Thank you for breaking the great firewall of text deer leader @KevPham. 
I have been wandering do the US have laws on it way like age verification, chat control or some other surveillance state goodies like us in Europe?
I haven’t really been following in what’s happening in the US after all the action we get in Europe. I bet something like Charlie Kirk wound make it easier to pass.
For age verification specifically, please see State Age Verification Laws and the Age Verification Bill Tracker from the Free Speech Coalition.
Dialogue solves wars it can fix divisions too. But in America, from what I see as someone who lives here, people on both sides don’t really wanna solve stuff. They’d rather sit, complain, blame others, and let problems grow instead of talking civilly to find common ground and make compromises.
I’m responding to the overall message I have discerned from your comments, using this quote as a representative focal point.
First, please read my original comment. In a vacuum, your argument is reasonable and respectable. However, the study I referenced shows that political violence is overwhelmingly concentrated on “the right”. Treating the issue as if “everyone needs to calm down” ignores this reality, even if technically correct. It’s like comparing a house engulfed in flames to another with a small pan fire; you would, of course, prioritize quelling the larger blaze.
Consider Matthew Dowd, a former MSNBC analyst, who was fired for the following (which took place before Kirk’s death was confirmed):
Katy Tur: Talk to me about the environment in which a shooting like this happens.
Matthew Dowd: Yeah, and again, what you just emphasized, we don’t know the full details of this, we don’t know if this was a supporter shooting their gun off in celebration, so we have no idea about this. So following up with what you said, he’s been one of the most divisive, especially divisive younger figures, who is constantly pushing this hate speech aimed at certain groups. And I always go back to hateful thoughts lead to hateful words which then lead to hateful actions. And I think that’s the environment we’re in, that if you can’t stop with these awful thoughts you have, then saying these awful words, and not expect awful actions to take place. And that’s the unfortunate environment we’re in.
I’d like to note that Dowd’s comments are quite similar to your own regarding how divisive rhetoric leads to political violence.
In contrast, Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade has faced no repercussions for making far more extreme statements on the same day:
Lawrence Jones: They have given millions of dollars to mental health and the homeless population. A lot of them don’t want to take the programs. A lot of them don’t want to get the help that is necessary. You can’t give them a choice. Either you take the resources that we give you or you decide that you’re going to be locked up in jail. That’s the way it has to be now.
Brian Kilmeade: Or involuntary lethal injection. Just kill them.
Fox News is the largest “right-wing” news outlet in the US and the largest cable news network without qualifiers. If it is not representative of “right-wing” politics in the US, then nothing is. Institutions considered “left-wing” frequently fire those who cross the line, while “right-wing” ones seldom do. How can we discuss civility without confronting the elephant in the room?
It reminds me of bike-shedding: it’s easier to criticize moderate voices for minor slips than to call out the extreme voices that truly need to be held accountable.
Now, I don’t claim every “right‑wing” person wants to slaughter the homeless and mentally ill, but “right‑wing” voices must clean up their own house before lecturing others on morality. Otherwise, as I said earlier, the words ring hollow.
TL;DR: I’d prefer civil discourse, but I can’t take a message seriously if it treats everyone the same while ignoring that some need to hear it more than others.
Probably is. But celebrating death still doesn’t make it right nor does joking about it. Do people really want to make it the norm and have the other side angry when those studies say that they create more violence in a political sense? (Maybe the two political parties who have not been talking should really start communicating and then the other side can start seeing why these Republicans are so angry). As, maybe they have the same problems and issues as Democrats but feel less heard and probably more dehumanized then Democrats feels? Idk that could be one reason for more violence. As, usually not being heard, or feeling like they are the worst kind of humans, could probably put people towards the most extremes of thought. But that is just my opinion.
Bernie Sanders is leading by example and is exactly why he’s is the leader we should have had back in 2016 in my opinion.
I am fine with his firing. I too believe it was a stupid take from someone who gets paid too much. Like cmon really someone shooting a gun off in celebration at a university? Yeah Republicans sure do love their 2nd amendment. But that was a crazy reach of speculation. It really seemed more like a person trapped in political ideology trying to create a narrative before all the facts were presented.
