[sneak]

This isn’t about kids at all. The ID requirement is the WHOLE POINT.

That it is technically possible to do age verification in a privacy-preserving way is thus entirely irrelevant.

They want all online activity tied to ID so they can violently, illegally retaliate in the dark of night against protected expression online that they don’t like.

That’s all this is. Privacy-preserving techniques are irrelevant because they do not accomplish this goal.

[encom]

My government shouldn't decide what content I'm viewing or providing, and that's the end of it.

>muh kids

That's the parents problem, not mine.

Any system the government comes up with will be insecure, inconvenient, invasive and cost the taxpayers billions, and you all know it's true.

[inigyou]

There is also, separately from that, a need to protect kids from growing up into the people in Idiocracy.

[sylos]

Getting children to not grow up into idiots requires intense parental interactions, healthy environments, and the ability to explore and get hurt. Identification isn't even on the list.

[sneak]

They already failed to do that by steadily eroding the educational system and its standards over the last 50-70 years. We’re already there. The electorate can’t locate the countries on a map in which the US is fighting multiple wars in their name.

Banning Instagram ain’t gonna fix that.

This is not in any way whatsoever about children.

[inigyou]

Is it possible that two or more things both harm children?

[llbbdd]

Let's ban books and skateboards too