If this system exists at all, then everyone subject to it is one state-coerced software update from away from their computer working for them only at the whim of that state. Age, gender, race, disability, debt, credit rating, citizenship, neighborhood, search history, political affiliation, all of that plus the state itself is one breach away from no computer working - or only the _right people's_ computers working, you understand - at all.
Age verification is the footgun of public democracy.
At the implementation level data is just data, and in a democratic society, human privacy and state sovereignty are the same the same thing. You wouldn't think so, until you take a hard look into how to implement them, but they are the same thing. And both of them are national security issues.
Nobody will be made safer, by age verification. But everyone will be put at risk by the systems that have to exist to implement it.
@mhoye thank you for this, I've been kind of skeptical of this, and you've moved me significantly closer to your position.
I don't like any state mandated age verification, but I do think we need something along the lines of a consumer opt-in "naive Internet". For all the stuff you talk about that's necessary for daily life we should be able to do that as safely as we can walk down the street.
If people can put up a storefront that leads you into a scam or sex shop on the way to interacting with your local government or doing your homework or paying your utilities that's unacceptable.
Age verification isn't a fix, but ignoring these problems just leaves more space for bad laws and policing.
@mhoye @thesquirrelfish sorry you're stuck in a loop - age verification is a red herring, you're going in circles on it
to the point, you're now saying social media companies should police themselves for some reason?
if there are products that are so harmful we need to protect people of certain ages then maybe, idk, we should get rid of those products
@mhoye @thesquirrelfish sigh, you're right, we should do nothing even though we have this mountain of evidence, it's the same...
EDIT: Weird analogy, since you have to show ID to buy alcohol.
@mhoye @Gargron
And if we have to do this by government law, we should verify to a single gov database that confirms we are who we are to other systems.
All of us giving our identity info to all the systems is stupid squared.
For my next insurer I want the Gov to confirm who I am, not hand over a pile of personal stuff. If the Government can’t do this safely, that’s my proof it shouldn’t be done.
Edit: non-government 3rd party should also be available but the law should state the user gets to chose which, and doesn’t have to use a shitty one forced by a retailer.
@http_error_418 @mhoye @Gargron
No. A slight retraction. I made an edit to say also 3rd party but user gets to chose.
What is important is the user isn’t forced to verify with a scammer who offers a free verification service to the retailer.
The government supply a service but also allow other recognised 3rd parties, so you should get to chose which. Not Google. Not Microsoft. Not Amazon. You.
@mhoye If only we had an authentication technology that was shaped vaguely like Macaroons which allowed for opaque and scoped attribute exposure/predicate evaluation
(Of course that’s not the point of the legislation)
"La verificación de edad constituye un ataque deliberado a la soberanía del sistema, tanto para los individuos como para los países. No existe tal cosa como la «verificación de edad»; lo único que existe es una «verificación de identidad que incluye la edad», y el sistema encargado de realizar dicha verificación no es meramente un sistema de rastreo de usuarios invasivo para la privacidad, sino un interruptor de apagado controlado a distancia, aplicable a cualquier persona de cualquier edad."
> what about kids that have no / bad parents, doesn’t it make sense then to have a baseline?
Fucking no. We don’t limit everyone’s freedom for an imagined worst case minority. However many heartstrings it tugs on.
Thank you for your description of this too. I’m going to reuse part of it as a way to describe why this is one of the worst possible things that could happen to people who are neutral or supportive.
FUCK
@mhoye I call it "age discrimination" because it is.
The nominal point is to age discriminate. (The actual point is to prevent anti-ice protests from organizing anonymously on signal next time.)
There's no "verification" in Gavin Newsom's bill, it's attestation like the "are you 18 y/n" clickthroughs sites have had since fosta/sesta under the first trump administration. The point is to mandate something you can then tie to palantir/clear/persona and your platform's TPM/SMM.