This is exactly the kind of government overreach people like me have been screaming about since, in my case, the 1990s.
“I told you so” just doesn’t feel so good when what’s happening is nothing less than the entirety of human freedom and liberty is being eroded before our very eyes, and those who disagree with it get labeled as kooks, and accused of hating whatever “oppressed group” of the day is in vogue.
I’m so so very tired of being right.
Yes. I had always worried about the copyright industry. That was the big money pushing for censorship. Controlling access and exchange of information is part of their business model and even personal ideology. But I don’t know how much this has actually to do with them, and how much is simply the will to power.
What I did not see coming at all was how the left would completely 180 on these issues. That, at least, I blame on the copyright industry.
Right wing people have screeched about “the intolerant left” forever, but I always ignored the obvious hypocrisy. I took it as a debate on what is permissible in polite society. But now Europe is at a point where there is simply a consensus against free speech. Only the most illiberal forces will be able to use these legal weapons to full effect. That will be the extreme right.
It’s just a logical extension of what happens when government becomes the arbitrator of all.
The biggest issue is that so many people see it just as you do, left vs right, instead of liberty vs authoritarianism.
For decades, the libertarian movement, as seen by the left, has been largely associated with the right, simply because of their professed support of the free market, and dislike of gun control
But that same movement has been seen by the right as largely associated with the left, because of their views on things like the drug war, enforced morality, and anti-corporatism.
Has there been a large shift of alt-right into the libertarian movement over the past few years? Yes. Absolutely. And I despise it with a passion.
But there are still quite a lot of us truly anti-authoritarian libertarians out there who despise both left, and right leaning authoritarianism.
But when I bring up issues of authoritarianism, I get “BoTh SiDeS?!” bullshit responses. Because YES, as we can see, BOTH SIDES do their own fair share of this authoritarian bullshit.
They differ in methods, yes. But the bottom line is an encroachment on personal privacy. Plus, property rights are just a logical extension of personal privacy rights.
The right is typically for gun control. Only one country comes to my mind where they aren’t. Which one were you thinking about? Or is it more common than I thought?
(Or did you just happen to forget that 95 % of Earth’s population exists?)
EDIT: Oh, and also: It is important to keep in mind that it’s the same within the left. There are also left-wingers who prefer authoritarianism and ones who despise it. I do agree with your sentiment: The left-right division does not work very well in our current world. Need to take best parts of everything, but most importantly, make sure we don’t end up under totalitarian rule!
I said “professed” dislike. Yes, I know Reagan is responsible for one of the largest expansions of gun control ever seen in the US…
And yes, I know Marx himself was tremendously in favor of armed workers.
Doesn’t change political narrative being pushed by both major political parties in the US, where in the left supposedly wants guns banned, and the right wants everyone armed.
Yes, I know things aren’t that cut and dry, but the media narrative pushed by both parties definitely seems to say that it is.
Doesn’t change political narrative being pushed by both major political parties in the US, where in the left supposedly wants guns banned, and the right wants everyone armed.
How is US relevant in this discussion?
Because the US has humans inside it, despite what all the Eurocentric trash think.
I too have been screaming about private online since the 90s. I have an intuitive reaction that sort of mirrors yours.
But can I ask you a question?
And it’s one that I’m asking because I genuinely wish to learn from others.
Because I can’t quite see the difference and maybe there’s something I’m missing.
Why is it not government overreach to ensure pornography isn’t sold to minors in an adult video store, but government overreach to have the same expectation of online pornography providers?
I would love your enlightened view on this so I can learn from it. Because I can’t quite see the difference.
I understand that many adults go into an adult video store and need not prove their age, because they clearly look like adults.
And so the difference here is that everyone have to prove their age online, even people that are clearly adults by how they look.
But entering a pornography website is the equivalent of entering an adult video store where the clerk cannot see you, cannot hear your voice. In that world I would also expect the clerk to check every purchase as they would have no other means of assessing the buyer’s age.
Or maybe you think that adult videos should be sold to everyone and it’s the very concept that pornography is restricted to minors that you disagree with. I don’t personally hold that view but then I can least understand why you would also reject online age verification.
Or maybe you think it is ineffective and won’t make a difference. That argument I most definitely agree with, but how we choose to implement a law, and whether it’s effective, is two different discussions I would posit.
Edit: I love that I’m getting downvoted for expressing a POV respectfully.
