I don't understand how this is any better.

It's my job as a parent (and I have several kids...) to monitor the things they consume and talk with them about it.

I don't want some blanket ban on content unless it's "age appropriate", because I don't approve that content being banned. (honestly - the idea of "age appropriate" is insulting in the first place)

Fuck man, I can even legally give my kids alcohol - I don't see why it's appropriate to enforce what content I allow them to see.

And I have absolutely all of the same tools you just discussed today. I can lock devices down just fine.

Age verification is a scam to increase corporate/governmental control. Period.

> Age verification is very hard, because parents will give their children their unlocked account, and children will steal their parents' unlocked account

More simply: If ID checks are fully anonymous (as many here propose when the topic comes up) then every kid will just have their friends’ older sibling ID verify their account one afternoon. Or they’ll steal their parents’ ID when they’re not looking.

Discussions about kids and technology on HN are very weird to me these days because so many commenters have seemingly forgotten what it’s like to be a kid with technology. Before this current wave of ID check discussions it was common to proudly share stories of evading content controls or restrictions as a kid. Yet once the ID check topic comes up we’re supposed to imagine kids will just give up and go with the law? Yeah right.

Completely agree. The internet works differently than how people want it to, and filtering services are notoriously easy to bypass. Even if these age-verification laws passed with resounding scope and support, what would stop anyone from merely hosting porn in Romania or some country that didn't care about US age-verification laws. The leads to run down would be legion. I think you could seriously degrade the porn industry (which I wouldn't necessarily mind) but it would be more or less impossible to prevent unauthorized internet users from accessing pornography. And of course that's the say nothing of the blast radius that would come with age-verification becoming entrenched on the internet.

Just a personal anecdote from my life - I have set up Youtube account for my kid with correct age restrictions (he is 11). Also this account is under family plan so there are no ads.

My kid logs out of this account so he can watch restricted content. I wonder - what is PG rating for logged out experience?

And we need a standard where websites can self-rate their own content. Then locked devices can just block all content that isn't rated "G" or whatever.

> If there's a fundamental culture shift,

You mean this culture shift is needed for the masses but I don't think that's the case. In my widest social circle I am not aware of anyone giving alcohol to young kids (yes by the time they are 16ish yes but even that's rare). Most guardians would willingly do similar with locked devices.

The real problem is that the governments/companies won't get to spy on you if locked devices are given to children only. They want to spy on us all. That's the missing cultural shift.

So kids can drive at 16. But can’t get access to an unlocked phone until their 18? Who gets to decide the whitelist? The government?

I mean look, there's a point where the manufacturers back off and entrust the parents.

Any parent can be reckless and give their children all kinds of things - poison, weapons, pornographic magazines ... at some point the device has enough protective features and it is the parents responsibility.

Prove of adulthood should be provided by the bank after logging into a bank account. I'm sure parents just would let their bank details be stolen and such.

Of course no personal details should be provided to the site that requests age confirmation. Just "barer of this token" is an adult.

Yes we need a fundamental shift where sharing of parent accounts is akin to atleast some sort of infraction or maybe even a misdemeanor.

>parents will give their children their unlocked account, and children will steal their parents' unlocked account.

I think either is better than the staus quo. In the first case the parent is waiving away the protections, and in the second the kid is.

Even if a kid buys alcohol, I think it's healthier that they do it by breaking rules and faking ids and knowing that they are doing something wrong, than just doing it and having no way to know it's wrong (except a popup that we have been trained by UX to close without reading (fuck cookie legislation))

I actually don't hate this??? As long as parents can set up their own whitelists and it's not up to the government to have the final say on any particular block.

That is actually a very good solution that is respecting privacy. And is much more effective than asking everyone for ID when opening a website or app.

How does this solve the problem at all? You're just making more problems. Now you have to deal with a black market of "unlocked" phones. You're having to deal with kids sharing unlocked phone. Would police have to wal around trying to buy unlocked phones to catch people selling them to minors? What about selling phones on the internet, would they check ID now?

SOME parents give their children access to their ID. That is NOT the same as ALL parents, and therefore is not a reason not to give those parents a helping hand.

Even just informing children that they're entering an adult space has some value, and if they then have to go ask their parents to borrow their wallet, that's good enough for me.

Definitively we should have constant verification of the current user with Face ID or similar tech. Every 5 minutes of usage, your camera is activated to check who’s using your phone and validates it. So much secure and safe. /s

This is Nirvana/Perfect Solution fallacy. That's like saying limiting smoking to 18 y/o was futile because teenagers could always have some other adult buy them cigs, or use fake IDs.

Ridiculous take.