
  - monooso 4mo ago
    > Parents will get their kids phones worrying that they're missing out. Again, not a parent, but isn't making difficult decisions in the best interests of your child the entire gig?
    - twiclo 4mo ago
      I agree with you. I plan to not be pressured by what other parents are doing. But that pressure is real and many parents end up thinking it's what's best. It's better that they have friends and a phone than neither of the two.
    - trumpdong 4mo ago
      Imagine there's a lake with 100 fish farms. Each farm operator can pay $50000 to install a pollution scrubber that benefits every farm operator by $1000. Obviously, none of them do it, since it'd cost them $49000. Coordination problems are why we have a government. It mandates the pollution scrubber, each of them moans a lot, 3 of them cheat, but everyone is $47000 richer in the end (except the cheaters who are $97000 richer until they get caught).
trashb 4mo ago
> system akin to film classification age ratings I am pretty sure that most parents let their kids watch movies that are rated for a higher age group then their current age. For example a lot of marvel movies, harry potter or pirates of the caribbean are usually in this category. My conclusion the parents are not lazy they care to be breaking the age restriction. A lot of parents even go out of their way or get aggressive to make sure they can age rated movies to their kids as they think the age ratings are bullshit. I would suspect age verification to have similar effects in practice, and there is the additional hurtful factors as well leading to a net negative. Not just for minors but also for adults that now have to deal with this crap.
shevy-java 4mo ago
They are right, but this is the end goal anyway - age sniffing is all about spying on people. Children are the excuse. Usually it is either children or terrorists; these are the buzzword bingo memes used by lobbyists.
aloaha 4mo ago
[flagged]
1vuio0pswjnm7 4mo ago
"The think tank warns that no age verification system, however technically secure, can prevent a motivated user from bypassing age restrictions. The Tor Network, which is widely used by journalists, whistleblowers, NGOs, security researchers and dissidents in repressive countries to protect their privacy and security, makes blocking or age-gating virtual private networks (VPNs) a pointless and harmful exercise, FIPR argued." If true, then how do we explain comments on HN that oppose age restrictions if these commenters are supposedly "technical" (cf. "non-technical") and understand how to use Tor Another possibility is the opposition to age verification is not based on the opponent's own social media use, it's based on the effect that age restrictions would have on a social media _audiences_ comprised of "non-technical" people, "normies", that are the _targets_ of the opponent's activities The arguments made by this "think tank" (read: advocacy group), similar to aforementioned HN comments, lack originality and insight and are thus not persuasive Perhaps there are entities and/or individuals that stand to lose from age verification who not mentioned in this "study" nor in HN comments that oppose age verification who are not necessarily social media users but are engaged in _exploiting social media users_ for profit, e.g., targeting them with surveillance and ads, and taking a percentage of any revenue derived from users' work ("content creation") Those entities and/or individuals, namely the entities running oversized "social media" websites to attract large audiences for advertising, and others who profit from this flawed "business model", must be considered in any analysis of the _potential_ effects of age restrictions
dkuntz2 4mo ago
it's only like everybody who isn't a rube who always falls for "think of the children" has been saying this since all these new proposals and laws started coming back
someonehere 4mo ago
Bad parenting wins again while everyone else suffers.
Havoc 4mo ago
UK: sounds good let’s do it
dismalaf 4mo ago
If websites can block or restrict underage users based on data they receive, bad actor websites can target underage users specifically. To say nothing of the fact kids will obviously bypass it as well.
Jzush 4mo ago
People are worried about tech companies collecting data on minors, so they ban tech companies from collecting data on minors. Tech companies rally behind "Age Verification" laws so they can collect data on minors again under the guise of protecting minors. The people who don't understand why that's a bad thing count it as a win and we're right back where we started.
- anal_reactor 4mo ago
  Yes. It's astounding how stupid average voter is.
- gigel82 4mo ago
  We're not right back where we started, we're in far far worse place where all online activity of every single person is de-anonymized (associated with their full legal ID). Tech companies are salivating at the thought.
  - Jzush 4mo ago
    True, why settle for less data when they can justify getting it all. We need a law that prevents representatives without a demonstrable understanding of a subject matter from casting votes for stuff they clearly don't understand. Can't check your email or program a microwave clock? No voting on Internet bills. Can't change your own oil? No voting on automotive bills, etc. Now a lot of people would immediately say "Oh, but then nothing will get done!" and my response is, okay, good. After a few years of nothing getting done people will realize they need to start voting in people who know about the stuff the people care about instead of people who will listen to whatever a lobbyist tells them.
amai 4mo ago
Why do we need age verification tech in the first place? We also don‘t have speed verification tech on the streets, but we have speed limits everywhere.
- selicos 4mo ago
  Speed cameras, police with radar/etc, self reporting via insurance apps, controlled by GPS or speed limits in vehicles, etc The tech is there but not applied equally. Regulations could limit every car to 70mph, or the (US) state to state max highway speeds. eBikes are sort of already doing this with categories based on max speed, in some states. Then like speed limits and (emissions) regulations, people would find ways to bypass them. Rolling coal is one example. Electric 'bikes' that are basically mopeds or mini motorcycles don't require registration or licensing in many places, or at least don't enforce it. How much freedom is the general populace willing to stomach? These age verification laws apply to everyone but tend to only impact nonvoters (age 17 and under). People are generally apathetic (especially US voters) and may comply with the easy option before fighting and preventing any "foot in the door" for this sort of policy. I can't use Instagram due to the ratio of ads and sponsored posts yet apparently millions are fine with it. If they can send their ID and likeness to Meta once and continue to scroll, how much will they care? Adding layers for accountability is a good idea. It needs to start with social media itself, including preventing misinformation and disclosing algorithm/behavior nudges designed to suck people in.
tim-tday 4mo ago
Age verification is identity verification. It puts everyone at risk. Here’s a crazy idea. Parents should parent. I was over for dinner with a family and their 13yr old daughter was complaining about being “grounded forever” because she snuck access to an iPad and signed up for instagram. Instagram is cancer, but. I still don’t think age verification (at the service and government level) is the answer.

