Ok, well I am asking. As, you offered. And I would love to know your views that is all. It didn’t need to be instantaneous[1] but there wasn’t even a mention. Even after when you did a reaction to someone else’s response. Which seemed dismissive even though it didn’t specify which discussion.
as I want it to be thorough, hell I am even fine if I get roasted for my views, as you are probably more educated about it more than me ↩︎
Well, now you know 
Like Jonah said, this is not a discussion thread for this topic. Hence no response yet. It’s not personal…
I think you’re reading too much into it..
Well I think that sadly @Terrance might have a point when he says that many people do approve age verification even if it means scanning your ID on a (_p.o.r.n_) website. And indeed, it’s being implemented actively whether we like it or not. For many years the media, teachers, and pretty much everybody has been saying that technology is a good thing, as though it was an irrevocable axiom, a pillar of truth, and we have to embrace it and build on top of it. Well, I prefer the opinion of Richard Stallman on this matter when he says that no! Technology is not inherently good. It can be, but if technology becomes a means for surveillance, censorship, fear mongering, dangerous speech, and forced propaganda, our goal should not be technology progress but digital extraction. It looks like we might have reached this point, or perhaps we are getting closer, where there is so much garbage on the internet, and now you have to pay for it or give up your freedom to access this garbage, that it might soon become a wise idea not to engage with technology anymore. Perhaps reduce our reliance on it as much as possible. However, I might add that even with the most desperate attempts from the government to monitor and control our internet traffic, I highly doubt that their schemes will effectively block or restrict people from doing what they want. I am confident that people will find ways or create ways to bypass these digital cages. Because remember what a great figure for americans and freedom defenders once said: “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” Is age verification unjust? Maybe. Maybe yes, maybe no, I don’t know. However, according to Richard Stallman age verification is an injustice.
Hypocrites…
Almost seven in ten (69%) support age verification checks on platforms that may host content related to suicide, self-harm, eating disorders, and pornography
However, this support in principle does not translate into a widespread willingness to comply. Around half of Britons (48%) say they would be likely to submit proof of age to access a website.
This reluctance extends to different types of platforms. Only around a third would be likely to provide age proof for messaging apps (38%) or social media sites (37%). For user-generated encyclopaedias like Wikipedia, half (51%) say they would be unlikely to submit any proof of age. Just 19% say they would be willing to submit proof of age for dating apps, lowering to 14% for pornography websites
Exactly they support the age verification. But they don’t necessary agree with providing personal information to access said apps or website.
That is why there should be a balance privacy respecting one with a solution I provided or any other like @GorujoCY provided
Give the people what they want. A more balanced and privacy respecting one.
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/britons-back-online-safety-acts-age-checks-are-sceptical-effectiveness-and-unwilling-share-id
This support is strong across the political spectrum, including three-quarters (75%) of 2024 Labour voters, 73% of Conservative voters, and 79% of Liberal Democrat voters. Support is lower among Reform UK voters, but a majority (56%) still support age verifications. Support is higher among women (78%) than men (60%), and higher than average among parents (77%).
When asked about specific methods:
People are most willing to use their email address (56% likely).
The public is split on using a photo or video of their face (43% likely, 37% unlikely) or photographic ID like a passport or driver’s license (40% likely, 41% unlikely).
There is strong reluctance towards using financial information, with 68% unlikely to use a credit card and 72% unlikely to use their banking information.
“Our research reveals a significant paradox in public opinion towards the Online Safety Act. While there is a clear and broad desire to protect children online, reflected in the strong support for age verification, this is matched by deep-seated scepticism about whether the Act can deliver on its promises. Data breaches and the potential for censorship are highlighted, as the public doubt these measures will be effective against tech-savvy young people. This creates a major challenge for platform operators and the regulator, Ofcom: how to implement robust age assurance systems that the public actually trusts and is willing to use.”
becoming China ….
I’ve mentioned this before, but the issue of control is not completely resolved with a zero-knowledge proof age verification solution because the key issuer/signer is the government. As more countries enact age verification laws, the open nature of the internet further erodes, replaced by a permissioned, geolocked internet. The subtle consequence of this is that control over your ability to access information is effectively handed back to your government.
Consider this thought experiment to illustrate my point. Suppose your government disapproves of certain content shared on social media platforms. Under the guise of national sovereignty, moral policing, or any other excuse to restrict access, they block the platform. Alternatively, the social media platform might comply and remove the content locally. Currently, you can use a proxy or VPN to set your virtual location to a free country and continue engaging with the platform. However, imagine a future where most countries have implemented online age verification laws. Content moderation and restrictions for anonymous browsers or accounts tagged as underage (i.e., not age-verified) are strict, in compliance with online safety laws. You set your VPN to a free country, but you encounter that country’s localized age verification method. You try a second country, and the same happens. And a third, and a fourth, and so on. Result: you are restricted by your government from viewing certain content, and if that content deals with heavy topics, you may be restricted again by the design of age verification systems
You might think, “So what? Another country’s policies aren’t my problem.” That’s understandable, but it goes against the spirit of an open internet. So, do you support a free internet, or a geolocked, restricted one? Be mindful of what you unintentionally advocate for.
Indeed.