There is no possible way to actually stop teenagers accessing online porn that doesn’t require such a massive invasion of privacy that it leaves no safe way for adults to access it. To go with your adult video store analogy, it’s like if the store staff would have to accompany you home and watch you watching the porn to check there wasn’t anyone standing behind you also looking at the screen, and while they were there, they were supposed to take notes on everything they saw. Even if they had no interest in doing anything nefarious, a criminal could steal their notebook and blackmail all their customers with the details it contained, and there’d be enough proof that there wouldn’t be any way to plausibly claim the blackmailer had just made everything up.
If you want to prove someone on the Internet is a real adult and not a determined teenager, you need lots of layers. E.g. if you just ask for a photo of an ID card, that can be defeated by a photo of someone else’s ID card, and a video of a face can be defeated by a video game character (potentially even one made to resemble the person whose ID has been copied). You need to prove there’s an ID card that belongs to a real person and that it’s that person who is using it, and that’s both easier to fake than going to a store with a fake ID (if you look young, they’ll be suspicious of your ID) or Mission Impossible mask, and unlike in a store, the customer can’t see that you’re not making a copy of the ID card for later blackmail or targeted advertisements. No one would go back to a porn shop that asked for a home address and a bank statement to prove it.
Another big factor is that if there’s a physical shop supplying porn to children, the police will notice and stop it, but online, it’s really easy to make a website and fly under the radar. It’s pretty easy for sites that don’t care about the law to provide an indefinite supply of porn to children, and once that’s happening, there’s no reason to think that it’s only going to be legal porn just being supplied to the wrong people.
Overall, the risk of showing porn to children doesn’t go down very much, but the risk of showing blackmailable data to criminals and showing particularly extreme and illegal porn to children goes up by a lot. Protecting children from extreme material, e.g. videos of real necrophilia and rape, which are widely accepted to be seriously harmful, should be a higher priority than protecting a larger number from less extreme material that the evidence says is less harmful, if at all. Even if it’s taken as fact that any exposure to porn is always harmful to minors, the policies that are possible to implement in the real world can’t prevent it, just add either extra hassle or opportunities for even worse things to happen. There hasn’t been any proposal by any government with a chance of doing more good than harm.
In Finland you could handle this by having people authenticate using their online bank passwords. A LOT of government stuff already works that way, so it would require almost no extra coding at least over here. I wonder why it cannot be done the same way in England?
- Teenagers can find out their parents’ passwords (or their friends’ parents’ passwords) if they really want to, and if things are anonymous enough not to leave a paper trail that would allow spouses to see each other’s porn usage, they’re anonymous enough to let teenagers hide that they’re using their parents’ credentials. 2FA helps, but it’s not like teenagers never see their parents’ phones.
- There’s not anything that all adults in the UK have that could be used for everyone. There’s no unified national ID or online government identity. There’s no one-size-fits-all bank login system. You’d have to build and secure tens of independent systems to cover nearly all adults.
- As I said in the post above, if it’s too much hassle for teenagers to access mainstream, legitimate porn sites, then there’s very little anyone can do to stop them accessing obscure ones that don’t care about obeying the law or can’t do so competently. If governments could stop websites from existing and providing content, there wouldn’t be any online piracy.
Online banking passwords? “Find”? How the hell? Have you lived in a barrel?
There is a 8-number code that I’ve got in my head, then there is a 4-number password that I’ve also got in my head. And then a paper with single-use passwords which work so that when I have given the two correct passwords, it tells me which code to use. And no way am I giving full access to my bank account for my children!
Some banks also have a system where you log in with your fingerprint and then a four-number code using an app on your phone.
I think the money on the parents’ accounts is a much better motivation for the children than an ability to watch porn. And yet, I have not heard of anybody’s children actually having found out their parent’s bank passwords.
And also: Maybe there really is a child that installs a keylogger on their parents’ computer and steals the password paper from the parents’ wallet and also happens to really want to go out of their way to watch porn… Well, then there is. Such a child is already in so many ways in trouble that I don’t think seeing porn will traumatize them at all. Such children are few and it makes no sense trying to build a 100-percent foolproof system. In any case, using online banking passwords is a lot more reliable way than the weird hocus-pocus being done now.
But entering a pornography website is the equivalent of entering an adult video store where the clerk cannot see you, cannot hear your voice.
