this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2026
1013 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

84277 readers
3295 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Online threats to children are real, but the headlong pursuit of age verification that we’re seeing around the world is unacceptable in its approach and far too broad in scope — and we simply can’t afford to get this wrong.

To be clear, parents’ concerns are valid and sincere. Few people would argue that kids should have unfettered access to adult material, to self-harm how-tos, to social media platforms that manipulate them and expose them to abuse.

But it’s the very depth of those worries that is being cynically exploited. Age verification as is currently being proposed in country after country would mean the death of anonymity online.

And we know exactly who stands to gain: The same tech giants who built the privacy nightmare that the internet is today.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Siegfried@lemmy.world 20 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It bothers me that we know that this bullshit has nothing to do with the kids and is probably being lobbied by the genocide gang and AI companies, even more that it has become obvious that the only value AI has is mass monitoring, but nobody abords the real issue. We are playing their book.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

99.9% navigate the system and grow up perfectly fine, or fine enough. We shouldn't have to completely surrender our anonymity for the tiny percentage that went wrong.

Before the Internet, some people got weird, and in the Internet era, some people are going to go weird. Age verification isn't going to change that.

This isn't about the kids. We all know it.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 16 points 2 days ago

"It's for the KIDS, you COMMIE!"

It's time we stop accepting that rationalization as valid.

[–] moonburster@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's been fun lads. Let's make agreements for where we will touch grass together when this happens. Follow-up events will be decided on location

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

I think these laws are not for we'll just get around it or not use services that require it, for now at least.

[–] ReCursing@feddit.uk 124 points 3 days ago (8 children)

He has a vested interest in saying that, but he's right, and it would be awful

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] fodor@lemmy.zip 18 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Kids don't have unfettered access if they are supervised, lol. And age gating will fail regardless. So it's a failure followed by another failure, sigh.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] AverageEarthling@feddit.online 59 points 3 days ago (11 children)

I mean, I've got boxes full of physical books and self hosted movies and Tv. At that point, I'll just stop using the internet. I need to go outside more anyway.

[–] zewm@lemmy.world 40 points 3 days ago (13 children)

Finally all my friends that been giving me shit about having a dvd collection can eat shit.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 17 points 3 days ago

The next step will be to make more essential services online only, so people have to use the internet.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] RedGreenBlue@lemmy.zip 45 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Make social media unprofitable instead of this.

[–] WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 18 points 3 days ago (8 children)

Basically don't allow ads for kids and only show social media posts from their friends in chronological order instead of any fancy algorithm. Also make them liable for showing scams to minors. That kills most profit.

[–] orclev@lemmy.world 17 points 3 days ago

Kill it from the other direction. Make it illegal to algorithmically adjust a users experience to prioritize interaction regardless of whether that's positive or negative. Ultimately that's the problem with places like Facebook, they weigh an angry rant the same as a positive one, higher even in a lot of cases. Things that make people angry generate a lot more interaction than positive things so it drowns people in hate and fear. If you treat any interaction as a positive signal things just devolve.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world 41 points 3 days ago (9 children)

Anyone think that's not the point?

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 25 points 3 days ago (1 children)

"Age Verification" is just them attaching "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" to their push to have every single bit of information about every person on the planet.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Randelung@lemmy.world 34 points 3 days ago (6 children)

Man, parents not wanting anything to do with their kids' upbringing will believe anything, huh. They'd rather offload any and all responsibilities to automation than spend one minute teaching kids how to protect themselves.

Then again, they probably don't know, either.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 43 points 3 days ago (9 children)

Clearly this man is a genius.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 25 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Anyone who could not see that Trump was going to extort business for his own personal gain was clueless to Trump and his cabinet of blackmailers.

Anyone of color giving support to White Nationalists is fucking insane and shows a complete lack of understanding of current US politics.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] treesquid@lemmy.world 22 points 3 days ago

"Could" is a funny way of saying "are obviously intended to". Stop playing around, call it out directly. Points where you must have your ID checked are, in fact, ID checkpoints.

[–] emeralddawn45@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 3 days ago (2 children)

If this becomes widespread, I just won't use any websites that require it. There will always be ways around it or alternatives for people opposed to losing their privacy. There already are at least 2 Internets. There's reddit and Facebook and Twitter and all the corporate news sites, and then there's Lemmy and archive.org and the dark web and dev pages and independent websites and piracy. I find I rarely care about the former anyway. It'll just mean being blocked off from all the corporate slop, which may be a blessing in disguise.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world 16 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Maybe Kaczynski had a point by running off to the woods and living in a cabin.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Doorbook@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The positive thing about age checks is the technology that will come out to by pass the system.

[–] elucubra@sopuli.xyz 8 points 2 days ago

I'm working on ways it right now. Aliexpress wants me to do a face check for some items. I've been a customer long enough to have been born and become a legal adult as a customer!

They don't want my face for verification. It's an excuse to feed their AI, which is already scary good at voice.

[–] Kyrgizion@lemmy.world 26 points 3 days ago

That's quite obviously the end goal here.

[–] daggermoon@piefed.world 26 points 3 days ago (6 children)

Can we make a new internet?

[–] shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 26 points 3 days ago (8 children)

Yes, have a look at reticulum. No centralized addressing authority. No centralized domain naming system. Everything is globally routeable. It also just got support for transferring HTTP with RServer and MeshBrowser.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 22 points 3 days ago (7 children)

This whole conversation is such a false dichotomy. The laws can absolutely be written such that companies are required to suspend service to any suspected child without requiring ID to use the service.

But just like pollution and everything else we've let them push the buck to us.

The problem is that politicians don't want to legislate enforcement/oversight entities as those would piss off their owners.

Democracies need to replace their lame duck politicians with ones that aren't bought and owned by the shareholder class who also own the social media corporations.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] sturmblast@lemmy.world 15 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (4 children)

Theres a big wide internet beyond apps and social media.

[–] osanna@lemmy.vg 1 points 2 days ago

I miss stumbleupon :(

it was GREAT for new websites to discover.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] blackkn1ght@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 3 days ago

Could? Will.

load more comments
view more: next ›