[shevy-java]

IF it were for the kids - but I don't think it is.

> Making it slightly harder to access the internet fixes nothing.

This assumes it is about the children. But if you do not think so then it opens up new alternatives suddenly, be it from tracking people, to targeted ads or any other information that could be gathered and eventually either monetized or put in tandem with other information. We'd get age graphs that way too.

Before that we could speculate to some extent, but with mandatory age sniffing and id-showing at all times, those who track people and benefit from it, benefit now even more.

[baranul]

> IF it were for the kids - but I don't think it is.

Exactly. If it was about kids, then you do not direct legislation towards everybody, but at parents. Give parents the software and tools (parental control settings) to restrict their child from searching certain terms and accessing certain sites. Bob or Susan (middle age adults), down the street, should have nothing to do with that.

It's about outright surveillance, tracking, censorship, control, and politicians putting money in their pocket. "Kids" is just a cover for their intentions and dirt. More has to be done to call out the deception.

[snaking0776]

Agreed. I’m sure some house members will vote for it because they only had a random staffer read the bill and heard that it gives them a good talking point in the next election. I just wanted to point out what’s maybe obvious to everyone that this won’t help kids. I’m sure this is being pushed by Meta/whatever other ad dependent business wants to pass off liability of verifying age with the added benefit to everyone in power that it’s easier to track everyone as a result.

[cmiles74]

The proving-your-age thing seems like a weasely way to talk about it. As you mentioned, providing a legible photo of your US state ID is a lot more data than your birth date!