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.
I’m fine with that.
Who exactly do you mean by “I”? Preferably with an exact address, just so we know you’re serious about it.
Not being anonymous is not equivalent to broadcasting your personal information to everyone. Maybe that’s why people are so confused here. They think that they will have to post their addresses and phone numbers online?
That’s the best part, companies do that for you
Those are two different things. Being identifiable online is not the same as giving some company your personal information. People give companies their info all the time without online age verification. Age verification done the right way does not require providing any personal info. I 100% oppose forcing people to share personal data with private companies. This is not what we’re talking about here.
Handing your government ID and other personal data to private companies is exactly how current proposals for online age verification work. It could be done without this, but that’s not what governments and corporations are pushing for, because the goal is easier surveillance. Take a look at some of the problems with Persona, for example:
https://stateofsurveillance.org/news/persona-age-verification-surveillance-biometrics-government-reporting-2026/
Not in my country. Spain and EU are proposing different system. I’m not talking about your country and your laws. I’m talking about mine.
This is, in fact, exactly what we’re talking about here. The assumption that de-anonymization has some foolproof implementation that only does a single identifying thing (like a limited signal that only says someone is “old enough”) is missing a lot of context. Even Von der Leyen’s “privacy respecting” age verification app has been shown to have major flaws in that regard. The assumption that it will simply end there also contradicts the evidence.
Privacy is a right of fundamental importance to virtually all notions of liberty. Like it or not, data rights are human rights. A society without privacy becomes a society without freedom. The discussions around abolishing privacy are actually always discussions about other problems which are better served by addressing them directly and honestly rather than promoting the idea that the answer is sacrificing essential rights. Our best approach is to address these ills with an honest assessment of their actual, specific causes (like social media algorithms, lack of accountability, and the many reckless, harmful and exploitative practices which have become industry standards, etc) and act from there.
No, we’re not. We’re talking about publishing content online. That’s the exact opposite of keeping things private. EU laws are clear here. Your data is protected and age verification does not overwrite those rights. We’re not talking about removing e2e encryption, https, VPNs and making selfhosting illegal. We’re talking about proving that things that are published (i.e. made public) on the internet are actually published by a citizen.
It’s baffling that people confuse anonymity with privacy. My Signal account is tied to my phone number yet my conversation are private. You somehow think that protecting this privacy means we have to protect russian bots creating Twitter accounts and spamming the platform with anti-EU propaganda pretending to be 25 year old single mother from Warsaw.
And we have the slippery slope argument. Because that’s the only argument people have here. “We need anonymity on social media because they will install cameras in our bedrooms next”. I’m not buying that. So far EU has a very good track record when it comes to protecting its citizens from corporations. The fastest way to lose this protection is to let russia backed fascists from AfD, Vox, Kofederacja and Fidesz destabilize and take over EU. Online anonymity is not protecting us from them, it’s the main tool they are using. And this is not some fantasy, we’ve already seen this in UK. Russia backed politicians did brexit and now UK is the most anty-privacy country in Europe. Seeing how toxic the topic of anonymity is I wonder how my russian assets are taking part in this discussion…
While it might not be happening in your neck of the woods, there are efforts to crack down on encryption as well, in France for instance. The EU is not immune to encroachment and abuse of the individual’s rights, no place is.
While you’re correct that anonymity is not the same as privacy, encryption alone is not a viable answer. As “Signalgate” in the US demonstrated, encryption is merely an attempt to secure a channel of communication. It isn’t sufficient on its own to protect anything, it isn’t even guaranteed to be secure a surprising amount of the time.
Overall, you seem to have a strong sense of faith that your country and the EU as a whole will be this unshakable pillar in the face of all of everything happening all around. Even if you trust your government or the EU, you would also have to trust the numerous platforms, service providers, data brokers, and digital security apparatus to all work honestly and in conjunction toward your (and everyone else’s) best interests. That’s quite a lot of trust and faith to spread around.
