[XzAeRosho]

I know most of this affects only the US, but I'm wondering where this will go in the EU if the Age Verification Tech goes ahead in America. There's been lots of efforts to increase surveillance disguised as protection for kids in the EU and UK.

The Swiss implementation of eID may be hint that governments may/will take the responsibility to implement and maintain the tech, but the multiple intrusions and lobbying by Palantir and friends in the EU gives me the ick.

[sschueller]

The Swiss eID is open source[1] and it's usage will be limited. Any type of age verification for online service would need go to a vote and would probably loose. "Eigenverantwortung", it is the parents job to look after the kids, not the state.

[1] https://github.com/swiyu-admin-ch

[kakacik]

You can't just push responsibility for the kids to the parents, where is the world going? This is madness.

The next thing you are going to claim kids from young age shouldn't have fully unlocked smart phones, shouldn't install any app and so on. Where is the end of this? Are you telling me parents should spend more time with kids, heck even be their role models although it is much harder compared to just giving up on them and let the glorious internet and various fashionate toxic tribes raise them? Blasphemy!!!

[throwaway173738]

Look, I have a two-year old. But I think it’s possible to do what you want without compromising the privacy of the user. I also don’t think it’s right to require every device to share information that makes my child a target for predators like Meta.

[intrasight]

I totally agree with that sentiment but we can and should both have good parents and safe devices.

[kps]

You mean ‘safe devices’ that don't let hostile actors know everything I'm doing, right?

[jamespo]

Yes, no-one knew what I was doing on my Vic-20, you should try it

[PeterStuer]

Where has a few decades of "safety" culture catering to the greater moron really brought us?

[throawayonthe]

a vague response to a vague rhethorical question:

a lot of safer morons? we all are the 'greater moron' in some area at some point, cmon

[Forgeties79]

Seatbelts and helmets have saved countless lives

[intrasight]

And tort law has saved hundreds of thousands of lives

[Quarrelsome]

> we can and should both have good parents

but we always will have bad parents. So any legistlation needs to account for that. Otherwise those children with the worst parents have the greater digital abilities/opportunities/misfortunes.

[intrasight]

I am rephrasing my statement then:

"we should have good parents and can and should safe devices"

"Can have good parents" is implying we control something that we don't. Kids with the worst parents will always be at a disadvantage.

[andrepd]

Parents shouldn't beat or rape their kids yet many thousands do. Parents should teach their kids about sex yet we still have sex ed in schools. Parents shouldn't deprive their kids of an education yet a minority do for religious our personal reasons; we still have compulsory schooling. Parents shouldn't give cigarretes or alcohol to kids yet we still have laws to prevent their sale to minors.

I'm always unsure what your sort of argument seems to imply. Kids are not property of their parents and the state routinely makes decisions about children's welfare.

[mothballed]

Kids are not property of the parents. Because with property rights comes responsibility.

And that's the catch-22 imposed on parents. Society wants to lord over the power as if the child is their property but none of the responsibility. Anything that went wrong is the parent's fault. It's always more and more requirements upon the parent, a nearly one way imposition of power where law or society says what you must do but of course you will bear all the costs. But by god you better not morally outrage someone or they'll have CPS up your ass.

It's largely the cheapest kind of concern. The kind where you mete out punishment out of a sense of smug moral superiority, but never lift a hand to help out for the endeavors you advocate for, only to push them into a sort of moral tragedy of the commons.

These laws only mete out punishment for people failing to obey, not actually provide support, it is essentially theatre of pretending to care about children. Theatre by the most evil of people, those that use kids as political props.

[47282847]

> Because with property rights comes responsibility

Response-ability. The ability to respond. Which you have, if you want it or not, for anything and everything you can respond to.

You see children on the streets getting beat up? Your response-ability. You see someone throwing garbage to the ground? Your response-ability.

What you DO with it, whether you act on it, or you deny to have it, doesn’t matter. It is purely the ability, the capacity to. And not responding is also a response. We typically share response-abilities with others around us who are similarly capable. Ownership doesn’t inherently come with increased response-ability. Power does.

Maybe you are confusing responsibility with (legal) liability?

See also: Duty to rescue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue - at least as applied and lived in EU, LatAm, Africa; and some US states on paper

[genewitch]

responsibility:

> "fact or condition of being responsible, accountable, or answerable," from 1780s.

and in the mid 1790s it meant "that for which one is responsible; a trust, duty, etc."

i am not sure where you're getting this "ability to respond" idea from. i understand the ideal, it just won't work with humans, unless we go back to being tribal.

The key point in the etymology is "that for which one is responsible" you have to actually be responsible for some "thing" to have any responsibility.

even "Response" comes from re- + Sponsor, which:

> The general sense of "one who binds himself to answer for another and be responsible for his conduct" is by 1670s.

i am not bound by anyone else on this planet, thanks very much.

