[esseph]

> There's nothing sinister going on here

There absolutely is you're just not aware of it.

This whole thing is meta financially backing right wing conservative groups that want age verification because meta wants to avoid liability for the harms their platforms cause.

In addition, this is the beginning of the end of any sort of anonymity on the internet, which has disastrous consequences for politically minded individuals, minority populations, or targets of stalking. This is a privacy nightmare bring pushed through in the guise of "muh children".

[chadgpt3]

Meta already requires your ID to sign up so hasn't anonymity already ended?

[esseph]

How many people do you know signing up for meta accounts?

[chadgpt3]

We are talking about social media here aren't we? And accessing it anonomously?

[palata]

> There absolutely is you're just not aware of it.

Can you show here that you understand how privacy-preserving age verification works?

I mean the rest of your message really, really sounds like you don't. Don't get me wrong: I do agree that identity verification is bad. But it is not okay to say "I know of a system that is bad, and I don't know the nuances of how it could be implemented in a better way, so I will just assume that there is no better way".

[esseph]

I trust client side verification to not leak data as much as I trust copilot to not leak data.

Ripe for abuse.