215 points by robtherobber 4mo ago

It was never about the children

If you wanted to actually empower parents in helping their kids, you'd make sites emit some form of standard as TXT, SRV, /.well-known, whatever end points Then you'd make sure that the owner of the device has the ability to enable this, factoring in some tags for the category us-min-age:21:drinking gb-min-age:18:drinking au-min-age:16:socialmedia us-min-age:13:socialmedia Then I can use my existing parental controls (including on a linux laptop if I don't give my 13 year old root) to apply or not apply rules If I don't want social media regardless, then I apply a rule "no scoial media". Or I can apply "1 hour max" per day for the category If I'm happy with my 16 year old spending half an hour on playboy.com or whatever, then that's fine too -- I'd rather they went somewhere like that then some of the shadier sites This gives no power to large companies, but helps the parents, who can apply "default" profiles -- hell you can distribute default profiles as part of the onboarding process.

stavros 4mo ago
Yes but that's not what this is for, it's for boiling the frog of enforcing ID checks online.
- rho138 4mo ago
  I’m pretty certain they understand that and are offering a workable solution instead of just repiping “age tech bad.”
  - stavros 4mo ago
    You can't offer a workable solution to an excuse. Nobody pushing this wants to protect the children, therefore offering a solution that will protect the children is irrelevant.
    - blockmarker 4mo ago
      While the powers pushing this aren't doing it for protecting children, there are many people who want restricting the internet to protect children. This is why it's a good cover instead of an obvious power grab, because parents want to stop their ten year old children from seeing porn or getting addicted to social media, but they don't know much about how to do it, the technology involved or who is pushing it. You might not want any child control, as many in HN don't, but in general the people do. And if you make parents choose between the current free for all and the government knowing the identity of every user, they will choose the second. Sure, the government would probably not protect the children even after requiring ID, but by then it would be too late.
      - jMyles 4mo ago
        I'm sorry, what?! I have an 11yo. I know a ton of parents. And I don't know a single person - not one - who thinks this is a good idea. And I've asked. Obviously this is just an anecdote and not a substitute for data. But... is there data on sentiment? I don't think it's actual parents who are pushing for this.
        pmg101 4mo ago
        I have a 10yo. I know loads of parents too. I don't think I've ever heard the "freedom" position taken apart from on HN. To non-techies it just seems self evident we should block kids from seeing beheadings and donkey porn. They haven't usually thought much about how that would be achieved and what the knock on effects would be. But they do want it.
      - SoftTalker 4mo ago
        Yep, and the social media and other tech companies could have solved this 10 or 15 years ago on their own terms but chose to pretend that it was all just a "parenting" issue and not their responsibility. Now they are facing the heavy and clumsy hand of government regulation.
Scaled 4mo ago
FYI for adult content, there's a standard called RTA-Label that already integrates with all parental controls and is already deployed on all major adult sites.
- its-summertime 4mo ago
  https://web.archive.org/web/20260215201718/https://www.rtalabel.org/?content=terms https://web.archive.org/web/20260215201718/https://www.rtala... seems a bother, nevermind the lack of granularity that RTA has. The competing options seem to have a Christian focus as well, from what I recall. There does not seem to be any good option currently.
- fc417fc802 4mo ago
  Yes but isn't that limited to only tagging adult sites? That's great and it works but it only applies to a small piece of the stated problem. It seems to be largely social media that's driving popular support for this latest go round. RTA is an excellent demonstration that a self categorization system can be expected to work provided it's standardized and service operators make use of it. What's missing then is granularity and a way to coerce the vast majority of sites to adopt whatever gets standardized. Given the current browser duopoly coercing adoption should prove relatively straightforward. So we just need an RFC document and then to somehow gain public support for it.