His statements here. Are pretty much saying he deserves his murder because of the opinions he spewed. That is not similar at all to what I am trying to convey. No matter how inflammatory speech is death or murder should never be an option.
Yeah, you should be ostracized by those around you and socially if it’s not acceptable speech but never ever murder. Nor should rhetoric ever get to the point where we start talking like name calling and calling for violence is an option towards political retribution.
Was Charlie’s speech the best in terms of providing solutions or helping big issues. No but he still had the right to speak his mind no matter how inflammatory that speech was and he meant something to a movement of young people.
What I’m getting at is that we as a society should not accept that inflammatory speech but instead fight it with better speech never resulting towards violence or celebration of said violence after the fact.
It can seem like a lot of contradictions but it’s hard with freedom of speech to keep things as even and politically equal as everyone’s opinions are not the same. That is why debating and having discourse civilly is the best way to help heal the country.
But that will never happen when you got two sides who don’t like each other and don’t believe any of them should be in this country or apart of this society. Because they either get called by prominent figures as fascist, Nazis, socialists or woke etc it never gets to anywhere. Something needs to be done and just saying you don’t want to participate with someone simply because as you say “someone else needs to clean house” is not being the bigger person.
I believe he should be fired as well. But we don’t live in a just world. That is why we as advocates have to try to be the better people. Even when that doesn’t seem fair or possible.
Everyone can question morality it is not something exclusive to Democrats. Democratic individuals are no saintier than individuals who are republicans as well. We’re all human we all can be garbage at times. A symbol/name under your voting registration does not make you “you” it is your ideas/life experiences and actions that make you “you” not the political party that you vote for. Parties are just used as a scapegoat for bad behavior of individual people politically. To justify their actions and have a group that stands behind them to protect them.
I can understand the panic from governments as they believe they are witnessing organised terrorism when people cheer for Charlie’s murder.
But man, I think what’s scarier than a political group calling for blood is the same group doing so while feeling/being suppressed.
At least we know how people feel when they celebrate his murder. These feelings should be expressed, and discussed out in the open.
I don’t agree with Charlie on a lot of things, but he was right in that people need to comfortably talk about tough issues and emotions with others who feel differently.
But, as usual, government and authorities overreact. I expect apps like Signal to get the squeeze out of this because of “national security”.
On the note of these firings: I don’t like it, but most employment contracts have social media clauses that say not to jeopardise your employment’s public image.
Social media has caused us to dehumanize everyone to the point where murder isn’t a big deal, for some. But I also think most people aren’t aware of the sinister surveillance social media is under all the time.
As Jonah said, all the more reason for these ID verifications to be required “for the children”.
As, maybe they have the same problems and issues as Democrats but feel less heard and probably more dehumanized then Democrats feels? Idk that could be one reason for more violence.
Your focus seems to be on how people reacted to Kirk’s assassination rather than on the underlying culture of violence. You’ve offered many reasons why Republicans might feel angry, yet you haven’t explored why someone like Dowd might view his environment the way he does.
Your previous comment:
And dehumanizing people on their opinions and speech is one of those. As, once one side does it and the other side starts doing it. It create a slippery slope of more violence to people. Who are good people with just opinions (freedom of speech).
Think of it as this. You normalize this and then people who are crazy and unhinged feel vindicated on both sides.
This in turn may make them look up voting records of others or anyone else with different opinions and try to do the same. That was done to this political speaker. But now probably not just go for political speakers. But normal ordinary individuals or families, who are just voting on their opinions and world view.
Your current comment:
His statements here. Are pretty much saying he deserves his murder because of the opinions he spewed. That is not similar at all to what I am trying to convey. No matter how inflammatory speech is death or murder should never be an option.
You argued that dehumanization fuels political violence. I do not see a substantive difference between that and saying “hateful actions should be an expected result of hateful rhetoric”, nor is either the same as claiming Kirk deserved to be killed.
