4 ms·
This isn’t about kids at all. The ID requirement is the WHOLE POINT. That it is technically possible to do age verification in a privacy-preserving way is thu
by sneak 4mo ago
This isn’t about kids at all. The ID requirement is the WHOLE POINT.
That it is technically possible to do age verification in a privacy-preserving way is thus entirely irrelevant.
They want all online activity tied to ID so they can violently, illegally retaliate in the dark of night against protected expression online that they don’t like.
That’s all this is. Privacy-preserving techniques are irrelevant because they do not accomplish this goal.
- inigyou 4mo agoThere is also, separately from that, a need to protect kids from growing up into the people in Idiocracy.
- sneak 4mo agoThey already failed to do that by steadily eroding the educational system and its standards over the last 50-70 years. We’re already there. The electorate can’t locate the countries on a map in which the US is fighting multiple wars in their name. Banning Instagram ain’t gonna fix that. This is not in any way whatsoever about children.
- sylos 4mo agoGetting children to not grow up into idiots requires intense parental interactions, healthy environments, and the ability to explore and get hurt. Identification isn't even on the list.
- encom 4mo agoMy government shouldn't decide what content I'm viewing or providing, and that's the end of it. >muh kids That's the parents problem, not mine. Any system the government comes up with will be insecure, inconvenient, invasive and cost the taxpayers billions, and you all know it's true.
- Tangurena2 4mo agoYou must have skipped reading Project 2025. Most of the editors/contributors have been appointed/hired/added to the administration/cabinet. More than half of the goals of Project 2025 had already been implemented.