[sensanaty]

It really isn't as simple as "Just be a better parent". To use my nephews as an example, my sisters take good care to make sure there's no device usage at home. They've got dumb phones, my sisters don't use their smartphones around the kids either unless it's to take a call, TV/screen time is extremely limited (1h on Saturdays). The older one (12) has an iPhone with parental controls on and tuned to the max, no Youtube or anything like that, and I (the techie in the family) made sure to set it up so it's not easy to circumvent the blocks either.

Y'know what happens instead? Their friends have unfettered access to smartphones, so my nephews see all the idiotic brainrotting shit on youtube shorts anyways. If not at home, they'll see all the crap we're blocking at school from their friends anyways. Hell, they could just go to the library and access the free public computers there if they wanted to! So my sisters who are responsible and do everything correctly, still suffer, and like any reasonable parent don't want to go to the extreme of locking their children up in cages and not letting them outside of the house.

There's a reason we don't legislate alcohol and tobacco sales to the same tune of "Just police your kids 24/7 and keep them under lock and key", we instead realize that we can't (or, shouldn't) supervise kids 24/7 day in and day out, and have society-wide rules that forces everyone to not sell booze to anyone underage.

[__david__]

Similarly, one of your nephews has a friend with parents that don’t lock their liquor cabinet, which means despite all the laws not allowing sales of alcohol to minors, they still have access to it.

I think what your sisters are doing is fine—they’re sending a signal to their kids that this stuff isn’t “good” and though they’ll undoubtedly encounter it in the world, they’re now going to be inherently biased a certain way. And that’s kinda the best you can hope for.

[sensanaty]

> Similarly, one of your nephews has a friend with parents that don’t lock their liquor cabinet, which means despite all the laws not allowing sales of alcohol to minors, they still have access to it.

Funnily enough that's how I ended up getting drunk the first time, a friend stole some liquor from their parent's liquor cabinet :p We both ended up in a lot of trouble over it, him more than me obviously.

But that's sort of the point as well, if they go down that route then it's easier to catch them and it's easier to punish them for their actions. It's also much more obvious that what they're doing is the wrong thing because it involves a lot of sneaking around, deception and even stealing from your own parents. It makes kids less willing to do it in the first place (unless you're a dumbass like my friend and I).

With something like a smartphone, your parents might not let you have one but every single other kid around you has one, so at that point it only becomes an arbitrary rule that your parents imposed on you, and not a wider rule that everyone has to adhere to. If we treated smartphones for children similarly to how we treat alcohol or tobacco, the parents would have a much easier time enforcing these rules.

> ...they’re now going to be inherently biased a certain way

Or they could go the complete opposite way as well. I mean it's the most common trope/facet of being a kid, that stage of rebellion against your parents and their rules. You still have that with things like alcohol and tobacco of course, but at that point it becomes rebellion against society et al which is a bigger deal and harder hurdle to get over than rebelling against your parents and their rules.

[Forgeties79]

I don’t understand why this sentiment keeps coming up when it’s clear parents are expected to do more than ever now.

Are you going to sit here and tell me your parents were aware of every time you touched a computer or turned on the TV? They vetted everything you consumed? It was a lot easier back then to do. I bet your parents couldn’t even figure out how to block a single channel on their tv, nor did they likely even try. Most of our parents never did.

[otterley]

It helped that, at the time, most video was broadcast over the air and thus subject to FCC regulations relating to content, and that advertisers would pull funds from stations and networks that aired content that was too controversial. Other, non-regulated or less regulated (“adult”) content was for pay and the systems had child lockouts.

It’s much easier to relinquish parental control of media exposure when the system helps you out by moderating the content. But the Internet changed everything. I can’t imagine how difficult it must be as a parent to oversee media exposure for their children nowadays without pulling the plug on social media altogether.

[Forgeties79]

Exactly! There was a bare minimum that ensured your kid could only get so far before hitting some sort of barrier. Now it's basically non-existent unless 1) your ISP or service you're using, all private companies at that, decide to give you effective tools that you then have to take time to learn and implement all while knowing you will have to constantly monitor those tools and see how things change (not to mention how your kid changes with time) while trusting those private entities aren't taking advantage of you and your kid. It's maddening.

I am more technoligically literate than most of my peers and even I find I spend a lot of time on this problem. My kids aren't even teens yet, it's going to suck to keep up with this.

[svachalek]

Not just social media but internet bandwidth altogether. If you have an internet connection someone somewhere is using it to push things to your kids.

[sjogress]

Raising a kid takes a village.

It is not like parents are the only influential figures in a kid's upbringing, they are not the only role models, they should not be the only ones paying attention and guiding kids to adulthood.