Something needs to be done and just saying you don’t want to participate with someone simply because as you say “someone else needs to clean house” is not being the bigger person.
I never said I didn’t want to participate with anyone. I said I cannot take seriously somebody who preaches to others while ignoring problems at home. Those causing most of the damage must bear primary responsibility; without accountability, healing can’t begin, and the same issues will resurface.
The ending of your quote illustrates my problem: you expect moderates to “be the bigger person” without adequately responding to extremists. This, again, feels like bike-shedding.
My overarching point is that it is not the job of the government to solve these concerns, and yet this will be co-opted by governments to impose their own viewpoints on their citizenry, and the normalization of real name policies and ID sharing on the internet will allow for this to happen.
Right now we see everyday people being punished for having bad manners and not being quiet. They are being punished by private employers, sure, but you have to realize that these public firings and shamings of people just brings these practices one step closer to being adopted by actual authorities.
We need to look at the bigger picture and see that once we normalize some punishments for “bad speech” this will very quickly devolve into much harsher punishments, a la North Korea. We can’t allow the Overton window on free speech to be shifted. Free speech is an absolute right we need to defend.
This is a tool for censorship. Full stop.
It is not possible to have age verification and have a system as free as the internet is now, even in any theoretical scenario. If you support age verification at the expense of freedom then it is certainly your right to have that opinion, and many people do share that belief (unfortunately, IMHO), but I do not want you or anyone else here to mistakenly believe that you can have both.
Not just west
Do you know every Chinese what are they do in the Internet everyday ?
Dowd has his views. I can’t claim what he feels as an individual as I don’t know him personally and I am not going to try to speculate on that. Let Dowd explain he is alive and is fully capable of explaining his thought process. Now after he explains, it still depends on if anyone else believes his thought process afterwards after he clarifies himself as a majority to forgive him.
When I gave a reason Republicans may feel angry That’s just an opinion that is based on the Bernie Sanders video and what Republicans were saying themselves it may not be the actual reason. Plus I have Republican family members who feel the same. I am just trying to offer much needed debate and create a thought on why they are so mad.
Claiming that he should be killed or celebrating is dehumanization of a person over his ideas, beliefs, and opinions. If you don’t see the issue in that Idk what more can make you gain insight into why it is wrong.
It is the way the analyst presented instead of waiting for all the facts. He decided to put the blame all on Charlie. Instead of the person who had the gun and who was a poor excuse of a human being.
Charlie should have been more cautious with his speech. Yes. But that still doesn’t excuse the actions of what a crazed lunatic did because he did not like Charlie’s ideas, opinions, and debates he had with others.
Murder should never be the solution nor celebrated. It should be condemned and no one should be blamed for their own death for having political debates. No matter how bad the inflammatory speech is. Debate, debate, debate. Both sides have said inflammatory words with double standards.
But no inflammatory speech should lead to murder.
Both sides are causing the damage. It doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things. Who, lit the first fuse. It about who is going to start being civil first and actually talking to people they don’t like to open eyes and minds. Instead of sitting back letting chaos happen by celebrating or wishing death upon others that you disagree with. Bernie Sanders is leading by example and actually listening to the other sides issues. Instead of shunning them. As, Bernie gets the bigger picture.
We have a legal system and the constitution etc that prevents the abuse of power. Which is still holding even when the media doesn’t want you to believe so.
They’re is good people who are judges, lawyers etc that work every day just to stop abuses of power and to think they’re all corrupt is naive. That they would just let it happen is ridiculous.
Is America perfect? No, has there been an abuse of power throughout American history? Yes, but every now and then it gets shown and then remedied. As this country is an experiment of ideas and those ideas shape it. It is not just one political ideological landscape it is all citizens shaping.
And it is defended. The American government is not allowed to infringe on that right.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/
First amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Other citizens, media, and corporations on the other hand don’t share that same restrictions as we are a society and we shape are way of life/thinking together. The government shouldn’t have a say in that freedom of speech and they don’t.
