Age verification proposals are often presented as a simple tradeoff: sacrifice a little privacy to better safeguard children online. But that framing overlooks a more fundamental question. What happens to people who cannot verify their age at all? This is particularly a problem when users are required to prove their age with identity documents.

        • StabbingSky@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 days ago

          You do realize that a significant amount of laws that apply to the population don’t apply to politicians and the ultra wealthy, right?

          It’s currently one of the biggest societal issues on the planet.

          • lIlIlIlIlIlIl@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 days ago

            The point of this comment thread is not about who can get away with it. That’s not up for debate.

            The only point I have made is: the wealthy have no more power to hide their online activities than you or I do

            • StabbingSky@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 days ago

              Yes, it is. The statement was that they would be beholden to the same age verification requirements that we would.

              What people have been trying to tell you is that your assumption isn’t backed by precedent.

                • StabbingSky@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 days ago

                  That’s the fun part - they don’t! There are no special 1s nor 0s

                  Yea, it was what was being discussed. Your assertion is that it’s impossible for the ruling class to have an exception. You seem to think a technical limitation exists where none does.

                  You’re factually incorrect, and show neither an understanding of how networking/websites function, or understanding of how the ultra wealthy and the politicians they buy have a very long history of giving themselves loopholes so the rules don’t apply to them.

                  Stop moving the goalposts

                  • lIlIlIlIlIlIl@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    2 days ago

                    I never asserted anything over legality. Did you paste the wrong comment? You’re not making any sense. I asserted that wealth can’t buy you shielding today. What are you even on about?

      • lIlIlIlIlIlIl@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 days ago

        I’m not debating a straw man argument

        It’s not about “getting away with it” - my point is I can mask my online activity as well or better than anyone with endless funds

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 days ago

          my point is I can mask my online activity as well or better than anyone with endless funds

          For now. But we’re not talking about the status quo; we’re talking about a future with comprehensive age verification schemes that render all your current masking tactics impossible or illegal.

          • lIlIlIlIlIlIl@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 days ago

            I’m talking about today. Illegality has no bearing on possibility, which is the only point I have argued for