There’s the problem. I was tempted to call this Boomer logic, but that would extremely unfair to Boomers. We are only seeing this now, that the Boomers are on the way out.
I think the Boomers understood better how this works. It’s not like entering a store. It’s like making a phone call to the store, and the store may be on the other side of the world. The Boomers understood borders, long distance calls, international mail.
Now the digital natives are taking over. And they understand nothing beyond tapping and swiping.
Spoilered is a post I wrote earlier. Just so you know what’s coming.
spoiler
The problem is that meat-space logic is applied to the cyberspace (as it might have been said in the 90ies).
You go into a store and the clerk sees you and knows your age. If it’s borderline, then they ask for ID. They are applying that thinking to internet services.
Where this falls down is that no ordinary Mastodon instance can comply with the regulations of the close to 200 hundred countries in the world. Of course, just like 4chan, many wouldn’t want to out of principle.
The only way to make this work is to introduce another meat-space thing: Border posts. You need a Great Firewall of the [Local Nation]. At physical border posts, guards check if goods comply with local regulations. We need virtual border posts to check if data is imported and exported in compliance with local regulations.
Such a thing, a virtual Schengen border, was briefly considered in the EU about 15 years ago. It went nowhere at the time. But if you look at EU regulations, you can see that the foundations are already laid, most obviously with the GDPR but also the DSM, DMA, DSA, CRA, …
Eventually, the border will be closed to protect our values; to enforce our laws. We will lock out those American and Chinese Big Tech companies that steal our data. We will only allow their European branches and strictly monitor their communications abroad. We will be taking back control, as the Brexiteers sloganized it. Freedom is just another word for having to ask the government for permission when you enter a country. And increasingly, it is another word for having to ask permission for how you use your own computer.
It won’t be some shady backroom deal. Look here. People in this community love these regulations. Europeans here are happy to tell US companies to “FO if they don’t want to follow our laws”. Well, the Great Firewall of Europe is how you do that.
Not OP, but I think the analogy to what is happening to online privacy would be if you were asked to identify yourself at every location: the grocery store, the farmers market, the corner park, the trail along the river; and all of those checkpoints were aggregated and sold, meaning that someone who might not have your best interests at heart could use your travel timeline against you, to advertise to you, to sue you, to charge you with a crime, to destroy your public reputation.
I’m am 100% any form of checks that identify you.
But for what it is worth the European Union’s proposed framework for this legally mandates zero knowledge proofs.
The UK’s implantation sucks. Big hairy monkey balls.
If you buy alcohol at a farmer’s market, the seller has a responsibility to ensure they’re not supplying it to a child. At least in most countries.
Because I can’t quite see the difference
Parents can (and MUST) monitor what happens in their home. It was expected for the past thousand years, and now it’s the duty of everyone to take care of anyone’s children for some reason. To get to a porn store, you need money to take the bus or you need a car, then the owner of the store can kick your ass or call the cops if you’re underage. Remember that less than 50 years ago, the local priest could smash your face if you didn’t behave properly in the street, With the internet, parents are the sole responsible for what their kids do, but they don’t want to take any responsibility for it. The solution would be a mandatory parental control on every computer, but parents wouldn’t like that.
government overreach to have the same expectation of online pornography providers
Because that overreach happens to remove all my privacy thanks to a few idiot parents who don’t want to do their parenting jobs in another country, and I consider that unacceptable. We can do some whataboutism and say that since parents in Afghanistan don’t want to watch porn, all the porn of the internet has to disappear. Same for blasphemy and freedom of women to browse the internet.
Ok. I get the concept that pornography doesn’t harm children. We can debate that.
But by that reckoning should we also allow children to buy guns online and have them delivered at home? Is there nothing we want to restrict online, on account that whoever is buying it might be too young?
Parents should do some parenting. When did they stopped doing that, and how is it my problem and why am I supposed to renounce my whole privacy due to some idiots online?
Parents have the ultimate say-so of what their kids have access to.
I don’t believe there needs to be a law that says that, no.
If a parent decides their kid is responsible enough to have their own money, then it’s the parents who are to blame if that kid buys “bad” things with that money.
Same thing online. If a parent decides their kid is responsible enough to have unrestricted internet access, then it’s their fault if the kid then goes to a “bad” website.
It’s not the store’s fault. Nor is it the website’s fault.