As far as all the various fascists and other bad actors you’re (rightly) concerned about, that is a good point to talk about. One thing to emphasize is that the major platforms hosting them have historically had a legal obligation to moderate their content, which they have been grossly negligent at. There is a whole discussion there, but the point is that there is a reasonable expectation that platforms do their utmost to handle these situations responsibly. Due to things like engagement metrics, this obligation often contradicts with the bottom line of the business (as brought out in the “Facebook Papers” leak) since controversial content typically elicits high engagement.
I (and others) don’t believe the answer lies in individuals forfeiting rights simply because the platforms won’t do what they are rightly obligated to do. Shifting the responsibility away from the platforms themselves not only makes it less likely they will improve their practices, but it makes any measures any individual or government may take to sanitize that caustic digital environment that much harder and less effective.
100% disagree.
No, I don’t have to trust the data brokers because of encryption. You’re still mixing anonymity with privacy. Signal doesn’t have my conversations. Even if I’m forced to verify my age on Signal they will not get any more data from me than they already have. They already have my phone number. Age verification doesn’t mean I now have to trust Signal more. Same with all the other platforms. I don’t use gmail, I don’t use stock Android and I don’t log in when browsing youtube. They will not get more data from me because of age verification. YT already required age checks for some videos. I just don’t watch those. The only difference is publishing content online. You can post content on facebook, instagram and twitter anonymously now. You won’t be able to. I’m not anonymous on lemmy already, I’m fine with that. I think about what I post and I think everyone should do the same.
I don’t want the platforms to moderate content. Censorship is bad. We constantly see stories about platform removing or demonetizing content that’s completely legal but uncomfortable for the corporations. I would rather see independent justice system take care of that like they do with press. In a fair system courts can punish someone for publishing illegal content but they can’t stop them from publishing it. I know it’s not really possible right now (it would overload the courts) but we should start with some mix and limit content moderation over time. Anything that’s legal should be permitted. People that publish illegal content should be responsible for it. Removing anonymity will make that possible. Even lemmy had issue with child pornography published here by some assholes. Removing anonymity would make hosting server easier and safer. All we would lose is toxic assholes and calls to assassinate people.
I don’t see you using your real name here.
A bit hypocritical if you ask me.
What’s your first and last name?
Why?
Misinformation is a great threat to democracy. I live in country with independent courts, free press and freedom of speech. Everyone can criticize the government all they want without repercussions. The threats posed by huge bot farms working to promote fascist far outweigh the fantasy benefits of using anonymous communities to organize some resistance to nonexistent tyrants. Where I live the anonymity online is used exclusively to bully, threaten and defame people. It can be different in different countries but where I live I don’t see any benefits of being able to post things online anonymously.
Which magical country is that? Like, I get some eurohaugtiness vibes from your comment, so as a fellow eurofucker I can tell you, with quite some confidence, that you’re wrong. You’re probably just too privileged for this to matter to you, personally.
Spain.
Spain literally has a law commonly known as “ley mordaza”, which enabled law enforcement to impose massive fines to protesters, some of whom ended up spending months in prison.
Were they protesting anonymously online? If not I don’t see how’s that relevant. Anti government protests are happening all the time in Spain. There are laws that govern those, like in every other country. Did you just google that quickly and paste the first result without understanding it?
I’m a born and raised Spaniard who lived there for over 35 years, and was beaten up by cops at least once. I think I know a thing or two about the system.
You said that in Spain people have the right to protest freely against the government, yet the ley mordaza proves that’s not all true, e.g. https://www.es.amnesty.org/en-que-estamos/blog/historia/articulo/ley-mordaza/
But regardless of all that, there’s an even more solid proof that removing anonymity on the internet is a bad idea in the current Spanish climate: La Liga has been threatening individuals and companies for well over a year now, with the help of the courts and the inaction of the government. Somehow, they had access to internet users’ personal data, and have been sending out letters requesting payment for alleged “pirated content distribution and consumption”. They have pressured ISPs to throttle and even block entire blocks of IP addresses. They have sued people for libel because of insults towards their current president.
