Because its not about age verification, its about tracking and controlling you and making a privacy respecting solution isn’t compatible with that.
Because its not about age verification, its about tracking and controlling you and making a privacy respecting solution isn’t compatible with that.
linule@lemmy.world 1 day ago
So there should be a rebuttal demanding a privacy respecting age verification token, instead of just arguing against age verification, which technically does have a point. This way you disable their excuse to sneak in the other things.
NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
No, we still need to be against it. I said tracking and controlling, not just tracking.
They are already blocking resources that shouldn’t be blocked from youth, and even a privacy centric method would still let them do that, and then expand it to anything at a whim in the future.
linule@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
Okay, it’s 2 topics then, the privacy, and basically add a mandatory authorization layer to the internet derived from your real id.
To some extent the later already exists for movies or say to buy alcohol, getting a driving license etc. in the real world, where people often also have to verify their age. So here it could be asked on what exact basis the internet should work differently.
0x0@infosec.pub 1 hour ago
Neither alcohol or the car verifies your age when you use it.
A minor can’t really sign up for an Internet subscription, so who gave them access?
Mandate age requirements when buying digital units would be better, but then we’re back to the “I have no control over my children and can’t set boundaries”
NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
The basis is its how the world communicates and they become the gate keepers to communication and knowledge. Its like book banning on topics they don’t like but on a scale much more massive.
They’re already banning internet content from people that shouldn’t be about sexual health.