[pjc50]

The steelman argument is that parents are not necessarily up to date on the technology, and cannot reasonably be expected to supervise teenagers 24/7 up to the age of 18. Compare movie ratings or alcohol laws, for example: there's a non-parental obligation on third parties not to provide alcohol to children or let them in to R18 showings.

But the implementation matters, and almost all of these bills internationally are being done in bad faith by coordinated big-money groups against technologically illiterate and reactionary populist governments.

(if we really want to get into an argument, there's what the UK calls "Gillick competence": the ability of children to seek medical treatment without the knowledge and against the will of their parents)

[graemep]

In the UK parents can give children alcohol below the age of 18. parents get to make the final decision at home so I do not think its really comparable.

I would personally favour allowing parents to buy drinks for children below the current limits (18 without a meal, 16 for wine, beer and cider with a meal).

The alternative to this is empowering parents by regulating SIM cards (child safe cards already exist) and allowing parents to control internet connectivity either through the ISP or at the router - far better than regulating general purpose devices. The devices come with sensible defaults that parents can change.

[Mchat22]

Suggesting that regulating ISPs or SIM cards or even public WiFi is an alternative to the OSA or age and identity verification is ignoring the reality that mandatory filtering of internet connections has been a legal requirement for a very long time now, and it has been 'voluntary' (by the ISPs themselves, opt-out by customers, pushed on by Cameron) for even longer.

It is not a new or novel concept. There are legal adults taking part in these conversations that are simply too young to have ever experienced internet connections that weren't restricted and filtered mandated by legislation, and they would have been teenagers that were old enough to have a say in the conversation when the Conservatives were debating the OSA in parliament.

Mobile internet connections have been filtered since 2004 even, so it's entirely likely that this would also be true for some people that are pushing 30 today. The debate on whether it's appropriate for internet filters to block access to Childline, the NSPCC, the Police, the BBC, Parliament, etc, is 15 years old at this point. Fifteen.

The false dichotomy that exists between the entirely authoritarian measures of the OSA and the still fairly authoritarian measures of mandatory filtering serves only the interests of borderline monopolistic American tech companies who are in a position to weather such regulations as they stifle and snuff out any possibility of a less harmful web ecosystem, and people will cheer it on as they believe the social media platforms they blame for causing harm will themselves be harmed by the very laws they are writing.

The real alternative is not having mandatory filtering but instead voluntary filtering by the parents themselves, which is what everybody seems to think they are arguing for, and that conversation is long since dead. It is entirely beside the point, but contrast it with alcohol laws. The UK is one of the few countries in Europe that has consumption laws both in private(+) and in public, whereas half of Europe only has consumption laws in public while the other half has no consumption laws in either private or public. America on the other hand has many states that prohibit under-21s from drinking alcohol even in private. A better comparison may be content ratings, which are largely entirely voluntary and not a legal requirement.

(+) It's 5+ so there may as well be no laws on private consumption.

[_heimdall]

That steelman still stands on a core assumption that its both the state's responsibility and right to step in and parent on everyone's behalf.

Maybe a majority of people today agree with that, but I know I don't and I never hear that assumption debated directly.

[antonvs]

> I never hear that assumption debated directly.

The idea of the "nanny state" has been debated a lot, and this seems like a very literal example of that. But once some status quo is firmly entrenched, debate about it tends to die down because the majority of people no longer care enough about it.

[gzread]

The point of having a state at all is to create a framework where people are set up to succeed.

[heavyset_go]

Everyone shouldn't have to lose their privacy just because you're too lazy to use parental controls or give your kids devices that are made for children.

[gzread]

Entering your child's age when you create their user account is a loss of privacy?

[PeterisP]

The current bills (e.g. NY one at https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S8102/amendm... ) require age assurance that goes beyond mere assertions, so when creating your (adult) user account it would be required to give away your privacy to prove your age - if you can't implement a way for anonymous/pseudonymous people to verify that they indeed are adults (and not kids claiming to be so), these bills prohibit you to manufacture internet-connected systems that can be used by anonymous/pseudonymous users.

[gzread]

We are also talking about the Illinois one, which doesn't do that

[_heimdall]

Where exactly are you getting that goal of a state from? Maybe that's one of the goals today, historically I don't think it was anywhere on the list.

[edgyquant]

Then frankly you haven’t seen many debates around age verification as it’s the main thing discussed every time it’s brought up

[_heimdall]

You are correct, I didn't pay close attention to any EU debates that may have happened, I haven't lived there in years. In the US I haven't seen much debate at all, regardless of the bill really we don't seem to have leaders openly and honestly debate anything.