Decentralized social network Mastodon says it cannot comply with age verification laws, like in Mississippi and elsewhere, and says it's up to individual server owners to decide.

Mastodon, the decentralized social network, stated it cannot comply with age verification laws like Mississippi’s recent legislation because it lacks the technical capability to do so[1]. While Mastodon’s software allows server administrators to specify a minimum age of 16 for sign-ups, the age-check data is not stored, and the nonprofit has no way to verify users’ ages[1:1].

The organization emphasizes that individual server owners must decide for themselves whether to implement age verification, noting that Mastodon was founded specifically “to allow different jurisdictions to have social media that is independent of the U.S.”[1:2]

This stance follows Bluesky’s decision to block service in Mississippi over similar age verification requirements[1:3]. Mastodon’s position highlights the unique challenges decentralized platforms face with regional compliance, as there is “nobody that can decide for the fediverse to block Mississippi,” according to Mastodon founder Eugen Rochko[1:4].

  1. TechCrunch - Mastodon says it doesn’t ‘have the means’ to comply with age verification laws ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

    • Mr_WorldlyWiseman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      1·
      19 hours ago

      From your source:

      These are used in zero-knowledge proofs (ZKP) – a way for two parties to validate that one of them asserts a fact without learning what that fact is in the process (this is super cool stuff). Users can send their subcredentials to a third party, who can use a ZKP to validate them without learning anything else about the user – so you could prove your age (or even just prove that you are over 18 without disclosing your age at all) without disclosing your identity.

      All the arguments against ZKP on the following paragraphs misunderstand the way the state and intergovernmental institutions, and the rule of law work in the EU. Many EU countries already have digital identity providers that are used every day by their citizens. I think very few people are arguing in favor of dismantling them.

      • ell1e@leminal.spaceEnglish
        2·
        18 hours ago

        I don’t think arguing “a fascist government can easily force now separate institutions to connect in the future” is a misunderstanding. My apologies if I didn’t read your point right, however.

        • Mr_WorldlyWiseman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          1·
          7 hours ago

          Thanks for the discussion and thanks for raising the issue.

          Yeah, I think its a misunderstanding of European political development to think that EU governments would willingly violate their code of human rights like that.

          The same anarchist argument could be made about pensions or the military, but the societal benefits of those institutions outweigh the risks of their potential corruption by autocrats.

          Anarchism does have its place, and it’s important that the EU weighs the risk and reward of centralized idps carefully, and doesn’t blindly go for the save the children argument. The use of strict age verification probably isn’t worth the risk outside of extreme risks to children’s health, like pornography, gambling, and drugs. That is something that the European Commission themselves have said too. Stuff that completely misses that balance like Chat Control needs to die.

          • ell1e@leminal.spaceEnglish
            1·
            7 hours ago

            I agree the EU has shown a higher human rights interest. But if the temptation is too high, like with a digital ID everyone is habituated to using daily, they’ll likely falter eventually. That seems to be Cory Doctorow’s angle as well. Edit: shortened.