Parental control options as they stand are severely lacking. If you add the actively predatory enshittification efforts conducted by seemingly all larges tech companies, you are left either forbidding your kid from accessing anything (this does not work if the kid's friends have access) or allowing far more than you are comfortable with.

Lets take YouTube as an example. As it stands you have the options of YouTube (with both the most wonderful content available on one hand, and toxicity and brain rot shorts on the other) or YouTube Kids - an app with controls that do not work. How about allowing parents to whitelist content and/or creators instead of letting the algorithms run the show?

Spotify is another example. How about letting parents control whether the kid's account is plastered with videos, podcasts and AI slop?

How about your run of the mill browser, letting parents review and allow websites on a case-by-case basis? Maybe my kid is ready for news sites but not Reddit? Maybe 4chan and 8kun are better reserved for the more adventorous adults as opposed to impressionable kids?

I agree that age verification is a bad solution, but what the hell are parents supposed to reach for? It's not like Silicon Valley are stepping up with any real solutions or even propositions to these problems, it is left for - at best clueless - politicians to navigate the problem space.

Raising a kid takes a village.

[kakacik]

I agree with you, it takes a small friendly village (or at least a largeish multigenerational close family nearby at the lowest minimum).

But we are in western 21st century, people leave their places of birth for myriad of reasons, some better than others but all equally good for them, given its almost never easy to lose one's roots and just move on one's own.

I am in this category, we have 2 small kids and any family is at least 1000km away, the actually helpful good one more like 1500km (and no its not just a hop on some local planes, rather full day ordeal at minimum). No nanny. We see how kids and grandparents enjoy each other, grandparents have more... mental capacity? to teach them after our long day at work and so on.

But there are reasons we moved, its complex mix of leaving poor corrupted place with higher criminality where kids would struggle to achieve a good life via moral legal work and just good efforts. Not everybody has the luxury to come from background where the only difference is amount of money earned. So you give kids a better start and environment, while giving them much smaller set of role models and people who have time for them outside school.

At the end its our choices and our responsibility to raise them. No phones for a loooong time, and even after that some dumb nokia. They can screw up their lives on their own once adults, we won't contribute there even if it would be tremendously easier lifestyle.

[svachalek]

I think this is the real problem, providers have no accountability. Rather than forcing everyone to give up their privacy we should force the providers to use a few basic labels, pornography, educational, etc, let parents actually choose what their kids see, and most importantly make them liable for crossing the line.

It’s ridiculous that schools are forcing young children to carry devices for educational work that will also happily serve up brainrot, video games, and porn — with the supposed solution that the parent needs to be watching over their shoulder 24/7. Let’s just give all the kids loaded guns too, and say if anything goes wrong it’s just bad parenting.

[GlacierFox]

Clearly the other commenters haven't picked up on your blatant sarcasm for some reason.

[askl]

Can happen sometimes. I down voted the comment after reading only the first sentence but then corrected it to an upvote after reading the rest. Not sure if many people have an attention span long enough to do something like this.

[plewd]

Even noticing the sarcasm, it just seems a bit... unnecessary? It interrupts a discussion without adding much, so to me just seems snarky for no good reason.

[aiisjustanif]

While I appreciate sarcasm in a time of privacy crisis, I agree. We come to hackernews for discourse and try to follow the rules to have better discourse and comments that only provide sarcasm work against that.

[jwr]

The EU, unfortunately, has shown to be very susceptible to this kind of lobbying in the past. We regularly see legislation that is being rammed and rushed through in spite of vocal opposition. I would be very, very worried. (EU citizen)

[roysting]

The EU puts a nice shine on things, but there are systemic and fundamental characteristics of the EU that not only make it more susceptible to "lobbying" and ignoring the electorate; which are also far more difficult to change by that electorate than in the USA where we still have direct elections of individuals not party lists (in most cases) that cause total loyalty to the party, not the constituency.

[ozlikethewizard]

But the EU also doesn't have the same level of power as the US federal government. It's a loosely federated coalition of seperate nations, not one entity.

[roysting]

That was the idea of what the EU would be ... now it dictates what people can eat and do even though it is not actually a legitimate or sovereign government, while national/local elections are effectively meaningless exercises as even and especially in Europe, the local elected officials generally will be loyal to the party that can and will protect and bequeath benefits upon them over any local constituents. The EU was and is a con job. Unfortunately, you still believe the old promise of "massive returns with zero risk", until you want to withdraw your earnings.