So, if someone says something that goes against the grain that is not acceptable to any group as a majority (as in both sides condemn said events or actions). Then they shouldn’t expect to be liked or accepted in that moment of time. As, people will ostracize them for it. It is like reprimanding a kid when they say something bad and you put them in the corner. But you always come back to them to then clarify to them or give them a debate to tell them why they were wrong in their thinking or actions. You don’t give up on them. You try to teach them even if they aren’t willing to listen in the moment.
And like you said IMHO. I still believe we can have both in America.
Now having both freedom and age verification in Russia or some other dictatorship country. No.
Only in America could it actually be implemented and be worked on. To work for the citizens and not the government. As, we get to shape how are whole society works. Not the government.
That is why are politicians are called representatives.
Even if our government isn’t perfect a lot of good comes out of it. There are good lawyers, judges and a few politicians that are fighting for each and every one of us. It’s just that this legal system is a slow one to adopt change as it has to go through every branch and opinion before it can be enacted. That is why people don’t feel like things move quickly enough or in the way they want. Like how quickly the European countries enact change and do so carelessly. So yes, I do believe in my opinion it could hold and that we could have both in America. Age verification and freedom.
By C. McMasters Ph.D.
I realized something upon publishing my the article on the House Speakership: Americans, not just my students, have a skewed understanding and expectation of American government.
The U.S. government was not created for control. The framers created the federal government, as well as the state and local governments, to provide the bare minimum law and order needed to avoid total chaos and anarchy. Their understanding of human nature led them to the understanding that human beings need government to protect each other from each other.
However, the founders also knew that in order to protect humans and their private property from each other, they’d have to give other flawed humans power to do so. This means that they did not want to give these flawed humans much power to govern with–just the bare minimum. One way to give power while limiting power was to break that power apart and distribute it into thousands of different flawed hands.
The benefit of doing so? It prevents any single individual from wielding that power in an abusive, arbitrary way. How? By pitting thousands of different flawed, ambitious, power hungry individuals against each other.
Further, after distributing the power into so many different hands, the framers confined that power by laying out exactly what that power could be used for. The federal government’s list of specific, confined and limited powers is in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. The state governments each have their own Constitutions and the local governments have their job descriptions as well.
And, while I won’t go into the specific powers in this post, understand that the founders gave the bare minimum of powers to the federal government. Governments, specifically the federal one, in America aren’t supposed to do much. The much that many Americans expect the federal government to do is actually something the state governments were expected to do (i.e. education, welfare, policing and the like).
Our Government Was Never Created to Move Quickly
As it’s probably already apparent, because the framers broke government power–which is usually consolidated into one or a few hands–into thousands of different hands, the U.S. governmental system moves slow
.Given that most governments exist to make law, a fast moving government would be a government that makes a lot of law. The more law, the more control the government has over the citizenry. In America, the various constitutions are supposed to limit the kinds of laws each government passes, but the checks and balances exist to limit the number of laws passed.
Our government was never supposed to be a lean, mean, law making machine. It’s supposed to be fraught with disagreements, diversity and ambition counteracting ambition.
When people get mad at the federal Congress and say that it “does nothing”, what exactly are they wanting it to do? Make more laws? Because that’s all it’s built to do and many of the things people want Congress to do, Congress was never empowered by the Constitution to do. Do Americans really want more federal law? Because that’s what they’d be getting if Congress were to somehow stop functioning the way it’s supposed to function and were to start pumping at laws at rapid speed.
For a little context: Congress introduced 17,812 new potential laws in the 117th Congress, which is the past two years, 2020-2022. Of those 17,812, only 1,082 passed, approximately 6%. On average 4-8% of the legislation introduced in Congress, actually becomes law.
From January 3, 1973 – December 30, 1974, Congress introduced 26,222 potential laws and 1,138 (4%) actually passed. This means that every two years Congress is passing anywhere between 800-1000 new laws. If we assume Congress passes 900 new laws every two years, we can estimate that, so far, Congress has passed 105,300 laws out of approximately 2,340,000 introduced potential laws. Imagine if our system was fast? Imagine if it wasn’t riddled with roadblocks?