We have given away far too much of our parental responsibility over to 3rd parties, and now we don’t know how to parent anymore.
So you would also support a child buying alcohol online on account of being given money and access to the internet?
Support? Absolutely not.
Allow? Not my child.
Make illegal? Nope. Not my business to tell other parents how to raise their children.
And that’s exactly the problem here. People like YOU, who think that if I don’t want something illegal, than that of course means I like that thing, or that I personally want to do that thing.
Nope. It has to do with personal autonomy. I’m not your boss, I shouldn’t get to tell YOU what you can do to yourself. Period.
I don’t see how Mississippi or the UK think they can issue laws on sites hosted outside their jurisdiction. That’s just mind boggling. The onus is on the state to provide age verification, or make their ISPs do it.
No, it’s upto the individuals to police their or their childrens internet usage, have family computer in place they can monitor, children should have special childrens phones that are locked down with parents configuring it, today parents are abdicating responsibility, leaving schools to feed, potty train, how to clean teeth and how to behave.
Whats next expecting schools to provide beds and rooms to sleep in, soon babies will be handed to state and raised by the state, is it any wonder we now have a nanny state in many countries, people are getting lazy and filthy, spitting in streets, peeing and pooping in streets, dumping rubbish in streets 😡
If you know anyone who support age verifications laws remind them that the same governments that care so much about kids is backing and arming israel to murder and starve kids to death.
Yes but that would require them to regard all children as being worthy of protection by the law.
They don’t.
That’s far too many words for them to properly understand
Then let me summarize:
care 'bout kids? gaza kids?
They’ll ask chatgpt to summarize it, and got forbid what gpt will hallucate.
Kids of Families who chose to stay despite efforts to evacuate them 👍
Please leave, your voice is not wanted here.
If you continue to spread blantant disinformation about the genocide of palestinians I will report you.
If I wanted you I was gonna steal your house, and you didn’t leave, you’d be okay with your children being murdered? You’re fucking nuts
Fucking creepy comment.
are you suggesting the Palestine government does not have a right to exist you antisemitic troll
Ew. Please stop talking.
No effort could have evacuated the entire population of Gaza without free movement across land borders. It was never a practical option.
Even if it had been, parents making a dumbass decision doesn’t justify killing their kids.
I live in the UK, and this is something I was saying about the Online Safety Act. It puts all the onus on the websites and not only do some websites not have the money or resources to comply, but with something like Mastodon, it doesn’t really work. Like this bill was written and passed by people who don’t know shit about fuck about tech. Several Lemmy and Mastodon instances have shut down/Geoblocked the UK because of this, and other jurisdictions don’t seem to understand that either.
It’s almost like this law was made to preserve the Meta monopoly. Starting a social media platform just got more expensive and complicated.
They consulted with MindGeek, who own Pornhub etc… They’re one of the few companies big enough to comply. It was designed to preserve their monopoly, not Meta’s. The politicians voting on it didn’t necessarily understand that, but the law had been approved by children’s charities and (a single representative of) the industry, so there’d be no reason (if you didn’t understand how technology works) to question it.
What gets me is how many people in this very community have the same level of ignorance. And on top of that, they don’t understand that these laws also apply to the very service they are using.
“there is nobody that can decide for the fediverse to block Mississippi.” (…)
“And this is why real decentralization matters,” said Rochko.
If it’s a law, it should be free for both businesses and users.
That means being paid by the tax payers.
The free option is to trust your children.
The better option would be to have Parental controls on by default and inform parents/customers about how to turn them on for their kid’s devices. They won’t do that because some people have investments in YOTI and Data Brokers want our data.
NSFW tag and parental controls blocking that, is not enough?
Oh noes, won’t somebody think of the blessed tax payers.
I’d rather not have the law, or if law then big business pay but exclusions for smaller businesses/hobbyist.
Hey, UK! When you are being compared to Mississippi, you are fucking up very very badly.
Government sets up page to verify age. You head to it, no referrer. Age check happens by trusted entity (your government, not some sketchy big tech ass), they create a signed cert with a short lifespan to prevent your kid using the one you created yesterday and without the knowledge which service it is for. It does not contain a reference to your identity. You share that cert with the service you want to use, they verify the signature, your age, save the passing and everyone is happy. Your government doesn’t know that you’re into ladies with big booties, the big booty service doesn’t know your identity and you wank along in private.