My point here is that, if a sports corporation could do that when people are still able to be “anonymous” online, how can you guarantee that Spain wouldn’t devolve into a full fledged corporate fascist state, where those with money have the effective power to target dissidents for the pettiest reason, if anonymity were to go away?
Oh yes, we need anonymity online so people can pirate football and libel others online. Great argument. You totally convinced me.
And yes, la ley mordaza made protests illegal… Why do we have protests all the time then? Parties from far left to far rights have public meetings and marches all the time. Worker’s unions strike and protests all the time. Who is being oppressed by the socialist government now when Vox is participating without issues in all elections and people express support for them freely? Podemos emerged when PP was in power and lost support because of internal scandals exposed by free press when they were part of the government. In Andalucia, where I live PP is in power, the country is governed centrally by PSEO. Free elections happen all the time, opposition parties win elections all the time. But yes, if they can only get age verification in place it will all devolve into a corporate fascist state… I really don’t know how someone can seriously believe that.
Ja! Tócate los cojones, Mariloli!
Free press: when you can’t even record the police, it’s illegal (kind of, in theory. Absolutely forbidden in practice). Freedom of speech: unless it’s against the Crown, or the Church, or national unity, or… Independent courts: independent from fairness, and the truth? Sure. Independent from the establishment’s power? Not at all. So, yes, you’re too privileged to care for any of this, but worry not, amigo, those privileges are being transferred upwards so (unless you’re part of the top elite) you’ll care soon enough. We don’t have anything to envy the USA or China (on these matters). I’ve been there, not as a tourist, so it’s not hearsay.
WTF are you talking about? I see recording of police in media all the time. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/OLwILBtbs0M - OMG! The public TV recorded the police and it’s absolutely forbidden in practice. I’m sure they are all in jail now.
The rest of your arguments are equally silly. I’m not even going to waste my time on them.
Lol
Yawn. You sound like the lobbyists. They want ID to control us, to selectively spread more misinformation.
Nobody will be able to criticize the government, you will be targeted. The bots promoting fascism are the same ones spreading bullshit like this to push for the fascist non-anonymous internet.
It sounds like you shouldnt be using the internet at all.
You sound like a conspiracy theorist. Where I live people are criticizing the government every day. We have opposition parties, activist and unions. We have reporters uncovering corrupt politicians all the time, on all levels of government. The politicians are prosecuted and reporters keep reporting. They all act in the open, not by posting anonymous comments on twitter. As I said, if you live in a country where the government will target you for posting wrong comment then you should totally oppose those law (but your opposition will be meaningless because you already don’t live in a free country). Those laws are not global, each country will introduce them on their own. Where I live, ending online anonymity will have positive effect on democracy.
Get outta here fascist.
And that’s a great example of what people use online anonymity for and why I’m not a fan.
Do you really think no one in this thread would call you a dumb fascist to your face?
No, I know there are a lot of kids here. I’m not surprised, I’m just saying that it shows why age verification is a good thing.
We know, fascist.
“You sound like a conspiracy theorist” such low effort way to wave away another point.
You sound like a fucking fascist then.
You missed the rest of my comment where I explained why I think that. This or you don’t know what ‘wave away’ means.
From what I see in your post history you seem to be spanish, you had a fascist dictature just 50 years ago. Do you really think that your current system will never change? That there will never be a point in time where parties like VOX take power and radicalize themselves even more? That they will never control the media with the support of fascist billionaires?
You don’t have to look at my post history to see that I think “ending online anonymity will have positive effect on democracy”. The fastest way for VOX to take power is by spewing disinformation. All the anti-EU parties are founded by russia and online anonymity is one of the most important tools they are using. End it and their job will get more difficult, not easier.
Not just that. We’ve seen how parties like that take over and radicalize themselves in Poland and Hungary. I’m from Poland so I know very well how people fought back there. I wasn’t by hiding their identity online. It was by using free press to expose government’s corruption and by organizing legal, massive protests in the public. The idea that online anonymity helps preserve democracy is not just fantasy, it’s the exact opposite of what we’re seeing in real life.
