“Online platforms can easily rely on our age verification app so there are no more excuses. We will have zero tolerance for companies that do not respect our children’s rights.”
Not being able to access a website is not a right. Being able to browse the web without being exposed to disturbing material without consent can be seen as a right, but it doesn’t require age verification beyond a simple “are you over 18 years old?”.
Being forced to provide an image of yourself or your ID to a website that you can’t trust if you want to access a website or service, if there’s also the option to do it with a zero-knowledge proof, could maybe be seen as a violation of one’s privacy rights (non-functionally-necessary data must be opt-in, AFAIK). But these rights are not limited to children, and it doesn’t apply to under-age them as they won’t be able to access the service anyways.
Zero-knowledge proofs are cool, the german id card has such a feature, afaik. It just certifies that the user is >18 years old, and doesn’t leak the actual age, your name, or other identifiable information, afaik. (I’ve never used it.)
I can’t judge what they implemented, or if one can trust that they implement what they specify, or what metadata might be involved.
Being able to access the 18+ side of the web without having to worry about privacy is an important right.
It weights more than protecting children from the consequences of their own free decisions in this case, imo.
And I still don’t give a shit what your children do on the Internet. Even the hassle is more than I care to abide, even if it is somehow perfectly safe and private.
The EU verification app is actually doing what you described for the German ID card, you get back a signed predicate “over 18” and that’s it. It’s also there for other legally meaningful ages, in a way you can you it to target the age a bit better, but you would have to issue many challenges to the user.
but it doesn’t require age verification beyond a simple “are you over 18 years old?”.
In what world does that stop any kid? Should a bartender also just ask if people are over 18 (or what your drinking age limit is) and then just believe whatever little Johnny says?
Of course it only stops children that want to be stopped, aka it protects them from stuff they want to be protected from.
See also my last sentence:
It weights more than protecting children from the consequences of their own free decisions in this case, imo.
Of course, you can disagree here.
The fundamental question is, do we want to let the subject decide by itself, or do - as the lawmaker - the decision for all subjects.
For drinking alcohol I’d prefer latter, because:
Young humans are less resistant against the bad effects of alcohol than adult ones. (==> Makes sense to restrict only a part of the population.)
It can be addicting. (==> Hard to make own decision.)
There can be peer pressure to take drugs. (==> Hard to make own decision.)
The damages would be expensive for the health care system. (==> Negative effects for all of us, not just the individual.)
If you dont think people can get issues from watching things, you should look up issues people have gotten from having a job of reviewing flagged content on social media sites.
I’m a little confused at what you’re writing, as it seems like you think the children that should choose if they should access a porn (or other adult content) site. They will of cause continue to watch. Just like they would eat doughnuts as a meal all the time if they had the choice.
I read it, I re-read it. What did I miss? Commenter seems to think that it is the children that want to be protected, when it’s the parents/government that want a more effective way of blocking children from accessing porn (and other) sites.
Not being able to access a website is not a right. Being able to browse the web without being exposed to disturbing material without consent can be seen as a right, but it doesn’t require age verification beyond a simple “are you over 18 years old?”.
Being forced to provide an image of yourself or your ID to a website that you can’t trust if you want to access a website or service, if there’s also the option to do it with a zero-knowledge proof, could maybe be seen as a violation of one’s privacy rights (non-functionally-necessary data must be opt-in, AFAIK). But these rights are not limited to children, and it doesn’t apply to under-age them as they won’t be able to access the service anyways.
Zero-knowledge proofs are cool, the german id card has such a feature, afaik. It just certifies that the user is >18 years old, and doesn’t leak the actual age, your name, or other identifiable information, afaik. (I’ve never used it.) I can’t judge what they implemented, or if one can trust that they implement what they specify, or what metadata might be involved.
Being able to access the 18+ side of the web without having to worry about privacy is an important right. It weights more than protecting children from the consequences of their own free decisions in this case, imo.
A lesser violation of privacy is still a violation of privacy. “It could be worse” isn’t a particularly persuasive argument
And I still don’t give a shit what your children do on the Internet. Even the hassle is more than I care to abide, even if it is somehow perfectly safe and private.
Advertisements on the internet are very disturbing…
Maybe we can restrict exposure to Christian nationalism and cishet relationships while we are at it.
The EU verification app is actually doing what you described for the German ID card, you get back a signed predicate “over 18” and that’s it. It’s also there for other legally meaningful ages, in a way you can you it to target the age a bit better, but you would have to issue many challenges to the user.
In what world does that stop any kid? Should a bartender also just ask if people are over 18 (or what your drinking age limit is) and then just believe whatever little Johnny says?
Of course it only stops children that want to be stopped, aka it protects them from stuff they want to be protected from.
See also my last sentence:
Of course, you can disagree here. The fundamental question is, do we want to let the subject decide by itself, or do - as the lawmaker - the decision for all subjects.
For drinking alcohol I’d prefer latter, because:
For gore and porn I don’t see such points.
If you dont think people can get issues from watching things, you should look up issues people have gotten from having a job of reviewing flagged content on social media sites.
I’m a little confused at what you’re writing, as it seems like you think the children that should choose if they should access a porn (or other adult content) site. They will of cause continue to watch. Just like they would eat doughnuts as a meal all the time if they had the choice.
You forgot to read the sentence right before the one you quoted
I read it, I re-read it. What did I miss? Commenter seems to think that it is the children that want to be protected, when it’s the parents/government that want a more effective way of blocking children from accessing porn (and other) sites.