Age Verification isn't a technical problem to solve. If you think that, you're missing the point.

It's a social problem used by authoritarian governments as an excuse for population control and censorship.

It's a fundamental attack on free speech and democracy.

It must not be accommodated.
It must be stopped.

#MassSurveillance #AgeVerification #Privacy #Democracy #HumanRights

@Em0nM4stodon There are technical solutions without mass surveillance.

But I am not optimistic enough to believe those will be demanded.

Specifically because of the lack of surveillance, and the lack of monopoly protection for big tech.

Pretty sure big tech lobbyists are making sure the worst approaches possible get put into law. Not because they are evil per se, but because it strengthens their monopolies.

@divVerent @Em0nM4stodon No there are not. This is a fundamental fact of mathematical logic. Given a proposed age verification system you can prove that it's either trivially bypassed (doesn't actually verify age) or violates key privacy properties.

Em's point is spot-on. If you think of this as a problem to be solved, you are going to be wrong and you are going to be a useful fool for fascists.

@dalias @divVerent @Em0nM4stodon Knowing how old someone is does not limit their speech nor their ability to vote (we verify age for that already, and for many other reasons). Age verification isn’t state censorship. I suppose it could be a way to limit anonymous speech. That isn’t a Right where I am from (nor is ‘free’ speech). I doubt anonymous speech is a Right anywhere.

I have no doubt it’s absolutely technically feasible in a way that infringes on no one’s privacy. Ultimately though, yes, it could be abused by bad actors. Like everything else in civilisation we need some balance of enforcement to deal with those people.

@edwiebe @divVerent @Em0nM4stodon There is no way to know how old someone is without attestation by some authority who knows their identity. This precludes participation by anyone not known to such an authority (undocumented, outside of jurisdiction, etc.) or for whom it is not safe to let that authority know they are participating. And this is only the tip of the iceberg.

You are dangerously wrong, and you should stop advocating about things you're dangerously wrong about.

@dalias @divVerent @Em0nM4stodon

If you're suggesting every jurisdiction should allow unrestricted access to everything because some jurisdictions are authoritarian then I disagree.

@edwiebe @dalias @divVerent @Em0nM4stodon Yeah, it would be a real shame if a free state was unable to restrict what it’s free citizens could hear or say. Well worth the power that state can retain when it decides to be less free. 🙄
@su_liam There are many reasonable limits to what 'free' people can be allowed to do and say to each other.
@edwiebe Are you setting those limits or am I?