And this is just Congressional law making. We’re not talking about executive orders, executive action, bureaucratic rules, state laws, county law and the like.
Conclusion
And so, our government was never created to do a whole lot. The cause it was supposed to effect was simple: avoid chaos by bringing a bit of order to a society that cannot function without law. And let’s try to create as many roadblocks, checks and balances into all the layers of government so that the government itself does not destroy the citizenry it was created to protect.
States are already using their power and enacting laws that are different from each other for age verification to protect its citizens (children). Whereas the government has not enacted any federal age verification so far.
You are being willfully blind to the involvement of our federal government here. The sitting vice president hosted Kirk’s show just a few days ago to pledge full government support to go after anyone whose reactions to Kirk’s death that they did not like:
“With God as my witness, we are going to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, Homeland Security and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle and destroy these networks and make America safe again for the American people,” he said. “It will happen, and we will do it in Charlie’s name.”
He also encouraged people to get others fired from their jobs for speech they find distasteful:
“When you see someone celebrating Charlie’s murder, call them out,” Vance urged listeners on the slain activist’s podcast Monday. “And hell, call their employer.”
Don’t just take my word for it:
“The government involvement in this does inch this closer to looking like McCarthyism,” said Adam Goldstein of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, referring to the 1950s campaign to root out communists that led to false allegations and ruined careers. “It was not a shining moment for free expression.”
The American government is, in fact, trying to use this assassination as a pretext to crack down on political opponents and free expression generally. The sitting Vice President talked openly about it at length on a live stream. This is not merely a case of social consequences, and there is no ambiguity about it.
If you are for personal liberty and free speech you must be against this.
Congress, Not States or the Supreme Court, Should Lead the Way in Balancing Children’s Online Safety and Access to Adult Content
Texas’ law requires adult websites to verify users’ ages before granting access and applies to any website where more than one-third of the content is sexual and deemed “harmful to minors.” However, defining what constitutes “harmful to minors” is challenging. While some material—such as obscene or violent content—is clearly harmful, other content—like mental health information or LGBTQ+ content—might be considered harmful to one minor while benefitting another. The vague language is vulnerable to misuse and could lead to further legal challenges. Additionally, nearly every major social media platform hosts sexual content in some form, whether intentional and explicit, like adult pornography allowed on X and Reddit, or unintentional and suggestive content found on Instagram.
If the Supreme Court upholds the Texas law, more states may introduce age verification bills, each employing different methods. For example, in South Carolina, HB 3405, the “App Store Accountability Act,” would put the onus on app store providers to obtain verifiable parental consent before allowing a minor to download, purchase, or use apps from its app store. Users would only need to verify their age once per app store. While this approach is less burdensome for users and better protects privacy than other age verification systems, it does not address age verification for websites, a considerable gap.
In contrast, Utah’s SB 287, requires adult sites to verify their users’ identities using facial recognition technology and government-issued IDs, such as driver’s licenses or state IDs. This approach is the most privacy-invasive, as platforms may store sensitive information from users’ IDs, such as their full name, home address, and photograph. It also poses accessibility issues, as some adults lack government-issued IDs. Furthermore, Utah—along with other states pursuing similar legislation, like Arkansas and Ohio—is facing lawsuits over First Amendment concerns. Ironically, searches to implement virtual private networks (VPNs) spiked drastically in Utah once SB 287 came into effect, showing users—including minors—will find ways to circumvent this approach to age verification.
More broadly, the outcome of the Texas case could influence how state legislatures approach kids’ online safety legislation beyond the 19 states focusing on adult content specifically. For instance, states like Maryland and California use age-appropriate design codes, which require online services to implement default privacy and safety features. However, these codes often serve as another form of age verification. In contrast, states like Florida take a more restrictive approach, choosing to ban kids entirely from social media to prevent them from accessing online content altogether.
At the federal level, policymakers have mirrored these approaches with laws like the Kids Online Safety Act or Kids Off Social Media Act. These bills would force users to verify their ages before accessing social media or could bar entire groups from using the platforms altogether. Similar to many state laws, both these bills try to arbitrarily determine what constitutes “harmful content” for children, further blurring the line between what is considered harmful for minors versus acceptable for adults.
