[JoshTriplett]

> Because what seems clear to me is that we are going towards age verification anyway

This is one of the reasons you're getting a lot of arguments here. Every bit of energy spent saying "actually, check out this use of cryptography that lets you do this in a privacy-preserving way" is energy not spend saying "no, not under any circumstances" and fighting against it.

[palata]

Which is ironic, because my whole point is "if you want to fight it, try to be credible". Every bit of energy spent saying "it's fundamentally not possible to do that, you would have to be stupid to consider it" is, IMHO, wasted.

Because what I read is "ok, this person is either not competent to talk about it, or arguing in bad faith, so I won't listen to them".

And to be very honest, I can't remember a good argument against "privacy-preserving age verification". It's mostly "hmm I don't like it, that should be the responsibility of the parents anyway".

The EFF has a valid point which is "such technology will leave people out who won't be able to access important services". I don't have a definitive stance on it, but that would be worth debating. I can't remember another argument from the EFF. Pretty sure they don't say "it's technically impossible to do".

Actually Soatok [1] starts by acknowledging it's possible, before going straight to their opinion: "we should not do it". Again, I think it's a debate worth having.

But I won't debate with people who either don't have a clue or downright lie about it, saying "it's not possible, period".

[1]: https://soatok.blog/2025/07/31/age-verification-doesnt-need-...

[JoshTriplett]

I'm not suggesting to say it's impossible. I'm suggesting to not help people make their bad ideas more palatable when the more palatable version is still unacceptable. When someone is trying to push a scheme that ties things to identity, don't help them make it better; destroy it.

> And to be very honest, I can't remember a good argument against "privacy-preserving age verification".

I gave you one in the other thread:

If you make it possible for governments to decide what content is "limited to adults", they can and will abuse that capability. "Porn" is the battle cry, to make it uncomfortable to argue against; often, other information the government wants to restrict becomes a target. The only way to prevent that is to deny the capability in the first place.

Here's another: Many people have successfully been productive members of many online communities (e.g. FOSS projects) while still under 18, and future generations should have the same opportunities we did.

[palata]

> I'm suggesting to not help people make their bad ideas more palatable when the more palatable version is still unacceptable.

That's where we disagree, I guess. I feel like the more palatable version, in this case, is debatable. An important part of democracy is to recognise that others may have different opinions, and to be willing to engage in good faith. If the norm is to systematically lie, all you get is polarisation. And it is ironic to argue in favour of lying for your cause, but then to complain when the other side lies as well for theirs.

> I gave you one in the other thread

And I think it is debatable.

But more generally, if your opinion is that you should lie and yell to defend your ideas, that your government does not represent the people at all to the point where they would prevent teenagers from contributing to FOSS (is that a thing somewhere?), then I wonder if you actually live in a functioning democracy. I mean no offence here.

I mean, your argument is pretty much "We should remove all laws, because laws come from the government, and the government will abuse that capability. They will make schools illegal, and future generations should have the same opportunities we did".

My point, again, is that in a functioning democracy, we should strive to debate in good faith.

[JoshTriplett]

You are replying to my comment in which I said "I'm not suggesting to say it's impossible.", and yet you are continuing to claim I am arguing for lying. I am not arguing for lying; stop claiming that. I am arguing for not always helping your opponent make their bad idea better. Steelmanning is a helpful strategy in collaborative discourse, when you share common goals and are looking to work together to find the best way to get there. Not all politics is collaborative discourse.

[palata]

I am not saying that you lie. I am saying that I have been defending, on HN, that it is possible. And more often than not I get dismissed by comments that insist on saying it's impossible.

> I am arguing for not always helping your opponent make their bad idea better

I am not sure what you mean by that. So when people generally lie by saying "I am a technical person, believe me I know, it is technically impossible", I should... what? Say "yeah that is right, believe him"? Or just say nothing, because letting them lie is the way to "not help the opponent"?

Also you assume that age verification is a fundamentally bad idea. A lot of the arguments against any regulation is "it is a step towards authoritarianism". And I disagree with that: removing all regulations is a bad idea, we need some amount of that. The right amount of the right regulations is a balancing act.

I strongly feel like I have a fundamentally different approach from many of the comments I read, and people don't like that: I don't fight for my opinion to win. I fight for society to take an informed decision. If there is a vote where the average voter is correctly informed and the vote goes against my preference, then it is a functioning democracy. I may be frustrated of course, but it means that I am in the minority, and it makes sense to follow the preference of the majority.

People should not win because they make more noise, or because they have a better strategy, or because they lie. The goal is to represent the majority of the people, and for that, the people need to be informed. When both sides systematically lie, then the people cannot believe anybody anymore. And the result of that is polarisation, as we see it.

[JoshTriplett]

>> I am arguing for not always helping your opponent make their bad idea better

> I am not sure what you mean by that.

By "opponent" here I mean a politician who is arguing for an age+identity verification system. Telling them "actually you can do that without checking identity" is making their argument better. (There was a time I thought that it might help because then you can see who goes mask off and actually clearly wants identity verification for its own sake, but in general politicians never get pinned down and forced to answer hard questions about their positions like that anymore.) "That's a bad idea, age and identity verification are both bad" is better.