[roenxi]

> I don't see how this sentence can make any sense at all in the context of ZKPs. Can you elaborate?

The reason people are getting called authoritarian is because ZKP proofs are a massive and obvious improvement on what is actually being implemented. Can you point to anywhere that has implemented ZKPs? The linked article suggests that is quite hard to do.

I wouldn't be using an American IP right know if my local age verification laws required ZKPs.

> How do the social media companies already know?

They ask you your age when people sign up. That's good enough for me - I'm not an authoritarian. I'm not out to create a watertight way to stop people communicating if they want to.

> You would have to explain that. The government provides a service that allows you to prove that you are old enough without the government learning anything from you and without the service learning anything other than the fact that you are old enough, and you call that "objectively authoritarianism"?

I haven't seen anyone complaining about that. Sounds like a non-issue. Why would anyone over the age of around 18 care? You should consider reading the linked article if you don't understand what the complaints people are making are. The reason you don't see any authoritarianism is you haven't actually looked at how the schemes are being implemented.

Mullvad isn't writing this blog post because of the huge numbers of 12-16 year olds shelling out cash to them. It is because the authoritarians are making a play to destroy a sizeable chunk of the open web with a likely follow up of cracking down on free speech.

[palata]

> Can you point to anywhere that has implemented ZKPs?

The EU initiative explicitly mentions ZKP: https://ageverification.dev/.

> The linked article suggests that is quite hard to do.

It's technical, just like getting E2EE right. Doesn't mean it's hard to use, as proven by the fact that billions of people use E2EE in WhatsApp and Signal without even realising it.

> I'm not an authoritarian. I'm not out to create a watertight way to stop people communicating if they want to.

You seem to have a Manichaean view of the world. There is room for nuance between "let kids lie by clicking 'yes'" and identity verification.

> You should consider reading the linked article

Did you read it? There is a whole section that is titled "The Zero-Knowledge Proof alternative and the EU".

> The reason you don't see any authoritarianism is you haven't actually looked at how the schemes are being implemented.

I actually have. Have you? Seems like you haven't read the article. Mullvad is complaining about the fact that the app seems to support both ZKP and identity verification, and they criticise the infrastructure enabling identity verification. And then some more "slippery slope" arguments that are worth what they are worth (with the same kind of reasoning, we shouldn't have gun control, because the next step is to control everything, right?).

> Mullvad isn't writing this blog post because

Mullvad sells some kind of privacy (as much as a VPN can offer), and here they share their opinion about age verification. With which I mostly agree: the only viable age verification implementation is through ZKP. I tend to disagree with the slippery slope argument, and that "the government abuses everything they can". If you think like that, doesn't that make you an anarchist?

[roenxi]

You have misunderstood the article. It says, and I quote,

> Right now, the EU app does not have ZKP functionality, contrasting Ursula von der Leyen’s claim that the app ”is technically ready to be used”. But more importantly, the app is currently designed to always function without ZKP technology; if ZKP is unavailable, the app falls back to a non-ZKP model.

So you have failed the test of pointing at somewhere that has implemented ZKP. You can try again if you like.

> I actually have. Have you? Seems like you haven't read the article. Mullvad is complaining about the fact that the app seems to support both ZKP and identity verification,

Again, this is factually wrong. And it is why people are getting labelled as "authoritarian" - they proposed a system that sounded decent, then they actually implemented something else that is a standard authoritarian ID system with a fig leaf for people to pretend they didn't. As was expected, given that this always looked like an ID card play with a false moustache.

> I tend to disagree with the slippery slope argument

They haven't made it up the hill yet, they're already down the slope. the EU implementation doesn't use ZKP. That's a big part of why they're being included as one of the authoritarian forces in this push that people are upset about.

[palata]

> the EU implementation doesn't use ZKP

The EU implementation is work in progress. I am not aware of any country using it for age verification.

I am not sure I get the argument of "it's not finished, but I will pretend that it is because it's convenient for me".

> You can try again if you like.

Switzerland is another one that seems to be going towards a privacy-preserving solution. Is Switzerland known for being an authoritarian country?

[roenxi]

> I am not sure I get the argument of "it's not finished, but I will pretend that it is because it's convenient for me".

> The European Commission has announced that a new age verification app designed to protect children online is ready for deployment. In a recent statement, President of the Commission Ursula von der Leyen, confirmed that the technology is ready and will soon be available for citizens to use.

https://commission.europa.eu/news-and-media/news/european-ag...

Am I to pretend and believe the EU Commission or am I to shun their lies and believe you on the subject of whether this age verification app is ready? But maybe Mullvad are wrong here, I dunno. Maybe they have implemented a ZKP scheme. Have they? I'm interested in the details, love me a good ZKP. How does this armed and fully operational app, here and now, today, in this moment, implement a ZKP?

> Switzerland is another one that seems to be going towards a privacy-preserving solution. Is Switzerland known for being an authoritarian country?

I've heard literally 0 complaints about whatever Switzerland might be doing. You'll notice the Mullvad statement doesn't mention them either.

[palata]

Please read my original comment again. I said Mullvad had good arguments, I just criticised the way ZKP is generally dismissed, including in their article. You then went for your "this is all authoritarian, that's the definition of authoritarianism, etc".

If you want to go back to the origin, sure let's do that. My criticism was really JUST that one could explain privacy-preserving age verification in a constructive way, without always framing it in the manipulative way that implies that it is not technically feasible. And apparently you agree with that.

> I've heard literally 0 complaints about whatever Switzerland might be doing.

Haven't you? I have heard many comments just like yours, implying that "whoever wants to verify the age is an authoritarian".

Let's stop here, we're not going anywhere.

[roenxi]

> Haven't you? I have heard many comments just like yours, implying that "whoever wants to verify the age is an authoritarian".

I have not said that nor have I implied to nor do I believe it. If you read this thread you'll notice I said described some age verification schemes as a non-issue. I believe that people who want to implement authoritarian solutions to their problems are authoritarians. That is a rather reasonable position. In this thread you have:

- Misrepresented the state of ZKP in the EU app because you didn't understand the Mullivad article or what the EU is announcing

- Now you've misrepresented what I've said after a long argument with plenty of clarification.

You might like to sit down with an LLM, copy-paste the text you've read in, tell it what you think was said and ask it to explore the gap between what you're reading and what the you're talking to are likely trying to get across.

> You then went for your "this is all authoritarian, that's the definition of authoritarianism, etc".

Your counterargument to the idea that authoritarian policy is being implemented was to pretend that the people implementing the policies had done something that they have not in fact done. It was ridiculous. And your problem in complaining about the labelling of this is that these policies are basic 101 authoritarian policy. It is hard to get more classically authoritarian than a strong central body implementing an ID system tracking what people are saying and determining who is allowed to communicate. I'm sure the authoritarians don't want to be described as authoritarian because schemes like this sometimes blow up Soviet-style, but maybe they should support better policies instead of trying to complain about being accurately labelled.

If age control was being implemented by liberals there would be far less interest in the topic.