What on earth would lead you to conclude that unbanked households don’t use online services? I can’t imagine any possible set of starting assumptions that would lead there, short of fairly cartoonish assumptions about the demographics the FDIC pointed out at that link.
Even within the unbanked households, the FDIC link points out that 1/3 use online non-bank services instead. And independently of that, it makes sense that even cash households might interface with online commercial activity: pick up gig work through DoorDash or UberEats or whatever; get paid out through a neighborhood informal-cash-service operator (multiservicio, hawala, guy who informally cashes out undocumented drivers). Or through opening a Venmo or CashApp account instead of a bank account.
That leads to a slightly stronger form of the claim: that those 5.6 million are likely to have undergone KYC/AML through other, non-bank financial providers…
But even then, why should a bank account be connected to whether or not you’re an adult in society’s eyes?
> and those 5.6 million probably aren't accessing sites that require age verification.
Why would you presume that?
> Not every solution needs to work for 100% of people.
A solution that censors large amounts of speech and culture from millions of people is clearly either insufficient or, if it is deemed sufficient, authoritarian.
I did not read anywhere that this solution can only be used if it's the ONLY solution. Did you?
How is the statement "not every solution needs to work for 100% of the people" controversial? People are different, with different circumstances and ideally there are a variety of solutions to cover all of them
Any incremental advance is better than nothing where our rights are getting eroded faster than we can contact the ACLU to start investigating whether or not we have a case. The American Right have figured out that they can DDOS the legal system with all kinds of bullshit laws that they know won't stick, but it will take everyone 10x the time and effort that they spent spewing it out.
We can't back and wait for the perfect solution that covers all corner cases and makes everyone happy and has the perfect UX. We have to fight now while we still have something to fight for.
If the system is that I have to prove my id or age for averag network connections, then the system has already failed me. The only system I am behind is a flag that some devices can send if enabled that lets the receiving party know the user is underage. Completely optional (controllable by device owner/guardian) but if received, that party must behave in a way that acknowledges that fact. It is not a perfect system, but it retains the freedoms and anonymity of the user.
Even within the unbanked households, the FDIC link points out that 1/3 use online non-bank services instead. And independently of that, it makes sense that even cash households might interface with online commercial activity: pick up gig work through DoorDash or UberEats or whatever; get paid out through a neighborhood informal-cash-service operator (multiservicio, hawala, guy who informally cashes out undocumented drivers). Or through opening a Venmo or CashApp account instead of a bank account.
That leads to a slightly stronger form of the claim: that those 5.6 million are likely to have undergone KYC/AML through other, non-bank financial providers…
But even then, why should a bank account be connected to whether or not you’re an adult in society’s eyes?