[fc417fc802]

"Think of the children" is the stated reason but not the actual reason. We've seen this pattern so many times that it's perplexing that people continue to fall for it.

If the children were the actual reason there are much less invasive solutions that enable reliable parental controls such as mandating self classification of content and fining service operators for inaccuracies.

Think for yourself and consider what the possible ulterior motives might be.

[palata]

What is perplexing is that people still don't realise that it is possible to do age verification in a privacy-preserving manner.

> Think for yourself and consider what the possible ulterior motives might be.

Sure, and in the meantime try to think and read about how privacy-preserving age verification actually works.

[echelon]

> Sure, and in the meantime try to think and read about how privacy-preserving age verification actually works.

This requires you build a whole apparatus around controlling what people can see, say, and do.

The concept of "slippery slope" is often called a logical fallacy, but in reality it's more than often not a fallacy at all. It's the manner in which you boil the frog.

I think it's something like over 50% of adults do not have kids now. Why should we put the majority of people - for the majority of their lives - at risk for a mere 20% of the population to "not see boobs", when good parenting will suffice?

Let's not put a cage around our freedoms. Let's ask parents to be more responsible. In the edge cases where that isn't sufficient, is that really as bad as what could happen to all of our liberties should we go down that path?

We're burning down the whole village because someone saw a cockroach.