An alternative approach to this tangled web of state age verification laws would be for Congress to establish a “child flag” system, requiring device makers and platforms hosting age-restricted content to implement this feature. Under this system, all users would be presumed adults unless marked as children, with platforms checking for this flag when accessing age-gated content. Users could designate an account as belonging to a child through their device’s operating system, preventing the download of age-restricted apps or access to age-gated websites unless the user meets the required age. This approach would be less burdensome for users and pose fewer privacy and security risks.
Congress should pass legislation to preempt the impending patchwork of state age verification laws and establish a standardized child-flag system, giving parents and guardians greater control over their children’s online safety. Platforms are increasingly caught in a tug-of-war between safeguarding adults’ access to legal content and preventing children from viewing material intended for mature audiences. Congress is best positioned to ensure this balance is achieved, not individual states.
I did see that. And am following it closely. But I don’t believe they will get their way. The checks and balances will hold. As, most the the stuff will go to the Supreme Court for review if there is an executive order. But it is a scary time no doubt about it. But that is when politicians insight fear for their own voting benefit. This is more about midterms in the upcoming reelections than it is about actually doing this. Of course they are going to try though. Or make it look like they are trying to inact them over the course of the coming months to keep momentum. As, those in power can’t help themselves. But like I said the checks will hold. America will still be here functioning.
I am not blind about what is happening in government. It happens every so often. Sometimes, silent and sometimes loud. But all the time is gets shot down by the Supreme Court. Or at least remedied quickly or later on with more debates and outcry.
July 1, 2024 1:50 pm
“Today’s decision is a win for free speech in the digital age,” said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “The court’s recognition that the government cannot control social media in an effort to impose its own vision of what online speech should look like is crucial to protecting all of our right to speak our minds and access information on the internet.”
The issue is that people see porn as free speech. But that is subjective, I don’t see it as free speech. Which in turn in my view would mean it is not protected. Should adults be able to access it. Yes, children. No.
Nowhere does the First Amendment state that pornography is protected. It is only the Supreme Court that has interpreted it as such, setting a precedent. But since it is not explicitly mentioned in the text as a form of protected speech, its status can change and be subject to different interpretations over time.
Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969),
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002),
Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973),
American Booksellers Association v. Hudnut (1985),
Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) of 1996,
United States v. Williams (2008),
Well I think I reach the end of how much I can share on the matter. Hope it brings much needed debate. About speech and complex implementations of age verification and the privacy concerns etc.
Now I leave the rest for all of you to dissect and have debates about. For issues that are closest to your hearts.
Wish y’all well!
As an European, I am not especially convinced or shocked about this. Allowing all speech, including hate speech is bad for society in the long run*. That being said, I do agree with others that GOP is only targeting hate speech directed towards their side, not all side. As an example, a FoxNews host recently called for “involuntary lethal injection” to homeless people (he later apologized).
But I also think that most people don’t have an exceptation of privacy in their social media, so in that sense it’s not a violation of privacy per se.
Your opinion is that we can have age verification and enough freedom for you to be fine with it. Again, that’s perfectly fine. I do disagree with this personally like I said, but we could debate that.
However, it is just objectively true that technology would be less free with mandatory age verification though, to some degree. It’s a technical fact that can’t be avoided by the implementation.
I can list off the trade-offs and we can certainly debate how much the things we’re giving up actually matter, but we need to establish this baseline that there are things being given up compared to the current status quo that can’t be saved in this system.
I just want to be clear about this because there are people even here who believe that technologies like zero-knowledge proofs have only benefits and no downsides which is not correct. If your opinion is that the downsides are insignificant that is fine, but they still exist.
This is honestly the biggest point I needed to make with the OP. Politics aside, it is problematic that people no longer have expectations of privacy online, and this is a global phenomenon.
The OP is an example of recent real-world ramifications, but this is a wide-reaching issue that will impact everyone in only a matter of time.