"A loosely federated coalition of separate nations, not one entity" is actually a very good description of what the USA was before the Civil War and would technically need to abide by in order to be Constitutionally valid and legitimate; but alas, we have whatever this world dominating empire is that wraps itself in the branding and stolen identity of the United States of America, a literal antithesis of what the founders created. It is why there has always been such an intense and relentless propaganda effort to demonize "states' rights", the equivalent of which legitimate European sovereign countries and people will likely also face if the plans to the powers that are seeking to conquer the whole planet succeed. You will be told, your "loosely federated coalition of separate nations" have no right to claim sovereignty or what we call "state nullification", i.e., "states' rights" to simply nullify and invalidate any federal law that is a violation of the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, i.e., the right of states to anything not explicitly conferred upon the Federal government.

Actually, you don't even have to wait, there have been several examples already that proved without a shadow of a doubt that EU countries are not only no longer sovereign, i.e., "loosely federated coalition of separate states" when certain states disagree or do not wish to go along/vote for what the unelected body of the EU Commission conjures as legislation. You are just visiting the dungeon until you want to leave and the gate has been shut on you.

[ozlikethewizard]

Without even needing to engage with your argument it falls apart because nations can leave the EU at will. Without getting into the Brexit weeds its proof, we did it. Can't be a tyrant if people can just say no.

[bootsmann]

The Swiss eID is designed the way it is to comply with the EUs digital ID proposal so I wouldn't doom this early.

(this one: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/eudi-regul...)

[boondongle]

This is because it's not an EU/Canada/US thing as much as some would like to make it. It's a "losing that one election" thing. "What about the Children" always sells. What the EU/Canada have is that the US got hit with this wave first so they can see the results. That's a data point the American Voter only had in theory, not in example form. The recent uptick of nationalism has people thinking there's some essentialism between states and there really isn't - anyone who's travelled in more places than the city knows it.

[dotandgtfo]

What examples of this do you have in recent years (post 2016)? The clearest example of lobbying (chat control) has repeatedly been struck down.

[timmmmmmay]

"repeatedly struck down" means somebody keeps bringing it back

[dotandgtfo]

They're proposals by a minority. I'd like to see it go to see chat control go to grave permanently, but I'd also rather not that the democratic system allows for the permanent barring an impossible to define class of proposals from even being proposed. Or do you have other solutions?

[jonathanstrange]

I'm definitely for creating EU directives that enhances digital privacy rights and sovereignty to block whole classes of privacy-endangering surveillance proposals in the future. That seems like the best solution to me. It's much better than allowing those proposals to be made again and again until they are passed in some shady package deal. Even if such a proposal is struck down by local laws, constitutions, or the ECHR, once they have the foot in the door, they will only be modified minimally to comply with the constitution.

[miroljub]

The fact that it has to be repeatedly fended off and that the EU regime still tries to push it is a prime example of lobbying^H corruption. They won't give up until they pass. What more do you need?

[munksbeer]

> that the EU regime still tries to push it

Sorry, what is this "EU regime"? I'm not understanding the logic in your post. The people pushing it are certain elected officials of member nations.

[miroljub]

I use the same terminology for EU officials that they themselves use when they describe corrupt regimes with low legitimacy they don't control.

[munksbeer]

Ok, but the EU officials are not the ones that keep pushing the chat control agenda. This is coming from certain MPs from the member states.

[latexr]

> The clearest example of lobbying (chat control) has repeatedly been struck down.

So far. But they’ll keep lobbying and we’ll need to keep fighting.

> What examples of this do you have in recent years (post 2016)?

Digital Omnibus is another.

https://noyb.eu/en/gdpr-omnibus-eu-simplification-far-remove...

https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/eu-digit...

[dotandgtfo]

> We regularly see legislation that is being rammed and rushed through in spite of vocal opposition.

This implies that regulation is codified. The clear pattern of EU digital regulation doomerism is generally pointing at shitty proposals which aren't approved and codified in law.

Digital omnibus is another proposal.

If "rammed and rushed laws" is legitimately a widespread issue, you should be able to find a good example of something codified which is not just a proposal?

I'm not saying we don't have to fight. But vocal opposition to proposals which ultimately don't make it into law is the system working exactly as intended.

[latexr]

You’re replying to the wrong person. The point you’re quoting was made further upstream.

[deaux]

https://noyb.eu/en/project/dpa/dpc-ireland

GDPR is entirely unenforced, it's not worth the paper it's written on, and this is due to lobbying. The situation continues to this day. The DPAs simply throw reports of violations into the trash bin.

It's hilariously transparent - Ireland recently (less than 6 months ago) added a former _Meta lobbyist_ to their DPA board [0].

US Big Tech is now spending a record €151 million per year on lobbying the EU [1], and it's completely implausible to believe they're doing that with 0 RoI. "The number of digital lobbyists has risen from 699 to 890 full-time equivalents (FTEs), surpassing the 720 Members of the European Parliament (MEPs). A total of 437 lobbyists now have continuous access to the European Parliament. Three meetings per day: Big Tech held an average of three lobbying meetings a day in the first half of 2025, which speaks volumes about their level of access to EU policymakers." It's impossible that this doesn't influence things.

