But the entire point of age laws is to stifle free speech and ruin privacy. Thus why every age law requires uploading an ID.
If it was just age, just require a credit charge of a $1 through an intermediary. Good for a year or whatever.
Does it? I mean sure, it's a side-effect that some (most?) politicians might find desirable, but there's also people who just want to restrict access to adult material (not taking a position on whether it's a good or bad thing here). Most parents would probably agree with the latter even if they don't with the former.
If your kid is going to get around that by clever vpn use, age gates don't help.
I think politicians and their supporters believe they do help. Of course from their perspective the only way to know for sure is to implement the restrictions (regardless of whether they succeed, at least they fulfill their campaign promises to their electors of "doing something").
Your kid's smartphone can connect to home wifi, mobile data, public wifi, and friends' home wifi - so network filtering alone won't cut it. And 'Encrypted SNI', 'DNS over HTTPS' and Cloudflare makes network filtering much harder than it was 15 years ago.
On top of that, there's loads of porn posted on Reddit, Twitter, Twitch and suchlike. So any effective block is going to have a lot of collateral damage.
The Texas HB 1181 law only applies to websites which have content that is at least 1/3 porn. If Reddit doesn’t qualify for that requirement, then the Texas law doesn’t require ID verification.
There will always people who will arbitrage the gaps between the legal definition of something and the practical application. The blast radius of those kinds of issues always has been huge.
Not social media sites. Sites like Reddit are everything. Some also go out of their way to hide certain information from parents.
Reddit (not to be too picky) does some weird things when a logger is in place, essentially making it impossible to know which subreddit is being accessed.
And that's really where the bad stuff lurks - it's peer to peer interactions.
That seems implausible given that most sites requiring age verification outsource it to some third party, which means they're not getting all the juicy biometrics.
Honestly, I wasn't being quite that cynical. Just pointing out that there are actors who have business interests in applying a worse architecture.
But IIRC this was made manifest in Alabama, where a tech company lobbied for their age law and then captured the sole source contract for doing the verification.
> there’s also people who want to restrict access to adult material
First of all - we’ve been down this path so many times. Won’t someone think of the children is a plea to emotion not to reason. Secondly, there are many ways that people can opt in to those controls already, and for the most part _they work_. Anyone who can bypass those will be able to bypass what’s being rolled out around the world. Lastly; they’re trivially bypassable because a grown up can validate and then just hand the device back to a child.
The UK is pretty good at digital services and had a solid opportunity to make an anonymous, privacy first based age verification system. I designed one (not without flaws) in about 15 minutes, so we definitely could have had something decent. Instead our first move was to make something that basically required a liability shift, and we ended up sending face scans and passport photos to US tech giants - meanwhile the kids were just pointing their cameras at YouTube videos of adults and bypassing the filters.
> The U.K. Online Safety Act was (avowedly, as revealed in a recent High Court case) “not primarily aimed at protecting children” but at regulating “services that have a significant influence over public discourse.”
The age verification system currently undergoing large scale field trials in the EU does not require uploading ID. Every member of the EU is required to support that system, and any online age verification laws any member passes are required to allow its use.