  - SoftTalker 4mo ago
    Simple, sites without a rating are not viewable if parental controls are enabled. That will be motivation for site publishers to get their ratings in order.
    - fc417fc802 4mo ago
      No, the browsers would need to reject the sites unconditionally since no one is going to enable parental controls if it breaks everything. Otherwise I expect the current situation of parental controls not working and thus everyone avoiding them and complaining would continue. Recall that this is exactly what happened with TLS. When browsers started gating all new features behind TLS being active suddenly all the mainstream sites had it working across the board in record time. The first step is to get Google and Apple to set a date after which adoption is mandated. Provide an easy out for site operators, such as placing a text file at "/.well-known/content-rating" with "tag:all ages" inside to opt the entire site out rather than sending a header per resource or tagging html elements or whatever. The second step is to approach legislators with this standard and a now very high compliance rate in hand and suggest that they enact a law requiring that such ratings are accurate for certain specific categories (presumably porn, gambling, social media, and user generated content). The third step is getting governments to do spot enforcement often enough to prevent the system from falling apart.
its-summertime 4mo ago
There is an unfortunate lack of unity for such things. It would work if governments made it easily understandable how to categorize content, but the vast majority is handled by closed boards of people, so no "case law" exists for the difficult edge cases. Additionally, some jurisdictions have laws based around religious and cultural values which are not immediately obvious, I'm sure many webmasters would be happy to spend 30 minutes or so writing something for such a framework, but the current subsequent obligation of learning the laws of relevant jurisdictions, the decisions of age rating boards, etc. would blow things out to weeks of research and potentially quite a bit of lawyer money.
- hnlmorg 4mo ago
  > There is an unfortunate lack of unity for such things. It would work if governments made it easily understandable how to categorize content, but the vast majority is handled by closed boards of people, so no "case law" exists for the difficult edge cases. Who cares if some sites get it wrong? It would still be a better scenario than we have now where people either announce who they are, or they hunt for some other site that doesn't enforce age verification. At least if some sites get it wrong, then they're still better than sites that presently out-right refuse to follow all the different laws of the different lands. > Additionally, some jurisdictions have laws based around religious and cultural values which are not immediately obvious, The beauty of the GPs suggestion is that site owns don't need to learn that. They just submit what the site content roughly is, and parents get to chose what they want to expose their children to. Also we already have a jurisdiction problem here were some countries, or even sub-division of such as US states, are passing law that affect the websites and software of people worldwide.
  - its-summertime 4mo ago
    Because liability is likely to be weird in a lot of jurisdictions. I could see incorrectly tagging content as having bigger ramifications than not tagging content. How does one know what to tag their content as, if they do not know what tags are used by the other party? A standard where every party makes up their own rules as they go along, doesn't exactly work well.
kneel25 4mo ago
This would do nothing to prevent sending explicit content within chat apps, which appears to be a big focus at the moment.

popcorncowboy 4mo ago

I am shocked, shocked to hear that there are ulterior motives behind age verification and that the stated benefit is in fact exactly the opposite of what happens irl. Shocked!

its-summertime 4mo ago

https://fipr.org/20260526-GrowingUpInTheOnlineWorld.pdf https://fipr.org/20260526-GrowingUpInTheOnlineWorld.pdf Actual response, instead of an article reporting on an article reporting on a response. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Information_Policy_Research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Information_Pol... Context of FIPR

garbawarb 4mo ago

Obviously? I'm shocked that lawmakers are so okay with giving up their sons' and daughters' personal information.