It’s a bit though to have empathy for people praising a murder, but I didn’t realise this was in a post comment. It’s less clear cut that it’s public versus making a post where you explicitly wants to share your opinion with other.
A lot of people on social media are posting with their real name or photo/video of their face. In other words, they CHOOSE to not have privacy and go public with their opinions. So if someone think it’s a good idea to upload a video of themselves gloating how great it is that someone whose opinion they didn’t like got murdered by an extremist - well then I can’t feel sorry for them losing their job as a consequence. “FAFO”, as they say.
Many social media networks either want you to use your real name (e.g. Facebook?) or at least try really hard to get your phone number, so from a perspective of privacy activism it would be important to make sure that these “too big to ignore” websites like Facebook, Instagram, X, TikTok, Reddit and so on remain available to users who want to make a pseudonymous account and don’t want to doxx themselves. But I guess 99% of users don’t care anyway and are happy to give them their phone number, picture, government ID and so on.
Yes, that is my exact point 
From a privacy activist’s perspective I think you are mistaken to believe that users are making a real “choice” to use their real names in the presence of how coercive social media platforms like Facebook are being to validate their users.
@jonah I will love to debate. And accept your offer. Strap in this will be long. Sorry about that! Would love to hear your well thought out response to these!
[“Why I am in favor for age verification.”]
While discussing this, we must remember that children in America don’t have the same rights as adults. Until they turn 18, they’re under their parents’ control. Parents decide what their kids see, hear, and how they behave. Kids must also follow laws designed just for them. Full freedom from parental oversight comes only when you turn 18 and move out. Plus, certain laws, like the drinking age of 21, apply until you reach that age.
The presence of an age verification system doesn’t mean you have to give up your privacy or free speech for every service you use. As an adult, you can choose not to verify your age—that’s your right. You can pick your device, the websites you visit, or opt out entirely, like not using the service online, move to less online tech like talking in person, using a flip phone or traditional mail. Some folks argue society relies only on the internet for freedom, but I disagree. Life doesn’t have to revolve around the internet.
Many activists advocate openly, not anonymously, with conviction. Figures like Mahatma Gandhi, Cesar Chavez, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr., and Rosa Parks stood proudly behind their beliefs, facing free speech challenges without backing down. Their visible leadership inspired change through dedication to justice.
Online privacy differs from physical privacy. If you share data online or use services that collect it, you’re responsible for those choices and aware of the risks. Privacy is a right, but it shouldn’t harm others’ safety. You decide how to share your information, and if you use data-collecting services, that’s your call. Support platforms like Proton or Tuta, which use end-to-end encryption, instead of Google or Meta. Choose with your wallet and morals to encourage more privacy-respecting services. The same applies to age verification—it’s about balancing choice with responsibility.
Building on this idea of user choice, let’s consider how the internet’s open nature shapes our expectations of privacy.
The internet was designed to be open, like a library [1], for sharing knowledge (e.g., books, news, archives). We have a right to privacy in our devices and shared information, but I believe there’s no inherent right to anonymity online. Offline, anonymity might be a right, but not on the web. (That is why there TOS etc) An open web can’t function if people hide their actions to harm others. Just as you can’t disrupt a public library, you shouldn’t disrupt public platforms like social media. If you can’t act that way in real-world public spaces without consequences, why should the internet be different?
A video on SomeOrdinaryGamers’ channel (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr-xsHjdhuI) makes a compelling case for anonymity for TOR in the beginning of his video, especially for vulnerable users like journalism, dissidents. This suggests anonymity has value in specific cases (TOR communications).
This balance between openness and responsibility ties into why we have privacy policies and terms of service for the websites we visit and use.
We choose to share data, buy, and use online services voluntarily. We may have near-perfect privacy at home, but the internet is an open web, like public sidewalks. Regulation, like age verification, has been needed for years. The genie’s out of the bottle, and it’s not going back. Companies should face penalties for changing privacy policies or terms without notifying users. But if you agreed to those terms initially, you consented to their practices. To avoid this, you could ditch privacy-invasive devices or the internet, but by using the web, which relies on data collection, you exercise your privacy rights through your choices.