This won’t stop misinformation. This will only allow it to run more rampant.
No, it will not.
Explain.
When done correctly, and someone’s ID remains anonymous from the general public if they wish so, then I’d also be fine with that. Way too many trolls and other forms of bad actors on the Web who intentionally or unintentionally use ad hominems or other toxic communication, it’s so hopelessly divisive and draining.
I recently saw a documentary about looksmaxxing. The forums these kids peruse echo the deepest pits of hell; insisting on suicide and all the forms of psychological bullying one cannot even imagine.
Whether it’s the best solution I don’t know, it’s probably not. But from my point of view, taking away the anonymity from the authorities would significantly lower the amount of depravity on the Web. The crux in this whole matter is of course that the authorities are virtuous, fair, just. If they are not, which all too often is the case, then removing anonymity can be an equally dangerous thing as well.
Obviously everything boils down to education, which needs a complete overhaul. But that’s something that will take decades if not a century to turn humanity into a predominantly virtuous species.
How exactly would id verification help against that. Do you want “toxic speech” to become a crime and punished by a court of law?
Bullying and disinformation, absolutely.
From the paper What Deters Crime? Comparing the Effectiveness of Legal, Social, and Internal Sanctions Across Countries, citing a meta-analysis:
The paper concludes as follows:
As I said, is it the best solution? Science hasn’t a clear answer either. What does seem to be agreed upon is that:
My hypothesis is that complete anonymity, so a low probability of getting caught, increases toxic behavior because people suffer no bad consequences whatsoever and therefore never learn. Ever hung around a spoiled kid? They’re the worst. The same happens online. Naturally, proper journalists and whistleblowers are a different thing, absolute anonymity is crucial for them. But how to square both these realities remains to be discovered.
This argument is one degree of separation away from a “nothing to hide” fallacy. And as you accurately pointed out, it’s founded on a very unrealistic assurance of an entirely virtuous power.
Free speech is important. This fact can not be overstated. Surveillance backed by the threat of persecution chills not just “bad speech”, but any speech deemed undesirable by groups or individuals in power. This is a fundamental concept to understand when forming theories and opinions that also directly relate to subjects like democracy and authoritarianism. To miss this crucial fact is to formulate a skewed premise that favors the primary mechanism by which free speech, and by extension the many rights and liberties which require free speech, are historically suppressed.
The notion that democratic systems and values are compatible with a surveillance state is flawed. The two systems operate in directly contradictory ways. Surveillance states historically always tend toward forms of authoritarianism. 1984 was a work of fiction, but it was a warning driven and informed by very real demonstrated dangers inherent in the enabling and acceptance of a surveillance state. The validity of its message is shown clearly and repeatedly in real world examples of population surveillance in practice.
Trading liberties, including and especially privacy, for some concept of order, is a dangerous approach which ignores and contradicts historical evidence. To ignore this is to embark on the path to Oceania.
I know, and I am vehemently in opposition to the nothing to hide argument. In fact, the reason I recently distrohopped to Artix was because some Arch package maintainer casually uttered the following on the developer adding the birth date field: “I appreciate the work ahead of time, and the law is the law.” Which is either remarkably naive, ignorant of history, or malicious. Homosexuality is still a crime by some law somewhere. So, yeah, utter nonsense.
That being said, if the majority of the Web just becomes a place for advertising, gambling, and predominantly fruitless discord due to rampant disinformation, misinformation, trolling, bullying, et cetera, then I think removing anonymity in some way, e.g., for some websites or specific services, could be a solution. Because if the Web goes where it’s going now, a cesspool of humanity’s worst impulses, I wouldn’t see a reason to keep using it and therefore wouldn’t care whether there’s badly implemented ID verification anyway. Obviously I’d prefer none of this is necessary, that people behave virtuously. But, they don’t, so… I also think there’s too many laws, and that laws mainly apply to the poor and the working class, and the rich—the perpetuators of most of the world’s problems—mostly get off scot-free.
