[ghusto]

This and every post like it hurts the cause. Don't argue "Resist!" like a child, argue with an alternative.

You're not bringing anything to the table other than teenage angst, ensuring nobody takes the _very valid and terrifying concerns_ seriously.

Instead, suggest a feasible alternative. Bonus points if it works better, cheaper, and safer.

[kspacewalk2]

And don't handwaive away the real problem with children on social media. It's not good enough, not gonna cut it, there's strong consensus around fixing this big societal problem. Go ahead and blame the parents all you want - to a critical mass of people nowadays, it reads like the equivalent of blaming them for a 10 year old being let into a casino and getting addicted to slot machines. The debate will then just move on right past you because you're not being serious.

We need privacy-respecting age verification. It's not rocket science, it's just a matter of implementation. The bad actors - which are mostly bad by virtue of being ignorant - will win the debate if we're throwing hissy fits and telling parents to fuck off instead of coming up with constructive criticism of this approach to age verification.

[sailfast]

I have kids, and I don't think we need age verification. I'm not blaming the websites for content my kids access, and I have to work to make sure I'm tracking what my kids are doing.

Not saying we should stop trying to verify age in a privacy-respecting way, but the current incentive structure means that we cannot really EXPECT this in the near term.

If we cannot expect it, then we should not legislate or require it until the right solution has been found and we need to encourage our lawmakers to FUND the right way to do this.

I'm not handwaving the problems of children on social media, but it is within parental control to a certain extent, and preventing access with age verification will not prevent access in other places, nor help them deal with the onslaught when they are of age to make decisions.