But oh no, that wouldn’t work because think of the… I have no clue.
The problem is that meat-space logic is applied to the cyberspace (as it might have been said in the 90ies).
You go into a store and the clerk sees you and knows your age. If it’s borderline, then they ask for ID. They are applying that thinking to internet services. And so are you. You are just trying to figure out a better way to ask for ID.
The UK doesn’t have a system of mandatory national ID. Brits feel that that is totalitarian. So obviously, they do not use the scheme you propose. It’s not their meat-space logic.
Where this falls down is that no ordinary Mastodon instance can comply with the regulations of the close to 200 hundred countries in the world. Of course, just like 4chan, many wouldn’t want to out of principle.
The only way to make this work is to introduce another meat-space thing: Border posts. You need a Great Firewall of the [Local Nation]. At physical border posts, guards check if goods comply with local regulations. We need virtual border posts to check if data is imported and exported in compliance with local regulations.
Such a thing, a virtual Schengen border, was briefly considered in the EU about 15 years ago. It went nowhere at the time. But if you look at EU regulations, you can see that the foundations are already laid, most obviously with the GDPR but also the DSM, DMA, DSA, CRA, …
Eventually, the border will be closed to protect our values; to enforce our laws. We will lock out those American and Chinese Big Tech companies that steal our data. We will only allow their European branches and strictly monitor their communications abroad. We will be taking back control, as the Brexiteers sloganized it. Freedom is just another word for having to ask the government for permission when you enter a country. And increasingly, it is another word for having to ask permission for how you use your own computer.
It won’t be some shady backroom deal. Look here. People in this community love these regulations. Europeans here are happy to tell US companies to “FO if they don’t want to follow our laws”. Well, the Great Firewall of Europe is how you do that.
How about people parent their children?
I believe the issue is that parents themselves are overworked from their job and have no energy to be a parent, because in our society, it is more successful to be a worker than to be a parent.
(Sorry for turning it into a critique of capitalism, I just can’t help it these days)
I’m with you on this one, but that’s easy to say for me. I’m in IT anyway. I just have a hard time imagining how my sister for example would set this up for her kids. That doesn’t mean I am for all of this bullshit, though.
It was never about the kids.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010s_global_surveillance_disclosures
Because think of the shareholders, I’m waiting to see which politicians spouses own controlling shares in the verification companies…
That’s the reason I don’t want that for profit. What could it cost in additional taxes? 5 cents?
Age check happens via trustest entity (your government)
Bold of you to assume a government entity is trusted. In the UK we have a large misrepresentative error due to our voting system.
Depends in what part you trust. I trust them with my ID, I wouldn’t trust a random website. They know it anyway as they made it.
If we’re talking about a hard copy ID (passport, drivers license) that’s one thing. A digital ID, and over the internet, is asking for trouble.
That’s the reason I wrote what I wrote. everyone only knows what they need to know. How do you think a third entity would identify you?
How do you think a third entity would identify you?
You may want to join us reading along in the privacy communities of the fediverse.
But long story shortened - third parties are very much identifying each of us in staggeringly novel and effective ways.
For example, depending on circumstances, third parties may not be sure which room in my home I am sitting in, right now, while being aware that I’m writing this. This shit has gotten deeply weird and invasive.
I’m not talking about fingerprinting.
That sounds like a very functional and rational solution to the problem of age verification. But age verification isn’t the ultimate goal, it’s mass surveillance, which your solution doesn’t work for.
The fact that they haven’t gone for this approach that delivers age verification without disclosing ID, when it’s a common and well known pattern in IT services, very strongly suggests that age verification was never the goal. The goal is to associate your real identity with all the information data brokers have on you, and make that available to state security services and law enforcement. And to do this they will gradually make it impossible to use the internet until they have your ID.
We really need to move community-run sites behind Tor or into i2p or something similar. We need networks where these laws just can’t practically be enforced and information can continue to circulate openly.
The other day my kid wanted me to tweak the parental settings on their Roblox account. I tried to do so and was confronted by a demand for my government-issued ID and a selfie to prove my age. So I went to look at the privacy policy of the company behind it, Persona. Here’s the policy, and it’s without a doubt the worst I’ve ever seen. It basically says they’ll take every last bit of information about you and sell it to everyone, including governments.
https://withpersona.com/legal/privacy-policy
So I explained to my kid that I wasn’t willing to do this. This is a taste of how everything will be soon.