Ugh, it’s all so complex. I don’t have the answer. Do you? Is what I’m saying as utterly nonsensical as what that Arch maintainer said? If so, I’d be glad to adjust my position provided civilized and proper reasoning—not that you didn’t before, @Disillusionist@piefed.world, but many do not.
I don’t profess to have “the answer”, and you’re right that it’s complicated. You’re also right that the state of things is bad and getting worse.
I hear anti-privacy arguments as pivoting the call for transparency away from the companies providing the harmful, toxic, and exploitative services onto end-users. This effectively bypasses the discussion about corporate accountability, in effect enabling corporate abusers to largely reframe the problems they enable or facilitate as problems of the public at large. This means discussion and efforts become focused on how to apply regulation to the public rather than corporate providers.
It’s a win-win for Big Tech, since they avoid serious talks about culpability for the harms they create, while simultaneously benefitting from the greater degree of data extraction made possible by the increased surveillance directed at consumers.
One recent article at It’s Foss is about age verification and similar measures, and touched on a lot of this. Here are a couple quotes I found relevant:
This is pretty much exactly my sentiment. If we’re honestly looking for “answers” to these problems, we need to be willing to see them for what they are and where they actually lie. I’d say that goes for basically all kinds of problem solving, and I think that kind of common sense troubleshooting mindset is as necessary in this situation as any other. Just doing something to fix a problem rather than what’s actually appropriate is often a recipe for more problems.
Hey, guess what you need to buy an internet connection in the first place! Wanting more ID verification is only fascism.
[Edit: meant to post this reply to your comment below]
Exactly this + all the trolls promoting fascism with great success.
Also, congrats on going against the groupthink on lemmy. The pro anonymity crowd here is especially toxic, which only further proves our point.
People are understandably heated over this subject. That often results in heated reactions. It doesn’t invalidate their points, however, and to claim that it instead proves your point that surveillance is necessary could evidence a bias on your part when it comes to engaging with this very divisive topic.
I didn’t claim it invalidates their points. I’m saying that the same points can be made in a civilized way and the very toxicity of online discussions is direct result of online anonymity. And yes, I understand why assholes and children react emotionally when we suggest that they should reveal their identity. That doesn’t mean their behavior is justified.
I actually think it can be commendable to speak out in a situation you view as hostile. I also don’t condone the personal attacks some people might throw at those who voice opinions they don’t agree with.
I would also have to say that I would assume that you get that it’s not guaranteed people are going to be entirely civil when you essentially tell them that you think that the rights they believe in should be done away with.
And you kind of just did exactly what you said you didn’t, using these interactions as a validation of your claims against those of the people you disagree with.
Having said that, it’s often better to take the high road when we can. It’s possible that not everyone who disagrees with you (or me) is an asshole.
You mean I claimed it invalidates their points? I really don’t see how. Again, the points about usefulness of anonymity (which few people actually made) are not invalidated by the toxicity. People say “we need anonymity because X” (I don’t think any real argument was made here so I don’t even know what X is) and I say “the toxicity and misinformation outweigh the benefits of X”. The arguments for X are still valid and if someone can give examples of X that outweigh the negative results of anonymity I will change my mind. So far all I’ve seen is “it’s a slippery slope” and “you’re a fascist”.
Toxic for freedom!
It’s just remarkably disappointing that so many of said cohort is all for freedom or libertarian, but they simultaneously downvote comments into being hidden and offer no counter-arguments. The irony.
But I sigh at discourse online in general, on all sides, for it’s riddled with fallacies. Or even downvotes and upvotes, they mean little to nothing. I know because as an admin I realize there’s tons of people who use multiple accounts, not two or three, but tens of accounts, to skew the votes in their favor.
I have downvotes disables on my instance so I really don’t care about them. I know groupthink is strong on lemmy. Usually I just ignore it but when I’m bored I like to poke people a little bit. Some people are actually interested in discussing things, most just follow the masses. It’s disappointing but that’s internet for you.