[palata]

> there is such a variety of ways to tackle this problem, and this is the most authoritarian one.

If you think that privacy-preserving age verification is the most authoritarian way to tackle this problem, then you really, really don't understand authoritarianism.

Now if you have tons of better and practical solutions to tackle this problem, I would suggest you start writing about them. I haven't read a lot about those solutions (other than "just ask someone who is not me to do it"), what I hear is mostly people yelling that only bad parents and fascists disagree with them.

[JohnMakin]

> I would suggest you start writing about them.

I did. the burden isn’t on me to explain it to you, comrade. maybe you could start by actually addressing what I wrote. Or are you now expecting me to draft up a legislation draft before you’ll address my post? These types are always the same.

[palata]

> I did.

I am confused. Did you? Do you mean this:

> [the solution] is regulating social media companies to stop abusing their users, and by extension, children. strict laws around adtech and tracking tech

Pretty sure it has been tried in some countries, and the solution that those companies were happy to implement was... identity verification. There was a drama about Discord doing this, recently.

> Or are you now expecting me to draft up a legislation draft

Not at all. Just give me the name of a viable solution, so that I can search for it. It doesn't take a full day to write something like "privacy-preserving age verification", does it? I can't easily search for "JohnMakin says there are many good solutions, which ones are they?".

[Nasrudith]

If you are naive enough to think it really is 'just the tip' how are you not an involuntary parent already?

[palata]

I would love to be insulted by that, but I genuinely can't tell what point you're fumbling toward. Try again when you've sobered up.