basilgohar 4mo ago
It's not for the Fortunate Sons, silly.
twiclo 4mo ago
What law requires that? From what I've seen laws like the one in Utah require any account to be in "child mode" until you can prove you're an adult. Also these law makers don't want their kids on social media.
- EmbarrassedHelp 4mo ago
  > require any account to be in "child mode" until you can prove you're an adult. That means unacceptable privacy violations that hurts every child and adult.

ameypandey 4mo ago

[dead]

musha68k 4mo ago

Another instance of pure power games if you track the political "reasonings" and technological "solutions". It's the same fight with yet another face; we must keep pushing back at the hydra.

mobiuscog 4mo ago
The other 'side' is playing the same power games. None of this is truly about the people (even though the sentiment is) - it's the elites vying for power against each other. The internet is not tribal, but humans are. Those seeking to divide are pushing their hardest right now, because they know division will empower them more.
- musha68k 4mo ago
  void-kampff pattern matching is failing me here

Scroll_Swe 4mo ago

It's not about the children, never was. The goal is to use one ID system for everything. I sound like Alex Jones, but we already have a system for bank login, and other trusted identity login. They want to use this for everything.

big85 4mo ago
I think it's rather that they want to de-anonymize internet users by linking all activity to one or more identifiers. An IP address only links you to a physical address, at best. Account requirements with identity verification link the user's real-world identity via government ID, credit card, or face photo.
trumpdong 4mo ago
It's both. Most people want to protect children, some other people (concentrated among the rich and powerful) see this and use it as an excuse to push surveillance.
baobabKoodaa 4mo ago
This is already reality in Finland. Want to schedule a doctor's appointment? Bank ID. Want to pay your taxes? Ban ID. Want to check your pension? Bank ID. The worst part of it is that a significant swathe of the population does not have access to bank ID, so they can't access these services anymore. It's a kafkaesque dystopia that is going places that I never thought would be possible.
- Scroll_Swe 4mo ago
  I am Swedish so I know. BankID I like as it is now for authority stuff and I understand its need. The alternative would be everyone rolling their own auth and MFA, would be bad. Now imagine all social media tied to your BankID. This is their wet dream.
  - baobabKoodaa 4mo ago
    I don't agree with you wrt "the alternative". Things like scheduling a doctor's visit could be done without authentication. If some authentication is needed, it could be a traditional username/password setup (no MFA). Blocking part of the population from accessing basic services is just inhumane.

M95D 4mo ago

The nice solution would be <adult age="18"> content </adult> tags, standardized by w3c.

bluGill 4mo ago
Those can only work if there is some way to ensure that everyone uses them correctly. I guarantee there will be many sites that don't - every single week the kids will discover a new one and spread it to all their friends (in their school)
- M95D 4mo ago
  Same if they find a new porn site that doesn't ask for ID check.

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

CrzyLngPwd 4mo ago

"with nine out of 10 parents saying they are in favour of a ban in response to a government consultation" I wonder why those 90% of parents don't cut their children off from social media right now. They have the power to do it.

Hugsbox 4mo ago
Yeah, this I will seriously never understand. When I was a kid, if my mother didn't want me doing something then she would make sure I couldn't do it. Is nobody parenting their children anymore? Do they just let them do whatever they want these days? I've got a 2 year old of my own and can't imagine just handing him an iPad and ignoring him all day like I see other parents do. I can't tell if it's laziness, or ignorance, or some combination of the two.
- Broken_Hippo 4mo ago
  Uh-huh. For me, that meant that I didn't do something At Home, and was pretty much unsupervised other places. My mother was strict at a time when a lot of kids had freedom. I couldn't do much that other kids did. When I could, I had to jump through hoops. I lied to my mother a lot. My mother still isn't in the loop with my life - I'm in my late 40s now. It would have been much better to have been able to talk to my parents honestly about stuff I went through. It would have been much better to talk to me about things and get honest information about dangers.
  - Hugsbox 4mo ago
    I relate to this quite a lot, to be honest. There has to be some happy medium somewhere, though.
    - Tade0 4mo ago
      The happy middle is you not using social media, or smartphones for that matter, in front of them. Kids scrutinize everything you say and do and will notice the discrepancy.

