[notepad0x90]

But in real life, if you sell cigarettes to a 5 year old, you'll probably go to prison.

Isn't a reasonable approach to the internet, to have a protocol by which individuals can prove they have a state issued identity that proves they are above a certain age, and nothing more than that to the website? That way the website doesn't need to check anything other than presence of a cryptographic identifier and validate it. And parents as you noted are responsible, but only to make sure their state issued cryptographic secrets can't be used by their children. it could be as simple as having an NFC capable state issued IDs that can do a challenge-response with the browser/os. We already sort of do this with EMV payment cards. Websites have to validate a payment card is authentic by asking for the CVV code for example.

[RiverCrochet]

Oh I understand the tech is there to provide zero knowledge proofs, etc. But honestly don't really agree it's a reasonable approach to the Internet. I shouldn't need something issued by the state merely to visit a website.

[notepad0x90]

you mean you don't want to? why not? are you just too used to status quo that's benefiting you right now? It's not like I'm excited about it either, I'm just not finding any reasons other than simply not liking it. We didn't need a proof of identity to access the internet before because 1) No one was interested enough to demand it because it's lack of widespread dependency like today 2) The tech to prove that didn't exist in a way that could be deployed universally until roughly a decade ago 3) Even gen-z didn't really grow up on the internet, not like gen-alpha who are the true beta-testers of growing up on the modern internet, and study after study is damning against the unfettered access of it.

To me you and others' prevailing argument is similar to "well I don't want to go out of my way to setup HTTPS, I shouldn't need to pay a damn CA to host a blog", letsencrypt solved that and people were still saying they shouldn't have to do that, except the risks here are much more dire, impacting an entire generation of humans in severe ways.

In a way, the internet is a victim of its own success. Finally, it can be used to do just about anything you did in person, including work and learn remotely. But also a whole lot of other things. I was commenting in a sibling comment thread earlier how watching a striper at a strip-club, and watching that same stripper on a free live-cam porn site on a screen are the same bi-lateral sexual activity that society has decided should be between consenting adults. You don't have to prove your ID when you visit a random store, just like with a random site, but a porn site requiring your ID is the same as a strip club requiring your ID. I don't like it same as you, but at the same time, logically I can't argue against the same laws and norms of a country being enforced consistently. We live in a world with terrible people, and so long as ID requirements for IRL are the same as online, it makes sense. it makes a whole lot more sense than expecting social media companies to actually reliably police all content in real time, and if I can have a simple, secure and privacy preserving way of doing it, I'd prefer that over showing my face, my ID,etc.. to random third parties.

[RiverCrochet]

> study after study is damning against the unfettered access of it.

No child is accessing the Internet without something a parent allowed them (or a different child) to have.

Bad parents are the root of most of societal ills. This is an example of the "terrible people" you mention. Societies need to take a serious look at that. You can require all the privacy-preserving ID checks you want and completely hollow out all rights in the name of children, but you're still going to have the root causes that create bad parents who harm their children through neglect and abuse. ID checks won't stop bad parents from being bad parents.

I don't know what you're adding to conversations about this other than "it won't be so bad if done the right way, so just accept it."

[notepad0x90]

so you're saying kids with bad parents deserve to suffer?

Ok, parents should do better, whatever. By your logic, a strip club has no obligation to keep children out because that's the parents' job?

> I don't know what you're adding to conversations about this other than "it won't be so bad if done the right way, so just accept it."

I'm adding the discussion of an actual solution instead of burying of heads in sands.

[RiverCrochet]

> so you're saying kids with bad parents deserve to suffer?

I don't see how. Help me understand. Explain how kids with bad parents are suffering because parents might get fined or other legal action if they don't prevent their children from doing things they shouldn't with property the parents give them.

> By your logic, a strip club has no obligation to keep children out because that's the parents' job

It really is the parent's job. I don't have a problem with local regulations saying certain businesses can't attract minors, but unless people in the business are going up to children and saying "hey why don't you come here" or there is some other type of enticement, the far more important question is why you're letting your children go to or near a strip club.

> I'm adding the discussion of an actual solution

Hard disagree. All your preceding posts in this thread could be validly summarized "it won't be so bad if done the right way, so just accept it" and each post is simply increasing the amount of "think of the children" histronics. Looking at your other posts, I see heuristics of agenda pushing, such as posts consisteing of walls of text and repetition of key points. I won't engage this thread anymore as I don't believe you are discussing in good faith. Peace.

[notepad0x90]

"think of the children" has been effective because there is merit in it, you can't just dismiss things because someone says "think of the children"!! are you really saying that there is no harm coming to minors? are you really saying that your politics supersedes all else, even this? how are you different then from those who exclude pedos in office/clergy/positions of power? just because this is your ideology doesn't change who is being harmed.

It's unfortunate you abandoned this discussion, but I understand. I'll defend my position nevertheless.

> It really is the parent's job.

Parents have a responsibility, but children are not property or machines that someone is responsible for that way. They are part of society, and society as a whole is responsible for protecting them. That includes protecting them from their own parents, as well as anyone else. There are entire suites of laws, courts and services established around this very principle. It doesn't even matter whose job it is, what matters is harm being reduced.

Your argument seems to be "a well, too bad, shouldn't be my problem, why should i be inconvenienced because someone's weird offspring is harmed"...sorry , I think you need to find another society without minors in it.

Honestly though, shame on you and everyone else on this thread! may the entire internet burn down before a single child's harm is justified for its continuance.

May this entire civilization burn if it continues to defend pedos and harm to the most innocent and defenseless. But I'm hopeful that reasonable voices win, and if they don't, I'd rather be inconvenienced and have this nice little status quo that's been around for only a few decades disrupted.