It's just a different game. A web site is much easier to instrument than a physical place. Say I go to a bar, I show my ID to the bouncer. My identity isn't

It's just a different game. A web site is much easier to instrument than a physical place. Say I go to a bar, I show my ID to the bouncer. My identity isn't recorded (unless they scan it with a device that records the scan data). Maybe they have cameras, my image isn't immediately associated with my identity, somebody would have to do a bit of work to connect the two. Maybe I pay with a credit card, now my name is stored in the point-of-sale system. But I can still go to a bar with no scanner, no cameras, and pay in cash, and it's not a problem. Not suspicious at all. None of the above record-keeping is required, nor should it be. Now, if a web site says I need to be provably 18+ to view their content, that's fine. I can take it or leave it. I have a choice. When the law tries to mandate the software that can or must be run on my device, or tries to limit how I can communicate with my friends and family, now I have a problem. I consider my rights to personal computation and personal communication to be sacred. And I also believe in my right to privacy in these matters. I never needed an ID to send a personal letter, and my right to privacy regarding such communication is protected by law. Finally, I see gathering of access data by a central authority (which I assume would eventually happen if social media sites started requiring validated ID) to be a concentration of power, and a dangerous one.