←back to thread

353 points iamnothere | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.225s | 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
pksebben ◴[] No.46236900[source]
This keeps coming up and we keep having the same debates about what Age Verification isn't.

For the folks in the back row:

Age Verification isn't about Kids or Censorship, It's about Surveillance

Age Verification isn't about Kids or Censorship, It's about Surveillance

Age Verification isn't about Kids or Censorship, It's about Surveillance

Without even reaching for my tinfoil hat, the strategy at work here is clear [0 1 2]. If we have to know that you're not a minor, then we also have to know who you are so we can make any techniques to obfuscate that illegal. By turning this from "keep an eye on your kids" to "prove you're not a kid" they've created the conditions to make privacy itself illegal.

VPNs are next. Then PGP. Then anything else that makes it hard for them to know who you are, what you say, and who you say it to.

Please, please don't fall into the trap and start discussing whether or not this is going to be effective to protect kids. It isn't, and that isn't the point.

0 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/lawmakers-want-ban-vpn...

1 https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/vpn-usage...

2 https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2025-09-15/debates/57714...

replies(14): >>46236954 #>>46237349 #>>46237480 #>>46238016 #>>46238148 #>>46238925 #>>46240138 #>>46240141 #>>46240546 #>>46240662 #>>46240975 #>>46241941 #>>46242412 #>>46243136 #
zamadatix ◴[] No.46240662[source]
As much as you (and I as well) don't want age verification to involve discussion about kids' access to content because we're more concerned about the surveillance push riding the popularity of that, repeating "it isn't about kids" loudly 3 times doesn't make the (extremely large) group of people pushing age verification for kids disappear.

Telling that larger group their interest just isn't part of the conversation at all excludes _you_ from the conversation rather than changing the focus of the conversation to the other downsides instead of the primary interest others might have.

There are also, concerningly IMO, an extremely large amount of people willing to accept severe surveillance or privacy downsides so long as it helps achieve the goal about kids. To them, the same would in reverse would be "why are you talking about surveillance, the real issue is the kids. Say it 3 times loud, for those in the back!" and the conversation gets nowhere because it's just people saying how they won't talk to anyone who disagrees what concerns should be considered.

replies(4): >>46241202 #>>46241353 #>>46241377 #>>46242184 #
edgineer ◴[] No.46241202[source]
I'm sure those people exist, I just never happen to see anything they write online nor meet any of them in real life.
replies(5): >>46241376 #>>46242335 #>>46242576 #>>46242701 #>>46243966 #
1. zamadatix ◴[] No.46243966[source]
I suppose it depends on how much else you want to see. E.g. the recent discussion on Australia's social media band for teens https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46208348 has ~1500 comments covering nearly every possible angle I could have conceived and some positions I'm not sure I would have even been able to imagine. Focusing on about the kids is a popular position in threads like that, and one of the top 5 top level comments is even an example of "I care about the kids and don't want to discuss how it should be about these other things".