[ndriscoll]

The service does not need to know age to block access. In fact the only reasonable way to work is to block functionality by default. It needs to know age to allow access.

If you're 14, and go to a porn site, you'll be told to go away or prove you're 18+, which you can't do because you're not. If you try to submit ID (which you likely don't even have), you'll still be told to go away, so why would you do it?

This is not about collecting children's info. It's about not providing service to them.

Additionally, nothing in these laws (well, from the red states. The new ones out of e.g. California are much worse) says you can't e.g. establish physical verification at adult stores to get an access card or something, giving the same properties we have for other age restricted purchases.

[Bender]

If you mean Discord blocking Texas, well that is the method porn sites are using but trivial to bypass with a VPN. VPN providers climax in the pants when companies do this. I would rather not shove more money down their pants thus propping up yet another artificially created business model and getting the money all sticky.

[ndriscoll]

Right, that's why the law should simply put liability on the providers to prevent access to children in the state + grant private cause of action to the parents. Then it becomes easy to prove their negligence (did the child in the state access the site?), and VPNs become immaterial. This is what e.g. Texas has done.

[raxxorraxor]

Would they be liable if a kid stole an id from an adult? If not, probably because the site had protection against minors accessing their site. If that is the requirement, a simple window asking for age would suffice, right?

[ndriscoll]

Would a physical store be liable for a kid stealing an id from an adult? Likely it depends on how passable it is that the id belongs to the kid. In any case, obviously a simple window asking age (or in person, simply asking "are you 18/21?") would not suffice.