jmyeet 4mo ago

I believe we could solve a lot of these problems by making it illegal to advertise to minors. I'm reminded of the settlement with Facebook where it was illegally allowing racial targeting in ads for housing, which is illegal [1]. If platforms were suddenly liable for allowing or failing to stop the targeting of minors, they'd suddenly have a lot of incentive to figure this out. The beauty of this is that they already do it. Your profile with FB, Google, etc has a lot of implied demographic information based on your activity because they want to sell audiences with certain demographics. As an aside, whenever I see "think tank" my first question is "who is funding this?" and I learned something I didn't know previously. In the UK, these bodies often aren't legal charities. Instead they are non-profit companies limited by guarantee [2]. One consequence of that is that they don't have to reveal their funding like a 501(c)(3) would (and, yes, US think tanks are generally 501(c)(3)s). I didn't see any obvious red flags in the trustees for Foundation for Information Policy Research for what it's worth and it's an almost 30 year old organization. [1]: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-secures-groundbreaking-settlement-agreement-meta-platforms-formerly-known https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-s... [2]: https://www.funded.team/advice/charity-vs-cic-vs-clg https://www.funded.team/advice/charity-vs-cic-vs-clg

trumpdong 4mo ago
How would you know if someone was a minor? Facebook knows even if you don't tell them, but I don't. Would it be combined with the California-style OS age header?
- jmyeet 4mo ago
  Google, as one example, uses a bunch of information including profile information and behavioural data in sophiticated ML to imply demographics [1]. This is what I mean when I said they already do it. The suggestion I'm talking about doesn't "solve" the adult content issue. It's more targeted at social media, which I think is the bigger problem. If it's illegal to show minors ads and advertisers can't target minors then you've just removed the economic incentives. Youtube tends to be included in age verification legislation. Personally, I would be happy if you simply limited advertising and (IMHO) you dind't show commetns. Roblox I think is on the right path here, at least in theory. Roblox segments users such that you can only interact with people one segment above or below you. The issue with social media (again, IMHO) is in big part that minors can interact with adults and vice versa. Really you want more of a sandbox so people can't prety on children. [1]: https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/2580383?hl=en https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/2580383?hl=en

fxj 4mo ago

[flagged]

big85 4mo ago

If you make law-abiding sites like Pornhub hard to access, consumers will move to black markets like the Dark Web, which hosts illegal content. As the article mentions, kids are able to bypass the age verification with ease, so it doesn't even fulfil its stated purpose. We didn't even need age verification, because parental controls have been an option the entire time.

twiclo 4mo ago
[flagged]
- big85 4mo ago
  You're citing Fight the New Drug, a Mormon anti-porn organization whose angle was to define pornography as an addiction to justify laws banning it as a health crisis. My point is, they operate openly and can be held accountable, as lawsuits demonstrate. The alternative to this sort of site is the Dark Web, where nobody is held accountable and the law is broken with impunity. Pornhub is by far the lesser of two evils in this context.
  - twiclo 4mo ago
    One of my 5 sources is from Fight the New Drug and you turn to an ad hominem because I guess Mormons can't make good arguments and it's ridiculous to say that people can be addicted to porn. Sounds like you're in denial of that for yourself. We don't have to choose between two evils. If adults want to watch porn they need to prove they're an adult. You wouldn't say we should stop age verifying people for online gambling just because there are "dark web" gambling websites.
    - mbesto 4mo ago
      The first link is the FTC punishing Pornhub for something they did wrong. That is the parent commentator's main point (e.g. it can be regulated), which you keep ignoring. > You wouldn't say we should stop age verifying people for online gambling just because there are "dark web" gambling websites. False equivalencies. Gambling and porn have VERY different dynamics to them.

0xbadcafebee 4mo ago

"Think of the children!" - Say the 40-year-old millennials who were exposed to the Wild West of internet content as children and are still fine. "We can't censor the internet on their devices!" - There's a $2.5B market in parental censorship software. You can censor their devices. "Our child will become a pariah without the internet!" - In what way, exactly? They still go to school, still play sports, still go to chess club/band/theater/etc, still ride bikes around the neighborhood, still hang out at friends' houses, etc. All the kids will not hate them because their parents refused to give them a smartphone. (How do I know? I know a kid who grew up without one. Has plenty of friends.) "But they need to be able to contact us!" - Dumbphones work fine. Teach them how to text and make calls. I guarantee they will use them. Parents are lazy and want us to do parenting for them, not really a newsflash. But none of that is the point. "Age Verification" laws are stupid because 1) the kids will get around the verification, 2) plenty of the internet does not abide by the law, 3) it is government mass-surveillance in a "think of the children" disguise, 4) it makes privacy (surfing the web without a Government-issued ID) illegal, 5) if it's taken seriously, the only way to actually enforce it is a Great Firewall of America. These laws are the gravest threat to personal liberty in the history of mankind. It cannot be understated how pervasive it is. At no other time in history has it been possible to not only track one's movements 24/7, but also the content of everything they read, everyone they talk to, etc, even in the privacy of their home. These laws don't work without that.

deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
looperhacks 4mo ago
Before I respond, I want to point out that I'm against age verification as well. > "Think of the children!" - Say the 40-year-old millennials who were exposed to the Wild West of internet content as children and are still fine. While I'm not 40 yet: I was exposed to "the Wild West" and I was certainly not fine. And even then, I'd argue that today's social media is even more damaging for the psyche than everything I was exposed to. > "Our child will become a pariah without the internet!" - In what way, exactly? They still go to school, still play sports, still go to chess club/band/theater/etc, still ride bikes around the neighborhood, still hang out at friends' houses, etc. All the kids will not hate them because their parents refused to give them a smartphone. (How do I know? I know a kid who grew up without one. Has plenty of friends.) Not all communities are like this, but I have certainly seen it: - They still go to school: Sure, but they will miss out on class group chats that, depending on the school, might be important. Or, even worse, will miss information from teachers. - still play sports/go to chess clubs/etc: Sure, unless all club communication happens over chat apps/social media and is required to join. - All the kids will not hate them because their parents refused to give them a smartphone: Maybe not. Maybe they will be because they are the odd one out (How do I know? I was the kid who grew up without the back-then equivalent)

monooso 4mo ago

Disclaimer: not a parent, as will soon become apparent. Several people have made the argument that individual parents can't simply cut their children off from social media, as said offspring may be ostracised (or simply look at their friends' phones, assuming they still have any). That argument makes sense to me, to an extent. What I don't quite understand is the conclusion that this leaves parents with only two (equally unpalatable) options. Parents don't have to act individually. They could act as a collective, especially within the context of a small social group. Is that really such a naive suggestion?

twiclo 4mo ago
Parents will get their kids phones worrying that they're missing out. The more parents do that the more the kids without phones are actually being left out. If the government puts restriction on these things than parents are much less likely to worry. I've heard of parents of children for a certain grade getting together and all signing a pact that the kids won't have phones until a certain point, say 16. It only goes into effect if something like 75% of the parents for that grade sign on. I like that idea.
- monooso 4mo ago
  > Parents will get their kids phones worrying that they're missing out. Again, not a parent, but isn't making difficult decisions in the best interests of your child the entire gig?
  - twiclo 4mo ago
    I agree with you. I plan to not be pressured by what other parents are doing. But that pressure is real and many parents end up thinking it's what's best. It's better that they have friends and a phone than neither of the two.
  - trumpdong 4mo ago
    Imagine there's a lake with 100 fish farms. Each farm operator can pay $50000 to install a pollution scrubber that benefits every farm operator by $1000. Obviously, none of them do it, since it'd cost them $49000. Coordination problems are why we have a government. It mandates the pollution scrubber, each of them moans a lot, 3 of them cheat, but everyone is $47000 richer in the end (except the cheaters who are $97000 richer until they get caught).

trashb 4mo ago

> system akin to film classification age ratings I am pretty sure that most parents let their kids watch movies that are rated for a higher age group then their current age. For example a lot of marvel movies, harry potter or pirates of the caribbean are usually in this category. My conclusion the parents are not lazy they care to be breaking the age restriction. A lot of parents even go out of their way or get aggressive to make sure they can age rated movies to their kids as they think the age ratings are bullshit. I would suspect age verification to have similar effects in practice, and there is the additional hurtful factors as well leading to a net negative. Not just for minors but also for adults that now have to deal with this crap.

shevy-java 4mo ago

They are right, but this is the end goal anyway - age sniffing is all about spying on people. Children are the excuse. Usually it is either children or terrorists; these are the buzzword bingo memes used by lobbyists.

aloaha 4mo ago

[flagged]