[0] https://noyb.eu/en/former-meta-lobbyist-named-dpc-commission...

[1] https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/10/revealed-tech-industr...

[saithir]

Extending one organization's results to saying "completely unenforced" is definitely something, considering the ~billion of fines per year.

[GJim]

> GDPR is entirely unenforced,

The fact that in the UK/EU no reputable company is now sharing data without our explicit opt-in permission suggests you are talking bollocks.

As for disreputable companies.... don't do business with them!

[hagbard_c]

> The clearest example of lobbying (chat control) has repeatedly been struck down.

They can try as often as they want and they only have to win once. We - as in those who don't want this Orwellian monster to be written into law - have to win all the time.

[ozlikethewizard]

Right but thats just the system working as intended? Gay marriage would still be illegal if unpopular ideas couldn't be reraised. Democracy is a balance, unfortunately you have to put up with fighting against the shit ideas as well as for the good ones.

[miroljub]

> Right but thats just the system working as intended?

No, it is a one way street and thus creates an imbalance. EU regimes never push new legislation that gives more rights to their citizens, only try to limit them again and again.

> Gay marriage would still be illegal if unpopular ideas couldn't be reraised.

Gay marriage is a good example. It got passed despite being unpopular. In many countries where it was pushed by force from above, from the EU to the national level, it is still unpopular.

> Democracy is a balance, unfortunately you have to put up with fighting against the shit ideas as well as for the good ones.

The issue with democracy as we have it in the EU is the imbalance of power and responsibility. Given the EU regime's decisions in the last few decades, I consider it just a shell to push unpopular and undemocratic decisions to their member states, so lobbyists don't have to bribe everyone, just the EU regime.

[orwin]

I don't think any EU directive on gay marriage exist, and directives (accompanied by fines) is the main way for the EU to try to push laws on states (the other way if having a citizen go the the EUCJ against his own state, but that almost never ends in law changes).

> I consider it just a shell to push unpopular and undemocratic decisions to their member states, so lobbyists don't have to bribe everyone, just the EU regime.

Which decisions? GDPR? DMA?

[hagbard_c]

For the downvoters, here it comes again:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47522709

[abc123abc123]

Yep. Sadly the EU is more or less lost, and freedom online will be squashed. I would not be surprised if age verification will tie in with the EU digital wallet, and with the EU democracy shield surveillance project, so that any opposition to Brussels ideological stance will get you disconnected from your bank, money, purchases, and your ability to ID yourself.

Basically, the chinese, through WTO, managed to utilize corona to show politicians, regardless of color, the enormous power of complete digital control of the population.

Our spineless and incompetent EU politicians thought it very erotic, and are now ramming it down our throats.

I don't really see a way to stop this apart from moving to south america or africa, to a small country with a weak government.

[drtgh]

Not only the US. In the updated post [1] that was deleted at Reddit [2], it is commented there are three firms confirmed operating for Meta in both EU and US jurisdictions,

Firm: Trilligent (APCO Worldwide subsidiary), EU Role: EUR 680K for AI Act, DMA, DSA. US Connection: APCO offices in DC; Meta VP calls them "integrated members of our Meta team".

Firm: White & Case LLP, EU Role: EUR 50-100K. digital markets/services. US Connection: Lead international outside counsel, 70+ lawyer team.

Firm: FTI Consulting Belgium, EU Role: EUR 10-25K. US Connection: Subsidiary of FTI Consulting Inc (NYSE: FCN, HQ Washington DC).

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20260314074025/https://www.reddi...

[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1rtd51g/update_i_pul...

This sounds like the mere tip of the iceberg, as it is commented that they maintain two separate networks with no overlap (their age verification lobbying goes through local specialists with no international footprint).

Edit:

https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/trilligent?rid=5168569461...

Trilligent (APCO Worldwide subsidiary), clients for closed financial year, Jan 2024 - Dec 2024,

- meta platforms ireland limited and its various subsidiaries, 50'000€ - 99'999€: EU Green Deal, EU AI Act, the European strategy for a better internet for kids (BIK+), online safety.

- verifymy limited ( age verification business), 0€ - 10'000€: Digital Services Act; eIDAS Regulation; Strategy for a better Internet for kids (BIK+); EU Artificial Intelligence Act; General Data Protection Regulation.

- user rights gmbh, 0€ - 10'000€: Digital Services Act.

