[raxxorraxor]

I don't want an eID established on the net. It isn't sensible design. It would only work for the legal offerings and those just can send a header and devices need to block any communication if device is in kidmode. Easy, efficient, better engineering.

Illegal offerings won't do either of course. That can only be achieved by whitelisting a kid-net. Resource intensive, but only choice if you want unsupervised kid safety on the net. Because the net isn't kid safe and it cannot be by design. So you would need to create a subnet with actively moderated content.

Any other proposed mechanism has severe flaws. The only other choice is active parenting, which is unrealistic. An internet ID solves nothing, but creates more problems.

[me-vs-cat]

What do you mean by "active parenting", and why is it unrealistic?

(Do you mean something specific like HHS' Active Parenting™? https://preventionservices.acf.hhs.gov/programs/744/show )

[raxxorraxor]

With active parenting I meant parents thoroughly checking the sites their kids have access to. Nothing parents can shoulder these days in my opinion since it is a very technical and fast moving problem. Some parents could do it, but the vast majority probably wouldn't.

Most approachable is the device having some kid mode. In this mode online platforms need to send a respective header to authorise the content as kid friendly.

If that is missing, access isn't possible. In this case parents just need to check that the devices of their kids are configured properly.

[me-vs-cat]

Compared to current age verification laws, I agree that a self-declared header would be better both technically and socially. Parenting is daunting for the vast majority (including myself), and that solution would make it easier for parents to supervise their children, but I strongly disagree it's unrealistic to generally do so today.