Fuck, I went through that with VRchat…
Do you know if the verification services that require ID have access to official government databases to verify them? Cus I’m starting to have some… Ideas
The fact that they haven’t gone for this approach that delivers age verification without disclosing ID, when it’s a common and well known pattern in IT services, very strongly suggests that age verification was never the goal.
I don’t agree. It certainly makes it possible that it isn’t the goal. But I genuinely believe that, at least here in Australia (where our recent age-gating law is not about porn, but about social media platforms, with an age limit of 16), the reason behind the laws being designed as they are is (1) optics: despite what those of us here say, keeping young children off of harmful social media algorithms is very politically popular and they wanted to pass a bill that banned it as quickly as they could. No time for serious discussion about methods. And (2) a complete lack of knowledge. Because they wanted the optics, they passed the bill extremely quickly and without a serious amount of consultation. And I don’t trust that even if they had done consultation, they would have known who is more reliable to listen to, the actual experts and privacy advocates, or the big AI companies with big money promising facial recognition will somehow solve this. Because politicians are, by and large, really fucking stupid at technology.
What is it they say? Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity?
First, Mastodon is talking about Mississippi in the US.
Second, why can’t people parent their own kids? What if I don’t agree with the government and want my kid to see stuff the government has decided to block? The government isn’t the parent of your child and you shouldn’t be treating them as such. If you child is doing something you don’t want, it’s your job as their parent to stop it.
The article says “Mississippi and elsewhere”, so I assumed all sorts of bans were fair game for discussion.
As for your second point, I genuinely don’t really care all that much. Take my solution and require platform vendors provide a parental controls API and require websites and apps call it. From there, whether you legally required parents to set up parental controls, you strongly suggest they do it, or you just leave it there as an option doesn’t matter as much. Maybe different places can have different laws.
The important thing is that parents should at least be given the tools necessary to be able to do this.
“What if I WANT my kids watching porn???”
Really bold stratagy you got there.
Where the hell did I say porn? You think they can’t block anything else?
Also, so what if I did? Shouldn’t that be a parents decision? Say I’m fine with them watching it at 16yo. Shouldn’t that be up to the parent, not the government?
People who give up their freedom to the government are going to lose far more freedom than they’re OK with losing. It starts with something you might agree with, but it never stops there.
That argument suggests you bought the lie of what the age verification is for. When every service is required to perform age verification, it quickly becomes not about porn but control.
They’re trying to close the Pandora’s box that is the internet decades after the fact, and they’re learning the hard way how impossible and unpopular that is
Don’t forget censorship.
Because it’s not actually about age verification, it’s about totalizing surveillance of everyone.
meh just do what Amazon does “Hey if you’re student you can get Amazon Prime for $5! how old are you?”
me: “I’m 20.”
Amazon: “Ok here’s your cheap prime!”
/me groans getting out of the chair cause I’m in my 40s
Point being just slap up an unverified age gate and be done with it. Really, truthfully, whose going to actually check? who even cares to check? it’s all just a dog and pony show to please the conservative and “think of the children” religious nut jobs who have no idea how any of this shit works anyways. Just spend 2 minutes whipping up a site with a centered div that has a drop down menu asking “how old are you?” less than 18 send it to a “no internet for you page” greater than 18 “go look at porn” page.
Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know what’s REALLY happening that they’re requiring scanned IDs or faces or what have you. and no company in their right mind is going to fight this as it’s free and easy data collection. Bluesky doesn’t give a flying fuck as they’re just going to end up selling the data they collect.
It bothers me so much that a ZKP system is entirely possible, and no one will just do the first step of setting that up.
Eh, Denmark is. They are building exactly a ZKP system.
Britain has chosen to not make this a legal requirement so it is possible to tie back age verification with who verified. That makes it a lot more suspect.
Sorry, I mean just for the UK, US, and apparently China also.
Fortunately, the EU isn’t going down the same path, and has Estonia, Finland, Denmark and the Netherlands as guides. And to just do this in the right order and do step 1: sensible digital ID system.
ActivityPub is a major threat to the commercial social networks.
These laws are purely a way to regulate communication, but they are effectively a way to prevent new social networks from becoming established.
This is why the really big social networks are welcoming them with open arms. Even the criminal social networks are secretly pleased with them.
