[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.