I addressed your question somewhat in the livestream, but I also responded more generally in the other thread where you originally brought this up, in particular this quote generally sums up what I think about age verification systems 
I will say you make a very valid point and it’s the fact that even if the government and entities never got access to your ID ever, what stops them from controlling which site.
That I acknowledge but I have to say
People feel more comfortable actually verifying their age if the ID was to be end-to-end encrypted or encrypted through password derivation, homomorphic , ZKP etc.
With that said it does not resolve the issue of kids grabbing an adult’s ID and verifying with that, I agree.
The only reason they didn’t bother enforcing and mandating encryption tools from the likes of Apple, Signal, Proton, (Hashing), etc. is because of the government wanting to surveil and control, and this, is what we should be opposing indeed, control and surveillance. And we should compromise by:
a. Actually enforce the use of encrypted tools many companies use where the control lies in the user, none else. Not even the government should have any way to decrypt it
b. Rest the control on citizens crowd vote to which sites should reasonably have age verification, not the government
But I also understand that’s a pipe dream because again, their goal is control and surveillance, therefore no way in hell they would bother implementing those compromises.
Yes but they shouldn’t feel comfortable. It is simply wrong to age-gate access to information in the first place, regardless of the technical implementation.
It’s not just about utilization of tools, it’s how it is done.
I also said about relinquishing vote to a crowd of citizens of which sites gets it but as I stated:
Eg.
Let’s say there are 100k citizens
First poll the governed proposes: a corn site
Votes:
Say:
55% Yes
45% No
Corn site gets age verified
If a vote somehow reaches 50/50 doe, this is complicated, normally a debate needs to happen between parliament and the government themselves but that’s making the government decide at this point so instead, A final decision is given, say yes: Now let the citizens vote again if they agree on government’s final decision before passing.
If 50/50 rests again somehow, then I think it might have to be debated to the parliament to decide themselves as the final decision. (But it’s usually unlikely to get 50/50 both times but should be accounted for)
Now let’s put Privacy Guides:
Say it gets
Yes: 10%
No: 90%
Privacy Guides does not get age gated
Both proposal do not come up again btw.
How about NO. The Internet has been around for more than 25 years and “age verification” is a solution to a problem that does not exist. Regardless, the technical solution proposed is flawed and assumes locked down devices; users of free software can trivially patch out such an anti-feature and use the devices they own without the “key.”
Even this does not work because of the tyranny of the masses. Many book burnings are led by crowds and majorities.
The freedom to merely access information is an unalienable right that shouldn’t be weaponized by the majority to make information inaccessible to minority groups.
Hmm good point but I usually think the majority are reasonable when it comes to making decision like that if my experience is anything to go by but I’ll agree to disagree there if that’s fair.
What would change your mind going forward from here:
Following PG and some of its users here for a long time, I cannot believe you are among those who are unable to fathom this properly and are still not vehemently against this. sigh
You say good point, and yet cannot bring yourself to feel you (like Terrance) are objectively wrong here with this line of thinking seeing how much info is already been made available on this subject matter by people who are far more of an authority and experts on this topic than you or me. And hence why I asked, what would change your mind.
Anyways, I feel disappointed that avid members of the privacy community are also among those who continue to shill for illogical ideas and proposals while not seeing the real cause and rationale for such legal regulations.
Since I have no other way to rationalize this - I’m going to have to chalk this upto age, certain level of immaturity, lack of worldly exposures & experiences, and a certain amount of cultural and educational differences for why this appears to be the case with you and Terrance and anyone else who appears to not see and understand the issues here.
I’m truly disappointed.
No private solution will be accepted by a government that wants to know who you are and what you are doing.
“Protecting the children” is a con to increase surveillance power with the least amount of public protest.
this exactly
I hate to say it but:
you really are reminding me of the main antagonist in the anime Call of the night in your behavior right now and that’s not an exaggeration if you read up the plot of it but I know you won’t…
Let me make this very clear to you
First, I agree with what @LukewarmNinja said, it is true that no government will accept a private (and also democratic) solution if history is anything to go by
Second, Age verification in it’s current form is something that I actually stand against, not for, and because of the first point me and even average people are opposing age verification. Because without any of the private solutions, you are very much risking your identity stolen. There’s no such thing as bulletproof security as the saying would go, holes from security come and go.
Third, I do not agree with all Terrance’s points: one for the fact that the majority support age verification means that it should be a thing and two what LukeWarmNinja spotted and I bet others will spot soon.
What I am proposing is what I think is a reasonable compromise for chat control and if none of those are met then I highly oppose it but as I said before:
what’s more alarming though is not your behavior being similar to a main antagonist in an anime but how fast your respond and not thinking before saying
despite our disagreements and then agreed to disagreed with @jonah I can confidently say he was reasonable and made me realize one serious missing piece of the puzzle. And of course everyone has different experiences with people they experience so that’s why I had to agree to disagree from there, I have no choice.
Hopefully that gets you through and not start shooting that revolver of yours out of nowhere.
I have an old Samsung tablet, Tab A from 2019, and it has parental controls. Google came up with a solution years ago. No need to develop a brand new technology or new laws … unless this really about increased surveillance powers.