[pjc50]

The UK is absolutely picking the most stupid option (delegate it to US companies doing face recognition)

[roysting]

Is it stupid or intentional? I believe the latter. There are many layers that these kinds of things go through before they are pushed in that manner and not in a "smart" manner that respects rights of the majority of the population. They are chasing this path for deliberate reasons, regardless of what they may be, or whether you like it or not. Ironically, they can only engage in these "stupid" things because people don't force them to not engage in "stupid things". Silence in consent in these kinds of cases.

[domh]

I keep emailing my (Labour) MP about this, I suggest you do the same! I get the standard "protecting the children" response. I am not voting Labour again if this madness is still in place (or worse!) at the next GE.

[pjc50]

MPs are pretty bad at dealing with anything that doesn't come from the party or the newspapers. I'm donating to the Open Rights Group to care about this on my behalf.

(my MP is SNP, so I benefit from not being in the two party trap)

[mosura]

Right, if these countries want these laws at least ensure the verification is all done within the country in question and the data never leaves.

Of course, that defeats the entire point of the exercise.

[boesboes]

As mentioned in the article, the EU already has a different plan

[dylan604]

Why do you think the EU would not also jump on the bandwagon if the OS makers have already done the work to comply with US laws? It would be less work on the OS makers to make it for all users rather than trying to determine what jurisdiction the computer was being used and to know if the verification was necessary based on that.

[OccamsMirror]

This does not only affect the US. They're ramming this kind of bullshit into law in Australia too. As rapidly as they can.

[biztos]

Probably off topic, but is the cringey wordplay between e-ID and Eid (as in Genossenschaft) intentional in Switzerland?

https://www.eid.admin.ch/en/e-id-e

[kogasa240p]

> The Swiss implementation of eID may be hint that governments may/will take the responsibility to implement and maintain the tech Switzerland will be the exception, not the rule when it comes to internet ID debauchery.

[TacticalCoder]

> ... but I'm wondering where this will go in the EU

There's more money spent in lobbyism in the EU than anywhere else in the world. Lobbyism and downright corruption: like Qatari bribing EU MEPs [1] and police finding 1 million EUR in bills hidden at a MEP's apartment (in this case a bribe to explain publicly that Qatar is a country oh-so-respectful of human rights).

The EU is way more corrupt than the US and in many EU countries there's little private sector compared to the US. In France for example more than 60% of the GDP is public spending and all the big companies are state or partially state-owned or owned by people very close to the state.

And as to american companies bribing EU politicians: it's nothing new. IBM and Microsoft for example are two names everybody in the business knows have been splurging money to buy influence and illegal kickbacks have always been flying. It's just the way things have always been operating. Today you can very likely add Google and Palantir etc. to the list but it's nothing new.

EU politicians are whores. And cheap whores at that: investigative journalists have shown, in the past, the little amount of money that was needed to buy their votes. Most of them go into politics to extract as much taxpayers money as they can for their own benefit. They of course love to get bribes.

Also to try to not get caught, EU politicians voted themselves special powers and it's very difficult for the regular police to enter official EU buildings. I know an police inspector who went and arrested a MEP for possession of child porn: it required a very long procedure, way longer than usual, and the request of special authorization allowing them to enter the EU parliament (or EU commission, don't remember which but I think it was MEP at the EP).

American companies bribing EU politicians should scare you indeed: it's been ongoing since forever.

> The Swiss implementation of eID may be hint that governments may/will take the responsibility

Switzerland is in Europe but it's not in the EU: it's not representative of the insane corruption present in the EU institutions.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Kaili

[crimsoneer]

Is there any evidence Palantir is doing any of this? Doesn't really seem like their wheelhouse?

[drtgh]

https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/palantir-technologies-inc...

https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/palantir-technologies-inc...

Lobbyists having Palantir as a client:

FTI Consulting Belgium,

https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/fti-consulting-belgium?ri...

[nimbius]

one hypothesis for why meta wants this is because AI (including its own push for it) has turned much of the internet and its social media platforms into slopfarms and clickbots that advertisers are increasingly moving away from.

The real driver is as always, ad revenue. This time, advertisers want and need to know a real human is engaging the brand and Meta cannot see any other way in sight to assure this fact save for age verification.

this is just the latest evolution of surveillance capitalism.

[Cthulhu_]

I think age verification laws are good in principle - there's a lot of stuff on the internet that people should be protected from. But it's the manner of age verification that is the issue.

The EU has zero knowledge proof age verification systems, e.g. through your bank, which are secure and don't involve sending a copy of your ID and / or face scan to a dodgy US based 3rd party.

[djxfade]

I disagree. What if, hear me out, parents actually parent, instead of relegating the parenting to companies, and ruining the internet for the rest of us?

[orwin]

Of course! Age verification laws for buying alcohol, tobacco (and firearms in the US) should be removed! They ruin our experience.

