[bengale]

This is what I'm getting at, this is an ideological position. You are of course welcome to hold it, but you will have a way worse solution forced on you by normal people who will not go along with this binary view of the world. The default position will be that kids come first.

[bigyabai]

Rejecting "trust"-based models is a purely technical position. You can disagree with my stance, but unless you have the authority to disprove me then you're just voicing an opinion too. "Trust" has no built-in validation, there is valid reason to be skeptical.

I agree that the "think of the kids/terrorists/puppy killers" rhetoric is effective, but I don't think that's a reason to dilute my stance. I haven't seen a single age verification proposal that both works and isn't abusable. I cannot imagine a technical solution to this issue any more than I can write a Python program that detects terrorists. It is simply a bad idea that endangers children more than it could possibly protect them.

[bengale]

Well the direction of travel now is that you provide your identification documents to all providers, that feels like a far worse solution that some trusted attestation nodes to me.

The options available are not "perfect solution" and "do nothing". It's currently "terrible solution" or we fill in the second option. If there is no perfect solution to put on the table then "do nothing" doesn't suddenly become available.