←back to thread

347 points iamnothere | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | 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 ◴[] 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 #
ProjectArcturis ◴[] No.46224965[source]
I'm not sure that making parents legally culpable for their kids being smart enough to download a new browser is LESS government intrusion.
replies(3): >>46225123 #>>46225538 #>>46238266 #
1. BobaFloutist ◴[] No.46238266[source]
I think the idea is that the manufacturers are culpable for making a parental restriction mode that's set-and-forget and not easily thwarted from inside the mode and parents are culpable for declining to set it.

Which I still don't love, but is at least more fair.