The same way, keeping driver license behind an age gate is unnecessary, parents should parents! I was driving tractors at 12yo, why couldn't I drive a car?

Parents should be the one responsible if they give money or a car to their kid

[catlikesshrimp]

At least nobody is making a list of who, where and when bought the cigar. Now facebook wants to know at what time, for how much, which brand, from which referrer....

[wek]

I'm concerned about these laws and their implications for privacy, but as a parent, I'm not sure what you mean to say parents should parent. How? What should the parent do? How would you recommend a parent protect a 13 year old who spends their time in their room and out with their friends on their phones?

[Eldt]

Monitor computer activity, don't give them a smart phone at 13

[cycomanic]

Tell me you don't have children without saying you don't have children.

In many places it is essentially impossible for children (even younger than 13) to have a normal social live without access to a smart phone. Just some examples, many public transport providers are moving to apps as the only way to pay for fares, nearly all communication for sports clubs happens through messenger platforms, school information is typically distributed via apps as well and the list goes on (I have not even touched on the kids own social interactions).

The irony is that the people who say "parents should parent their kids online activities" the loudest, largely grew up with unrestricted computer use, in chat rooms, weird corners of the internet all by working around any restrictions that parents tried to put on them. Mainly because they were much more computer literate then the older generation.

[throwaway173738]

They get them from their friends at school. I can’t be with my son every waking moment of every day and it’s a ridiculous stance to tel me to do so. I’m also not the only parent I’ve met who wants to be able to limit my child’s access to garbage like social media and Youtube online.

What you’re proposing is similar to a “Google Free Village.” What we need is something that lets parents have some control by proxy without violating the privacy of the child or anyone else. I believe it’s possible to do so.

The Internet that we grew up on has been totally subsumed by scumbag marketing to the point that it’s unavoidable. It’s an addictive substance now. Stop pretending like the ways of the 90’s and 2000’s are still accessible.

[carlosjobim]

You should censor the Internet of your child, instead of having the government censor the Internet of everybody.

[behringer]

Translation: you can't parent your own child so you want the government to do it, as if they'll do it properly.

[mrguyorama]

Who needs age of consent laws, you should just parent your kids!

If they are having sex with people they shouldn't, you've just been a bad parent

[behringer]

Freedom of speech and freedom to read that speech is not the same as having sex with people you shouldn't.

[brainwad]

I have a different solution to your other repliers: do nothing, your kid will be fine in all likelihood. If you must satisfy the politician's syllogism, set some time limits and make them touch grass. But a thirteen year old oughtn't be parented like a three year old.

[Barbing]

Age verification kind of disgusts me and your kid will probably be fine

Isis did manage to recruit young men in the UK via telegram (OK, you just said “in all likelihood“, maybe I’m tossing you the exception that proves the rule)

[brainwad]

To be clear, I'm against age verification. Teenagers should just have access to all of the internet, like we did when we were teenagers.

> Isis did manage to recruit young men in the UK via telegram

Not sure why this is an age problem, and why it's ok for 18 year olds to be recruited to terrorist organisations but not 17 year olds...

[SkyBelow]

My main issue with this argument is that we never applied it to any other age gate created in the past. Why? Maybe part of it was control, but also because we know parents will fail their kids, and there were cases bad enough in the past that society decided to step in and protect kids even when parents fail.

If we really embraced this logic, then should we look at returning to the laws from before the 'protect the children' push of the 20th century. Compare this to some countries where kids can go buy beer. I've read stories from people in less regulated countries who use to buy beer for their parents when they were underage, and nothing was stopping them from buying it from themselves if their parents allowed it (or failed to stop it). Even a concept like child labor, why should we regulate that out to companies to control instead of depending upon parents to parent? When you consider web access as a person having some sort of transaction with a company, it generalizes to a very similar position of if a parent or the government should monitor that relationship for harm.

[raverbashing]

This is a common argument, but the problem is the kids who have deadbeat parents

Or even kids whose parents don't have the technical knowledge needed

Yes I do agree the responsibility is with the parents, but it's these kids who are majoritarily affected by (bad internet actors) AND (bad offline actors)

[pzo]

agree, also they should take into account that their children will be eventually an adult and will be living in such system. Goverments should only focus on educating parents (available tools, recommendations) and maybe provide some open source tooling for parents.

[II2II]

> agree, also they should take into account that their children will be eventually an adult and will be living in such system

We also have to consider that "children" covers anywhere from birth to approximately 18 years old.

It is reasonable to expect a parent or their proxy (e.g. caregivers and teachers) to moderate access to the Internet in the early years. Yet older children and teenagers gradually gain more independence. For example: they are able to go places on their own, get their own phone, etc.. In the physical world, we have laws that recognize this, things like forbidding the sale of alcohol and tobacco to minors. Responsibility is placed on the vendor to check identification when selling such products and the customer's age is suspect. It would be absurd to place responsibility on parents in this case since the most a parent can do is educate their child.

