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.
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.