Since user choice is central, let’s explore how privacy advocates can shape age verification solutions.
I hope privacy activists work on solutions, like an open standard—a publicly available framework—for age verification to improve privacy outcomes. Without our input, we won’t get better solutions. Perfect privacy isn’t possible, but we must compromise to respect others’ rights, balancing privacy with safety. We already have laws restricting kids’ access to adult content in physical spaces, requiring ID, and prohibiting adults from exposing kids to illegal content. People aren’t considered mature until age 18, per the law, so similar rules make sense online.
This need for balance extends to how we interact with the internet’s structure and services.
You choose the sites and services you use. If you pick an Apple device, you agree to their terms, including privacy policies. You know how corporations like Apple, Google, or Microsoft work. By using their services, you trade some privacy for access, unlike with Linux, where you keep more control. Still, you decide which websites to visit and what information to share. This is the core of privacy as a right.
End-to-end encryption keeps personal data, like photos, private. I believe these should stay private, as they store valuable personal data (though age verification may still apply, as some platforms do more than intended):
In contrast, these are public platforms for social engagement and shouldn’t be considered private:
Balancing privacy and safety leads to the need for compromise in age verification.
Some politicians, countries, or companies may misuse age verification. Even good companies today could turn bad tomorrow. But if a solution can protect kids, we should explore it and aim for a balanced outcome that satisfies most, even if not all. Compromise is key in life—like adjusting diets when egg prices rise or saving water during a drought. If we don’t compromise for others’ benefit, we risk selfishness, which can be good or bad depending on the context.
This idea of compromise also applies to how we approach activism.
Not all activism or safety measures require the internet. Paper remains an option for some activities. The internet is new compared to how activism thrived historically. Figures like Gandhi or King didn’t need anonymity to make their points. The internet spreads awareness fast, but it makes issues public. Activism doesn’t have to be only online.
The need for practical solutions brings us to the risks of ignoring age verification challenges.
Without an open standard for age verification, device-level laws could force Apple, Google, or Microsoft to create universal APIs, worsening their monopoly. A bigger worry is custom ROMs. Without an open standard, they could face bans for not complying with age verification laws. Privacy advocates should develop an open-source alternative to keep custom ROMs viable under varying state laws. Inconsistent state regulations create compliance issues, as seen with Kaspersky’s U.S. ban.
This need to protect vulnerable platforms connects to supporting vulnerable parents.
Some say age verification is only a parenting issue, but this ignores single, deaf, disabled, visually impaired, or financially strained parents. These parents deserve equal chances to keep their kids safe online. Any parent knows shielding kids from external influences is tough, especially for those with disabilities.
I accept the trade-offs of age verification and support privacy-preserving methods like zero-knowledge proofs, which verify age without revealing personal data. But inconsistent state laws will complicate compliance for developers and confuse users about privacy rights across state lines. Without a consistent framework, open-source platforms like Linux or custom Android ROMs risk restrictions, as seen with Kaspersky’s U.S. ban. A balanced, standardized solution is essential.
https://www.scitepress.org/Papers/2025/132483/132483.pdf
Child and Youth Safety Online | United Nations
https://www.unicef.org/innocenti/reports/childhood-digital-world
https://www.complycube.com/en/online-safety-act-2023-vs-eu-dsa-what-you-need-to-know/
https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/55/3/1436/7934198
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14733250241307263
https://rm.coe.int/two-clicks-forward-and-one-click-back-report-on-children-with-disabili/168098bd0f
https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4672&context=uop_etds
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09687599.2024.2439977#d1e135
https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10156136
https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10522061
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09638288.2024.2443566
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0264619620941895
[/details]
Discuss honey bears? The Chinese I think have realized this a long time ago perhaps because their government is more overt about it.
I do think the putting a loud voice on a pedestal thing is something they do to make Americans eat each other, a front man to cop the blows if you will. That is all Charlie ever was and will be. Soon there will be another one. Talk is cheap and that’s all culture politics is.