Laws only affect people too poor to manipulate them and too honest to disobey them.
I am sorry but much as I enjoy lemmy, activitypub is absolutely not a threat to anything. Mastodon and co had stagnant to declining user numbers ever since the last twitter exodus. And as things are, that just isn’t going to change and no amount of telling each other so in the mastodon and lemmy echo-chambers is going to change that.
Worse, the open platforms could absolutely not handle massive growth. Moderation would be a nightmare. How many people are going to volunteer to look over the additional thousands of thousands of posts with gore, csam etc. And you would need a lot of them.
Who’s going to pay for the legal advice that inevitably will be needed for the various situations that’d crop up if the network ever got enough users to be an actual threat? Donations? How well is that going to scale? How many volunteer hosters and admins would still be willing to do it in the face of all that?
ActivityPub is a niche, and if you enjoy it, you should hope it stays that way, because it certainly wouldn’t survive mainstream.
Reddit was profitable off of just minimal advertising and Reddit Gold. I’m concerned about video hosting, but I think mastodon and Lemmy can scale just fine.
Right, except for the part where you get verified and nobody can do that except you. Oh, and the part where your kids don’t steal a copy. Or a copy of someone else’s verification. And the part where it actually doesn’t contain references to your real identity; easy to fuck that one up, right… Hmm, that actually means the whole thing wouldn’t work.
It does not contain a reference to your identity.
but they know who they issued it to, and can secretly subpoena your data from your instance.
no thank you.
They can only subpoena your data if it is stored. Make the code open source (by law) and only store the cert, no connection to the user.
They (the govt) would know that they issued a certificate to ex. lemmy.dbzer0.com
They can’t know that the certificate is issued to conmie
Unless, of course, the instance logs the age certificate used by each user
And also, unless the govt’s age verification service logs the certificate issued by each citizen
This can be improved even further to lock a single age verification to a single account. Instead of issuing you a generic signed cert, they use blinded signatures to sign a cert that you generate and encrypt, containing the domain name and your username. The govt never sees the site or your username, because it’s encrypted, and the site never sees the document you provided the govt with to prove your age. But you have a cert that can only be used by you to verify your account is of age.
There’s an alternative solution that would enable a person’s browser or device to verify their age based on a govt-signed cert with repeated hashes. This would have the benefit of the government not even knowing how many verifications you had done, because they only provide one cert per person (with longer renewals. The downside of this is that it requires some form of unique multiple-use identifier. In the sample question that’s fine because it’s a passport. IRL it could be something like an email address, or even just your own unique UUID.
I think this starts to not work when you start to include other states that want to do this, other countries, cities, counties, etc… How many trusted authorities should there be and how do you prevent them from being compromised and exploited to falsely verify people? How do you prevent valid certs from being sold?
Some examples of the type of service you mentioned:
I can only verify with my own government. The rest I don’t know. But shut up, that’s how it works! /s
To be honest, I have no clue. But dropping my pants to write a mail isn’t what I want to do.
How do you prevent valid certs from being sold?
Sold by whom? The created cert can be time limited and single use, so the service couldn’t really sell them. You could rate limit how many certs users can create and obviously make it illegal to share them in order to deter people from using them. That’s not enough to prevent it completetly, but should be an improvement for the use cases I hear the most about: social media (because it reduces the network effect) and porn (because kids will at least know that they’re doing some real shady shit).
Ideally, it would be handled directly on the hardware. Allow people to verify their logged in profile, using a government-run site. Then that user is now verified. Any time an age gate needs to happen, the site initiates a secure handshake directly with the device via TLS, and asks the device if the current user is old enough. The device responds with a simple yes/no using that secure protocol. Parents can verify their accounts/devices, while child accounts/devices are left unverified and fail the test.
Government doesn’t know what you’re watching, because they simply verified the user. People don’t need to spam an underfunded government site with requests every day, because the individual user is verified. And age gates are able to happen entirely in the background without any additional effort on the user’s side. The result is that adults get to watch porn without needing to verify every time, while kids automatically get a “you’re not age-verified” wall. And kids can’t MITM the age check, due to the secure handshake. And if it becomes common enough, even a VPN would be meaningless as adult sites will just start requiring it by default.
For instance, on a Windows machine, each individual user would be independently verified. So if the kid is logged into their account, they’d get an age wall. But if the parent is logged into their verified account, they can watch all the porn they want. Then keeping kids away from porn is simply a matter of protecting your adults’ computer password.
