[sdoering]

I could just as easily turn this argument around:

If my younger self, went into a store to buy a bottle of Vodka, before I came of age at 18 here in Germany, it wasn't my parents fault. It was the shop that did not check my license that was liable.

If they sold me beer before I was 16, same situation. Analogous for cigarettes. Or me trying to enter an amusement arcade (with monetary gains possible, not just pinball like things.

So why should "online stores" / "arcades" / "non kid friendly/appropriate venues" be treated differently than brick and mortar ones?

Wouldn't that be the same argument?

[pardon_me]

The company should be responsible for providing options to block all or part of the content, and warn users of the content type, depending on their place in the pipeline.

For example, Apple and Google should provide tools for the parents to set up a device appropriately for a child, much like the shop should not sell alcohol to underage customers. Similarly, content producers should specifically need to label content targeted for children or specially 18+, like the producer of alcohol must warn customers on the label and inform the retailers.

Parents and caretakers need information to make an informed decisions before being able to consume the media themselves. They also need some granular tools on the device to avoid banning them entirely. The burden is shared between creator, distributor and consumer.

We already had laws for this and it makes sense for some type of access control to the open internet. The shocking part is the requirement for everyone to verify ID to multiple public and private institutions, more than once per.

An analogy for the UK now would be needing ID to enter the supermarket (access the internet), ID to look at anything aimed at adults and potentially harmful such as alcohol, chemicals, sugary food, medicine etc. (know "potentially harmful" subjects exist), ID to look at anything lawfully 18+ such as alcohol and cigarettes (view the content), then ID again to make the 18+ purchase from an account needing ID to open.

[sdoering]

Back in the day, I was able to enter a video rental store without ID. But the erotic section was cordoned of to my younger self.

Today, my younger self would go to Reddit, click any of the myriads of subreddits catering to any kink and just click "yes", when being prompted to ensure he is old enough to view NSFW content. Or on p*nhub. Or anywhere. I actually do not care for tobacco or liquor advertising. I did not become an lsd eating circle for playing PacMan. Nor did I become an alcoholic for watching hundreds hours of alcohol advertising till coming of age in Germany.

So why ask for an ID when entering the internet (supermarket) instead of fining the respective companies into oblivion, if they allow minors in? Why burden the tax payer with an infrastructure? Make the companies making a shitload of money pay for ensuring they adhere to the law. Because actually allowing minors access to hardcore porn is - at least here - already illegal. But hey, we can't enforce it, because it is the internet.

Sorry, but I am just not a fan of setting up a society wide system, that tells the big advertisers: This is a real person. Or even: This is Joe Schimansky from so and so, age this and that. This is not any data the likes of Meta or Google should have.

Nor should the government have a system in place that enables them to track who gets verified for what content.

If private entities want to make money from content that is not fit for minors - they need to pay to ensure it isn't accessed. Or carry the consequences.

I know, I can get riled up. But quite a few of these initiatives to me either smell like regulatory capture and/or like a convenient way of monitoring society.

[ASalazarMX]

> If my younger self, went into a store to buy a bottle of Vodka, before I came of age at 18 here in Germany, it wasn't my parents fault. It was the shop that did not check my license that was liable.

Except this can only be fair if they carded everyone who buys liquor, not only people who appear young, otherwise it's subjective, and businesses shouldn't be liable if a tall, bearded teen buys vodka, because he looks older than 18.

Of course, in reality, liquor store cashiers are allowed to judge subjectively, but VPN providers won't be allowed to. And they'll probably be asked to share records of registered adults in the future, given the repeated efforts to backdoor encryption in the same UK. This is unlikely to be only about protecting the children.

[whynotmaybe]

I bought a product that requires ID verification in Massachusetts and the cashier couldn't complete the transaction without scanning my driver's license.

[moritonal]

That's a really fair point. I suppose it's reasonable to point out that adults do have to provide ID quite often to buy things, but it's skipped so often because people can just look at us so we don't "feel" it. I think my problem comes from how I don't believe my cornershop records my ID when they see it, whilst I imagine these services would.

[luplex]

the problem is that devices are meant to be tools. They do not provide access to services, but you use them to access them. Limiting my devices' ability to do what i ask of them is more like geofencing my shoes, because you might use them to walk to the casino.

[sdoering]

Sorry, if I was not clear enough. I explicitly did not want to limit devices - on the contrary. I am all for my device, my ability to use it how I like.

I meant that it is the responsibility of Facebook/Meta/Instagram to ensure that content is age appropriate - given the laws, rules and regulations of the country they are delivering the content to.

I mean, clearly it should be in the responsibility of p*nhub not only to ask "Are you over 18"? If I had this form of freely available porn, clearly I would have clicked it. Or respective subreddits.

Clearly and totally fine for consenting adults. Not so much for my 13 year old self a few decades back.