Online threats to children are real, but the headlong pursuit of age verification that we’re seeing around the world is unacceptable in its approach and far too broad in scope — and we simply can’t afford to get this wrong.
To be clear, parents’ concerns are valid and sincere. Few people would argue that kids should have unfettered access to adult material, to self-harm how-tos, to social media platforms that manipulate them and expose them to abuse.
But it’s the very depth of those worries that is being cynically exploited. Age verification as is currently being proposed in country after country would mean the death of anonymity online.
And we know exactly who stands to gain: The same tech giants who built the privacy nightmare that the internet is today.
I’m fine with that.
Who exactly do you mean by “I”? Preferably with an exact address, just so we know you’re serious about it.
Not being anonymous is not equivalent to broadcasting your personal information to everyone. Maybe that’s why people are so confused here. They think that they will have to post their addresses and phone numbers online?
That’s the best part, companies do that for you
Those are two different things. Being identifiable online is not the same as giving some company your personal information. People give companies their info all the time without online age verification. Age verification done the right way does not require providing any personal info. I 100% oppose forcing people to share personal data with private companies. This is not what we’re talking about here.
Handing your government ID and other personal data to private companies is exactly how current proposals for online age verification work. It could be done without this, but that’s not what governments and corporations are pushing for, because the goal is easier surveillance. Take a look at some of the problems with Persona, for example:
https://stateofsurveillance.org/news/persona-age-verification-surveillance-biometrics-government-reporting-2026/
Not in my country. Spain and EU are proposing different system. I’m not talking about your country and your laws. I’m talking about mine.
I don’t see you using your real name here.
A bit hypocritical if you ask me.
What’s your first and last name?
Why?
Misinformation is a great threat to democracy. I live in country with independent courts, free press and freedom of speech. Everyone can criticize the government all they want without repercussions. The threats posed by huge bot farms working to promote fascist far outweigh the fantasy benefits of using anonymous communities to organize some resistance to nonexistent tyrants. Where I live the anonymity online is used exclusively to bully, threaten and defame people. It can be different in different countries but where I live I don’t see any benefits of being able to post things online anonymously.
This won’t stop misinformation. This will only allow it to run more rampant.
No, it will not.
Which magical country is that? Like, I get some eurohaugtiness vibes from your comment, so as a fellow eurofucker I can tell you, with quite some confidence, that you’re wrong. You’re probably just too privileged for this to matter to you, personally.
Spain.
Ja! Tócate los cojones, Mariloli!
Free press: when you can’t even record the police, it’s illegal (kind of, in theory. Absolutely forbidden in practice). Freedom of speech: unless it’s against the Crown, or the Church, or national unity, or… Independent courts: independent from fairness, and the truth? Sure. Independent from the establishment’s power? Not at all. So, yes, you’re too privileged to care for any of this, but worry not, amigo, those privileges are being transferred upwards so (unless you’re part of the top elite) you’ll care soon enough. We don’t have anything to envy the USA or China (on these matters). I’ve been there, not as a tourist, so it’s not hearsay.
WTF are you talking about? I see recording of police in media all the time. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/OLwILBtbs0M - OMG! The public TV recorded the police and it’s absolutely forbidden in practice. I’m sure they are all in jail now.
The rest of your arguments are equally silly. I’m not even going to waste my time on them.
Spain literally has a law commonly known as “ley mordaza”, which enabled law enforcement to impose massive fines to protesters, some of whom ended up spending months in prison.
Were they protesting anonymously online? If not I don’t see how’s that relevant. Anti government protests are happening all the time in Spain. There are laws that govern those, like in every other country. Did you just google that quickly and paste the first result without understanding it?
I’m a born and raised Spaniard who lived there for over 35 years, and was beaten up by cops at least once. I think I know a thing or two about the system.
You said that in Spain people have the right to protest freely against the government, yet the ley mordaza proves that’s not all true, e.g. https://www.es.amnesty.org/en-que-estamos/blog/historia/articulo/ley-mordaza/
But regardless of all that, there’s an even more solid proof that removing anonymity on the internet is a bad idea in the current Spanish climate: La Liga has been threatening individuals and companies for well over a year now, with the help of the courts and the inaction of the government. Somehow, they had access to internet users’ personal data, and have been sending out letters requesting payment for alleged “pirated content distribution and consumption”. They have pressured ISPs to throttle and even block entire blocks of IP addresses. They have sued people for libel because of insults towards their current president.
My point here is that, if a sports corporation could do that when people are still able to be “anonymous” online, how can you guarantee that Spain wouldn’t devolve into a full fledged corporate fascist state, where those with money have the effective power to target dissidents for the pettiest reason, if anonymity were to go away?