But it won’t happen, because protecting kids isn’t the actual goal. The actual goal is surveillance. Google (and other big tech firms like them) is pushing to enact these laws, because they have the infrastructure set up to verify users. And requiring verification via those big tech firms allows them to track you more.
The service provider could even generate a certificate request that the age verification entity signs (again, with no identifying information, other than “I need an age verification signature, please”). That certificate would only be valid for that specific service provider and can’t be re-used.
I give it 2 years till Netflix requires you to have an ID every time you open the app because it has rated R movies.
This is the same principle. The account holder agreement should make the account holder responsible for the use of the service.
The government shouldn’t be parenting our minors, their guardians should be.
Otherswise we should put digital locks on every beer bottle, pack of cigarettes, blunt raps, car door, etc. That requires you to scan your ID before every use.
“Kids shouldn’t be driving cars, it isn’t safe!” Yes, but somehow we have made it 100 years without requiring proof of age/license to start the car.
And the car is far more deadly than them seeing someone naked.
“Kids shouldn’t be driving cars, it isn’t safe!” Yes, but somehow we have made it 100 years without requiring proof of age/license to start the car.
This is sort of my take. There’s a lot of fun to be had in discussing possible technical solutions to the problem. And technical solutions do exist. But they all have some sort of noteworthy downside, including relying on the government to build and maintain this signing server.
But the best solution, IMO, is much more low-tech. Parental controls. Mandate that all browsers and operating systems support a parental control API where apps and websites can request to know if a user is of age. Mandate that adult sites call this API. And put the onus on parents to actually set up parental controls on their children’s devices, with an appropriately strong password that the children cannot break into.
Oh, I was thinking the certificate would only be needed for signups - once the account is created, it absolutely should be on the account holder, not the service provider.
Signups + random checks to prevent reselling accounts.
Why not apply this to the ISP account holder and trust them to protect their own kids the way they see fit?
Philosophically I agree with you. I was just discussing a technological way to accomplish age verification without giving up users’ identities to a service provider, or the government knowing what service you’re using. Unfortunately, too many governments want to know what you’re doing inside your pants.
Yeah, there is likely a tech answer to this that would work. Coming up with one and them choosing not to use it makes it even more clear kids’ safety isn’t their goal.
“Kids shouldn’t be driving cars, it isn’t safe!” Yes, but somehow we have made it 100 years without requiring proof of age/license to start the car.
Driving is a much more visible activity than looking at your phone in a locked room though.
Age check happens by trusted entity (your government, not some sketchy big tech ass), they create a signed cert with a short lifespan to prevent your kid using the one you created yesterday and without the knowledge which service it is for.
Sorry, not sufficient.
Not secure.
" I certify that somebody is >18, but I don’t say who - just somebody "
This is an open invitation to fraud. You are going to create at least a black market for these certificates, since they are anonymous but valid.
And I’m sure some real fraudsters have even stronger ideas than I have.
Making the certs short-lived (a few minutes) and single use and having a rate limit for users could make it difficult enough with serious risks (if you make it a crime) for little profit (I doubt many kids will pay serious amounts of money to watch porn; definetly not drug-scale amounts of money).
You cannot make a certificate “single use” (except if it exists only inside a closed system).
I was using the wording of OP who seems to be talking about tokens. The service asks the trusted entity if the token is valid, the trusted entity deletes the token after the first time.
What stops non-anonymous certificates from being sold?
If John Doe views way too much porn, then you expect the site to shut him down? They have no ability to track other site usage. The authorities have to block him after the 10,000th download.
At that point, why does the site need to know? Either the government blocks someone’s ID or they don’t
What stops
Not useful to look at it in such a black or white manner. The possibilities are presumably less, and surely not that obvious.
You’re not solving any issue by losing privacy. The site itself “knowing” you’re John Doe can’t tell if that’s correct or not. Only the government can verify that, so why give the info to the site?
Lucky for Mastodon and other ActivityPub projects, they don’t need to host any servers. People outside of regions where age verification is required can host the servers instead.
This does come with a (maybe trivial) cost for those hosts of not being able to enter the UK.
But what if govt block the site hosted outside? And the VPNs require you to do an age verification?
Good luck blocking Tor or I2P. China already tried that.
deleted by creator
