←back to thread

EFF launches Age Verification Hub

(www.eff.org)
347 points iamnothere | 4 comments | 10 Dec 25 20:35 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source

Also: We built a resource hub to fight back against age verification https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/12/age-verification-comin...
Show context
rlpb ◴[10 Dec 25 22:08 UTC] No.46224574[source]▶
I'd be OK with an "I am a child" header mandated by law to be respected by service providers (eg. "adult sites" must not permit a client setting the header to proceed). On the client side, mandate that consumer devices that might reasonably be expected to be used by children (every smartphone, tablet, smart TV, etc) have parental controls that set the header. Leave it to parents to set the controls. Perhaps even hold parents culpable for not doing so, as a minimum supervision requirement, just as one may hold parents culpable for neglecting their children in other ways.

Forcing providers to divine the age of the user, or requiring an adult's identity to verify that they are not a child, is backwards, for all the reasons pointed out. But that's not the only way to "protect the children". Relying on a very minimal level of parental supervision of device use should be fine; we already expect far more than that in non-technology areas.

replies(8): >>46224965 #>>46225003 #>>46225048 #>>46225061 #>>46225433 #>>46236425 #>>46236866 #>>46241419 #
1. pembrook ◴[10 Dec 25 22:46 UTC] No.46225061[source]▶
> Perhaps even hold parents culpable for not doing so, as a minimum supervision requirement

Even the idea of prosecuting parents for allowing their child to access 'information,' no matter what that information is, just sounds like asking for 1984-style insanity.

A good rule of thumb when creating laws: imagine someone with opposite political views from yours applying said law at their discretion (because it will happen at some point!).

Another good question to ask yourself: is this really a severe enough problem that government needs to apply authoritarian control via its monopoly on violence to try to solve? Or is it just something I'm abstractly worried about because some pseudo-intellectuals are doing media tours to try to sell books by inciting moral panic?

As with every generation who is constantly worried about what "kids these days" are up to, it's highly highly likely the kids will be fine.

The worrying is a good instinct, but when it becomes an irrational media hysteria (the phase we're in for the millennial generation who've had kids and are becoming their parents), it creates perverse incentives and leads to dumb outcomes.

The truth is the young are more adaptable than the old. It's the adults we need to worry about.

replies(1): >>46225439 #
2. rlpb ◴[10 Dec 25 23:18 UTC] No.46225439[source]▶
> Even the idea of prosecuting parents for allowing their child to access 'information,' no matter what that information is, just sounds like asking for 1984-style insanity.

This assumes an absolutist approach to enforcement, which I did not advocate and is not a fundamental part of my proposed solution. In any case, the law already has to make a subjective decision in non-technology areas. It would be no different here. Courts would be able to consider the surrounding context, and over time set precedents for what does and does not cross the bar in a way that society considers acceptable.

replies(2): >>46225532 #>>46237553 #
3. pembrook ◴[10 Dec 25 23:29 UTC] No.46225532[source]▶
But what if we didn't collectively spend $billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of hours battling with money, lobbyists, lawyers, judges and political campaigns over what is largely a moral panic?

What could humanity do instead with all that time and resources?

I know the US is a nation built by lawyers, for lawyers, but this is both its best strength and worst weakness. Sometimes it's in everyones best interest to accept the additional risks individually as opposed to bubble wrapping everything in legislation and expanding the scope of the corrupt lawyer-industrial complex.

Maybe the lawyers could use the extra time fixing something actually important like healthcare or education instead.

4. raw_anon_1111 ◴[11 Dec 25 21:40 UTC] No.46237553[source]▶
And surprisingly when the law makes such decisions, it seems to affect little Jerome more than little Johnny.

You have way too much faith in the fairness of the court system.