[mhurron]

> Many people genuinely want to find a solution that is better for the children

at the expense of everyone and everything else all to not have to be an actual parent.

These arguments are not coming from places of concern, they are coming from laziness and people taking advantage of that laziness to further even worse agendas.

[djaro]

Not all children have active parents. I do not believe those children deserve to be taken advantage of or hurt simply because they happen to have bad parents.

The "laziness" argument doesnt work if the people being lazy (parents) are not the people being hurt (children)

[palata]

> at the expense of

That's the thing: it's not trivial to know what is possible and what is not. If you look at the messages in HN, many (most?) messages about privacy-preserving age verification are (at least partially) wrong. Tech-savvy people clearly do not understand the technology in details, and somehow they assume that normies do understand and are simply fascists or lazy.

It is my opinion that telling a normal person that they are a bad parent (or a fascist) because you disagree with them is probably not the best way to convince them.

I believe in democracy, which means that I don't call everyone disagreeing with me a fascist. In a democracy, if most of the population wants privacy-preserving age verification and I don't, then I am in the minority and must accept it. My role as a tech-savvy person is to help "normies" understand what it implies. Again, not to tell them that they must be fascists if they disagree with me.