[kkfx]

And what exactly would be the purpose of age verification? Because defining someone "mature" based on their age is pretty hit-and-miss: we have plenty of adults, even of a certain age, who it's hard to imagine have ever finished adolescence, for instance. On paper, they are absolutely of age. We also had a certain Alexander the Great, emperor of a large part of the planet at 20. We had 13-year-old Pharaohs active in government.

We also have gazillions of examples of apparently innocent rules being used to boil Chomsky's frog, one small temperature rise at a time. For the first time in a long while, I'm starting to sense a certain fanaticism on this topic here on HN, which sounds very much like the molecular agitation when water starts to boil.

[tzs]

> And what exactly would be the purpose of age verification? Because defining someone "mature" based on their age is pretty hit-and-miss: we have plenty of adults, even of a certain age, who it's hard to imagine have ever finished adolescence, for instance. On paper, they are absolutely of age. We also had a certain Alexander the Great, emperor of a large part of the planet at 20. We had 13-year-old Pharaohs active in government.

That's really no different than age of consent laws. In the majority of US states (33+DC) that age of consent for sex is 16, 17 in 6 states, and 18 in 11 states.

In Europe it is 14 in 14 countries, 15 in 12 countries, 16 in 20 countries, 17 in 2 countries, and 18 in 3 countries.

All of those are somewhat arbitrary. There are many people over 18 who lack whatever maturity age of consent laws are trying to ensure people have before they can consent.

Going the other way there are people who are under the age of consent in most of those countries or states who are mature enough that there would be no harm in letting them consent.

Any particular population wide age of consent in a state or country then cannot simultaneously protect everyone who needs protection and avoid forcing protection on people who do not need it.

It would in theory be possible to make the age of consent an individual thing where you have to be psychologically evaluated and if you pass you get your consent license. (A hybrid approach might also be possible--a high automatic age of consent like 21, with people under that able to apply for a lower age. Probably also combined with "Romeo and Juliet" laws so people under 21 who just want to fool around with people close to their own age can do so without having to be psychologically evaluated first).

I expect that very very few people would be in favor of replacing the one size fits all approach to age of consent with such an individualized system.

[kkfx]

I prefer no filters instead, for one simple reason: who watches the watchmen? If we had a digital identity on a national blockchain run by open-hardware home servers and FLOSS software, where every node exists by virtue of digital identity, meaning there's no risk of a 51% attack and everyone is forced to play with their cards on the table, I might accept a ZK proof. But that's not the case, and the privacy guarantees of private entities and the very subjects pushing for this verification make me say, quite simply, NEVER.

Because we know perfectly well that it's the precursor to mandatory SSO for everything, South Korea style, which is unacceptable and incompatible with Democracy.