1vuio0pswjnm7 4mo ago

"The think tank warns that no age verification system, however technically secure, can prevent a motivated user from bypassing age restrictions. The Tor Network, which is widely used by journalists, whistleblowers, NGOs, security researchers and dissidents in repressive countries to protect their privacy and security, makes blocking or age-gating virtual private networks (VPNs) a pointless and harmful exercise, FIPR argued." If true, then how do we explain comments on HN that oppose age restrictions if these commenters are supposedly "technical" (cf. "non-technical") and understand how to use Tor Another possibility is the opposition to age verification is not based on the opponent's own social media use, it's based on the effect that age restrictions would have on a social media _audiences_ comprised of "non-technical" people, "normies", that are the _targets_ of the opponent's activities The arguments made by this "think tank" (read: advocacy group), similar to aforementioned HN comments, lack originality and insight and are thus not persuasive Perhaps there are entities and/or individuals that stand to lose from age verification who not mentioned in this "study" nor in HN comments that oppose age verification who are not necessarily social media users but are engaged in _exploiting social media users_ for profit, e.g., targeting them with surveillance and ads, and taking a percentage of any revenue derived from users' work ("content creation") Those entities and/or individuals, namely the entities running oversized "social media" websites to attract large audiences for advertising, and others who profit from this flawed "business model", must be considered in any analysis of the _potential_ effects of age restrictions

dkuntz2 4mo ago

it's only like everybody who isn't a rube who always falls for "think of the children" has been saying this since all these new proposals and laws started coming back

someonehere 4mo ago

Bad parenting wins again while everyone else suffers.

Havoc 4mo ago

UK: sounds good let’s do it

dismalaf 4mo ago

If websites can block or restrict underage users based on data they receive, bad actor websites can target underage users specifically. To say nothing of the fact kids will obviously bypass it as well.

Jzush 4mo ago

People are worried about tech companies collecting data on minors, so they ban tech companies from collecting data on minors. Tech companies rally behind "Age Verification" laws so they can collect data on minors again under the guise of protecting minors. The people who don't understand why that's a bad thing count it as a win and we're right back where we started.

anal_reactor 4mo ago
Yes. It's astounding how stupid average voter is.
gigel82 4mo ago
We're not right back where we started, we're in far far worse place where all online activity of every single person is de-anonymized (associated with their full legal ID). Tech companies are salivating at the thought.
- Jzush 4mo ago
  True, why settle for less data when they can justify getting it all. We need a law that prevents representatives without a demonstrable understanding of a subject matter from casting votes for stuff they clearly don't understand. Can't check your email or program a microwave clock? No voting on Internet bills. Can't change your own oil? No voting on automotive bills, etc. Now a lot of people would immediately say "Oh, but then nothing will get done!" and my response is, okay, good. After a few years of nothing getting done people will realize they need to start voting in people who know about the stuff the people care about instead of people who will listen to whatever a lobbyist tells them.

amai 4mo ago

Why do we need age verification tech in the first place? We also don‘t have speed verification tech on the streets, but we have speed limits everywhere.

selicos 4mo ago
Speed cameras, police with radar/etc, self reporting via insurance apps, controlled by GPS or speed limits in vehicles, etc The tech is there but not applied equally. Regulations could limit every car to 70mph, or the (US) state to state max highway speeds. eBikes are sort of already doing this with categories based on max speed, in some states. Then like speed limits and (emissions) regulations, people would find ways to bypass them. Rolling coal is one example. Electric 'bikes' that are basically mopeds or mini motorcycles don't require registration or licensing in many places, or at least don't enforce it. How much freedom is the general populace willing to stomach? These age verification laws apply to everyone but tend to only impact nonvoters (age 17 and under). People are generally apathetic (especially US voters) and may comply with the easy option before fighting and preventing any "foot in the door" for this sort of policy. I can't use Instagram due to the ratio of ads and sponsored posts yet apparently millions are fine with it. If they can send their ID and likeness to Meta once and continue to scroll, how much will they care? Adding layers for accountability is a good idea. It needs to start with social media itself, including preventing misinformation and disclosing algorithm/behavior nudges designed to suck people in.

tim-tday 4mo ago

Age verification is identity verification. It puts everyone at risk. Here’s a crazy idea. Parents should parent. I was over for dinner with a family and their 13yr old daughter was complaining about being “grounded forever” because she snuck access to an iPad and signed up for instagram. Instagram is cancer, but. I still don’t think age verification (at the service and government level) is the answer.