Now I understand the Internet poses problems when it comes to similar transactions. For face to face transactions, appearing old enough is often sufficient (perhaps with a buffer to avoid liability) for access without presenting identification. While it isn't truly anonymous, there are cases where it can be reasonably anonymous. Unfortunately, transactions are mediated by machines on the Internet. You cannot make any assumptions about the other person. Making matters worse: it is extraordinarily difficult to do age verification without disclosing identify information, and to do so in a manner that is easily recorded. Whether that information is provided directly or through a third party is a moot point. It is still being provided.

I don't know how we go about solving this problem, but I do know two things:

- Placing all responsibility into the hands of parents is absurd, and would ultimately prove harmful to adolescents. It is creating a nanny-state where the nanny is the parent. The youth would be unable to gradually gain independence, nor develop an identity independent of their parents' whims.

- We live in a world which is eager to age-gate things that should not be. Sometimes this is for semi-legitimate reasons due to how the Internet is structured. For example: there is no good reasons why children and youth cannot participate in things like discussion forums, but those forums definitely cannot look like the "social media" we have today. Other times it is for despicable reasons, such as making value based judgements based upon ideology. (The left and right are both guilty of this.)

[pzo]

> Placing all responsibility into the hands of parents is absurd, and would ultimately prove harmful to adolescents. It is creating a nanny-state where the nanny is the parent. The youth would be unable to gradually gain independence, nor develop an identity independent of their parents' whims.

Nonsense. What kind of nanny state? Of course parent is a nanny because they growing and taking care of their own children. This has been for this way for centuries. Nanny state is the oppposite when state is reponsible for growing your kids.

You didn't explain how "Placing all responsibility into the hands of parents is absurd," or how "would ultimately prove harmful to adolescents".

> It is reasonable to expect a parent or their proxy (e.g. caregivers and teachers) to moderate access to the Internet in the early years. Yet older children and teenagers gradually gain more independence.

its easy to moderate or at least limit access to internet for kids. - less than 5 years then have no own phone - less than 10 years most likely also don't have own phone if have don't need sim but only wifi (parent control wifi and router) - more than 15 years -> no control anyway and this age limitation trying not to limit above 15 years in most countries anyway - between 10-15 you can just not sell simcards for those ages less than 15. Parents decide if will buy such simcard for their kids. Allow buy kid like simcard that restrict access to social media. You need unrestricted simcard that you can get only if you are >15 years old or your parent will buy for you. Sure it wont restrict everything but will limit access significantly

Other solutios are treating flu with HIV.

[pbhjpbhj]

Anyone should be allowed to buy/do anything at any age, why have any restrictions that's a parent's responsibility! /s

A proper society raises their new generations.

Yes, rights and responsibilities fall mostly to parents, but I see no reason to make licentious activities difficult for parents to inhibit.

What is it you want to do on the internet?

We can have systems that allow anonymity (between client and server), but still put hardcore porn, gore, financial frauds and such out of reach of those without proof they're over 18.

Now, don't get me wrong, Palantir and it's ilk are a danger to society. But just because the military-industrial complex wants to use any excuse to control people, doesn't mean all of those excuses are wrong.

[abc123abc123]

Zero knowledge is not true. All chains rely, ultimately, on a place where ID:s are stored, and from there, they will leak. That place can also be engineered to undo the zero knowledge design. Couple that with the already in place, surveillance by ISP:s within the EU, and it becomes obvious that zero knowledge is a scam, and only valid under unreal conditions that will never apply in the EU, and only in isolation, and not looking at the entire system.

[tzs]

> Zero knowledge is not true. All chains rely, ultimately, on a place where ID:s are stored, and from there, they will leak.

All of the systems I'm aware of rely on someplace your ID is already stored.

[SiempreViernes]

I think these laws are a poor second-best substitute for proper moderation on the big content platforms.

As it stands one should be happy if Meta catches most calls for the extermination of an ethnicity on its platform, that they would provide capabilities that allows a kid to protect themselves from bullying or grooming is just unimaginable.

[Larrikin]

The US has a large unbanked population that is currently fighting the trend of places discovering they can get rid of undesirable poorer customers by refusing to accept cash. These people would then lose access to many services on the Internet now due to parents refusing to parent.

[worldsayshi]

I expect the internet to be overrun with noise due to bots. So I have a feeling that eIDs are inevitable as a solution in the long run. If that is the case shouldn't we push for zero knowledge solutions?

[Mindwipe]

> The EU has zero knowledge proof age verification systems

No, they don't. And they can't.

[Tyrannosaur]

Why can't they?