Oh yes, we need anonymity online so people can pirate football and libel others online. Great argument. You totally convinced me.
And yes, la ley mordaza made protests illegal… Why do we have protests all the time then? Parties from far left to far rights have public meetings and marches all the time. Worker’s unions strike and protests all the time. Who is being oppressed by the socialist government now when Vox is participating without issues in all elections and people express support for them freely? Podemos emerged when PP was in power and lost support because of internal scandals exposed by free press when they were part of the government. In Andalucia, where I live PP is in power, the country is governed centrally by PSEO. Free elections happen all the time, opposition parties win elections all the time. But yes, if they can only get age verification in place it will all devolve into a corporate fascist state… I really don’t know how someone can seriously believe that.
Lol
Yawn. You sound like the lobbyists. They want ID to control us, to selectively spread more misinformation.
Nobody will be able to criticize the government, you will be targeted. The bots promoting fascism are the same ones spreading bullshit like this to push for the fascist non-anonymous internet.
It sounds like you shouldnt be using the internet at all.
You sound like a conspiracy theorist. Where I live people are criticizing the government every day. We have opposition parties, activist and unions. We have reporters uncovering corrupt politicians all the time, on all levels of government. The politicians are prosecuted and reporters keep reporting. They all act in the open, not by posting anonymous comments on twitter. As I said, if you live in a country where the government will target you for posting wrong comment then you should totally oppose those law (but your opposition will be meaningless because you already don’t live in a free country). Those laws are not global, each country will introduce them on their own. Where I live, ending online anonymity will have positive effect on democracy.
“You sound like a conspiracy theorist” such low effort way to wave away another point.
You sound like a fucking fascist then.
You missed the rest of my comment where I explained why I think that. This or you don’t know what ‘wave away’ means.
Get outta here fascist.
And that’s a great example of what people use online anonymity for and why I’m not a fan.
We know, fascist.
Do you really think no one in this thread would call you a dumb fascist to your face?
No, I know there are a lot of kids here. I’m not surprised, I’m just saying that it shows why age verification is a good thing.
Explain.
When done correctly, and someone’s ID remains anonymous from the general public if they wish so, then I’d also be fine with that. Way too many trolls and other forms of bad actors on the Web who intentionally or unintentionally use ad hominems or other toxic communication, it’s so hopelessly divisive and draining.
I recently saw a documentary about looksmaxxing. The forums these kids peruse echo the deepest pits of hell; insisting on suicide and all the forms of psychological bullying one cannot even imagine.
Whether it’s the best solution I don’t know, it’s probably not. But from my point of view, taking away the anonymity from the authorities would significantly lower the amount of depravity on the Web. The crux in this whole matter is of course that the authorities are virtuous, fair, just. If they are not, which all too often is the case, then removing anonymity can be an equally dangerous thing as well.
Obviously everything boils down to education, which needs a complete overhaul. But that’s something that will take decades if not a century to turn humanity into a predominantly virtuous species.
Hey, guess what you need to buy an internet connection in the first place! Wanting more ID verification is only fascism.
How exactly would id verification help against that. Do you want “toxic speech” to become a crime and punished by a court of law?
Bullying and disinformation, absolutely.
From the paper What Deters Crime? Comparing the Effectiveness of Legal, Social, and Internal Sanctions Across Countries, citing a meta-analysis:
The paper concludes as follows:
As I said, is it the best solution? Science hasn’t a clear answer either. What does seem to be agreed upon is that:
My hypothesis is that complete anonymity, so a low probability of getting caught, increases toxic behavior because people suffer no bad consequences whatsoever and therefore never learn. Ever hung around a spoiled kid? They’re the worst. The same happens online. Naturally, proper journalists and whistleblowers are a different thing, absolute anonymity is crucial for them. But how to square both these realities remains to be discovered.
Exactly this + all the trolls promoting fascism with great success.
Also, congrats on going against the groupthink on lemmy. The pro anonymity crowd here is especially toxic, which only further proves our point.
It’s just remarkably disappointing that so many of said cohort is all for freedom or libertarian, but they simultaneously downvote comments into being hidden and offer no counter-arguments. The irony.
But I sigh at discourse online in general, on all sides, for it’s riddled with fallacies. Or even downvotes and upvotes, they mean little to nothing. I know because as an admin I realize there’s tons of people who use multiple accounts, not two or three, but tens of accounts, to skew the votes in their favor.
I have downvotes disables on my instance so I really don’t care about them. I know groupthink is strong on lemmy. Usually I just ignore it but when I’m bored I like to poke people a little bit. Some people are actually interested in discussing things, most just follow the masses. It’s disappointing but that’s internet for you.
Toxic for freedom!