alt Hacker NewsHere's my solution: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46447282
The problem is privacy activists and free speech activists (though there's some overlap between the two they aren't the same) oppose age verification by any means since it has the potential to infringe on both ever so slightly. Meanwhile age verification gates are being demanded and thrown up all over the Internet at a frightening pace. So we get only the maximal data collection solutions implemented by people who don't give a shit about privacy or free speech. And the mass surveillance cheerleaders egg them on.
If privacy and free speech activists understood that a proactive, privacy-preserving approach to age verification is the best outcome we'd be better off.
Replies
Much like DRM, there is no good option. Its a fundamentally bad thing. If parents want to abdicate their parental responsibilities, their children should bare the cost of that, not millions of strangers.
The issue with your solution still comes down to yet another centralizing middleman with no real incentive to be efficient. And all the incentive to lobby governments and extract more wealth from the people.
This can of course be done government by government, but that isn't scalable for a global company.
> ever so slightly
It’s not “slightly”. They’ll start with claiming to protect people under 18 from obviously problematic content — porn, grooming, etc.
It won’t stop there. The scope creep will extend to expressing or reading “incorrect” or “dangerous” views.
They’ll probably call some of it “hate speech”, but hate speech is whatever the people in power say it is; on X, “cisgender” is designated as a slur and gets your post censored.
The slippery slope fallacy is only a fallacy if the slope isn’t slippery — “think of the children” is a wedge bad actors are once again trying to use to open the floodgates of censorship.
They don’t even need to target adults; if you control what children can see and express, you have enormous control over all future generations of voters.
You need to process that other people disagree with that claim, and do not believe we'd be better off.
We should not accept the Overton window shifting here, and say "well, if we do it to ourselves, in a privacy-preserving way, that's less bad".