Well if everyone’s identity is stolen then I guess your identity will mean nothing.

Can they just stop pretending these laws are not about eroding privacy and be honest for ounce.

Imperial units detected

If you give these people 25.4 millimetres they’ll take 1.6 kilometres.

even taking the pretense at face value, this would just be adults damning kids who are queer, autistic and/or in abusive households/communities (among others) and patting themselves on the back

always scrambling to “protect” kids without ever considering their needs or why they engage in the behavior they do at all

(assuming they’re not just seen as defective goods to be either “corrected” or disposed of, of course)

How else is Mrs. von der Leyen supposed to sue people that speak badly about EU politicians?

Ironically, kids might still get around the new restriction by using a virtual private network (VPN) connection, which virtually positions the computer in another country, at the time of signing up.

This is just going to be one long pointless game of whackamole and as effective as Prohibition was in the US.

The US claim they are going after the VPN companies now too. Of course it could be all lies and deflection like most things they say now.

That’s nonsense, VPN is tool needed to run companies. Even if they make VPNs business only, people will just register fake businesses

It’s not just about business use, but citizen access to content. I looked it up and this is the stage it’s at now gizmodo.com/the-first-us-law-targeting-vpn-use-ta…

The new law is narrow. VPN companies say they can’t do it. Fines for businesses that don’t are real. It’s all a little strange.

Very few people will set up their own business or technical venture, though. That’s enough to have a chilling effect.

There is no such thing as “fake business”. The point is that the government identifies you when you want to use a VPN, so it’s either gonna be through your personal ID or through a business where you also register with the government and then they obviously also know your identity.

By fake I mean business which officially registered but effectively does nothing, files 0 profit tax forms and pays just enough fees to keep it formally open. It doesn’t hide your identity from government but it does allow you to access content via countries where there is no age verification thus companies don’t get your id

Honestly? State ID is better than the current solution which is giving Thiel-affiliated companies photo and other data.

Ideally I’d rather have a governments provided digital ID that’s more secure and just gives the company limited metadata instead of full ID info provided from gov’t to company. Put in rules requiring warrants or subpoenas for lookups.

Deleted by author

Who do you think is checking those ids? Hint: it’s not the government, it’s some 3rd party company, always.

Did you at any point actually read the open-source, anonymous age-verfication framework to be used by the EU?

ageverification.dev

The one that won’t even allow me tonuse the system if google dont like inuse my phone the way I want ? The one needes google verification to even launch.

No? What are you even talking about dude? You’re on a different topic

Yes. Look it. So it direct ban any linux phone or non certified google android phone wich if I want to modify my host file to not be submerged with ad I loose the certification

You are talking about something else. Show me.

Two chopsticks!

Two chopsticks!

I websearched that, wondering if that some memetic idiomatic expression…

o_O the websearch I used returned only 1 result: www.tiktok.com/…/one-chopstick-or-two-chopsticks … what’s happening to this world?

youtu.be/MmTiqKPnhiQ

Yes, I did and I really do not like that they are using PlayIntegrity for Android phones. That forces everybody in the EU onto unrooted phones which are controlled by google and will kill GrapheneOS and other alternatives.

github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/…/133

With cryptographic systems like the EU uses, it must go through the government because a 3rd party can’t implement that verification/response pattern without access to the proper gov’t cryptographic secrets.

People are morons. Here we have an open source and anonymous framework for age-verifcation (free for anyone to read and check the source code: ageverification.dev) developed by a people’s institution and people lump it into the same boat as some private USA company photocopying your ID.

People can be morons, but at least they’re not authority cocksuckers!

That’s always a fun 3 fingers to double check on. May reveal some insidious “not even wrong” fallacy that’s not easy to see when too close to it, immersed in it.

EU’s new social media child protection state surveillance rules to require all social media accounts to produce state ID

FTFY

That stuff would 100% get leaked and ruin many lives. Hell it would ruin lives even if only authorized authorities have access to it because some perverted cops or politicians will abuse it to stalk women and children. They‘re already doing it but getting a live feed of someone’s online activity by typing in a single number makes it so much more convenient for bad actors. And it would also get leaked on top of it.

Leak what? Nobody at any point stores any documents and you would know that if any of you read the OPEN SOURCE framework the EU developed.

ageverification.dev

It’s not about storing documents but about privacy. Do you want police officer in front your doors that checks identity of people that come to your house to talk with you ?

How does the police officer know its you and where you live lmao? that’s not how it works… the state ID produces a yes or no if you’re older than 18 which can’t be tracked, a yes or no has no information about the user… So a police officer can never know it was you lol what. Research zero-knowledge proof and the techniques behind it
Sources for ZKP: ageverification.dev/…/annex-B-zkp/ en.wikipedia.org/…/Elliptic_Curve_Digital_Signatu… Vulnerabilities: www.encryptionconsulting.com/…/what-is-ecdsa/ [Api2025] Rutchathon Chairattana-Apirom, Franklin Harding, Anna Lysyanskaya, and Stefano Tessaro, “Server-Aided Anonymous Credentials,” available at eprint.iacr.org/2025/513, 2025

Ok so imagine you have tablet on your door and anyone that can enter have valid signature stored but not on tablet but on police servers. Now guests are entering signatures on your tablet, that signature is then sent to the police server that accepts them or not and opens the doors as they wish.

a yes or no has no information about the user

Eliminating online privacy has always been framed as “protecting children” and it’s always been 100% about surveillance

I mean, why are they not using these resources to tackle child poverty, prosecute the epstein list or the panama papers if they want to help children so fucking badly?

Bingo!

ageverification.dev

The framework is anonymous and open source.

Even if it’s secure (no software is ever 100% secure), it can’t be anonymous. How could they verify your ID? Maybe they theoretically don’t store the record, and the checks after the first don’t provide it, it can’t be anonymous or it’s worthless for ID verification.

That’s the cool part, they found a way to keep it anonymous and still be ID verification, it’s called a white card, a simple yes or no if you’re 18+, it’s like you get a simple white card from a verified institution like a bank saying you’re 18+ with no other information like… How is that not anonymous?
Search for zero-knowledge proof, and the techniques behind it
Whatsapp is less safe than this
Sources for ZKP: ageverification.dev/…/annex-B-zkp/ en.wikipedia.org/…/Elliptic_Curve_Digital_Signatu… Vulnerabilities: www.encryptionconsulting.com/…/what-is-ecdsa/ [Api2025] Rutchathon Chairattana-Apirom, Franklin Harding, Anna Lysyanskaya, and Stefano Tessaro, “Server-Aided Anonymous Credentials,” available at eprint.iacr.org/2025/513, 2025

Sounds too good to be true. … But, if it’s as you say… sure, lets use it to let pedos know where to target. Oh, sorry, I mean, use it to “protect children”.

If I’m understanding it correctly, and I’m pretty sure I am, it requires a witness, like I said. That witness has to be trusted to not reveal any information. The receiver doesn’t get any information theoretically, but it requires that someone check your ID. That’s pretty obvious though because how else could it work?

You mean a system that automatically checks it? Your bank already has that data so its not a person or something

This will just push the actual criminals further underground, while everyone else gets spied on. lose-lose.

My freedom shouldn’t be implied cause some parent can’t use a parental control which is already mandatory in the eu. Your kids isn’t my responsability.

It s unreal that the “free world” want my id simply to go online.

Also same shit as rgpd. Only bigger website and corporation can afford putting million toward implementing thoses policiesbwhile all other won’t bother and just cut acces to be in compliance.

This is what it’s about. My daughter started reaching sites I had explicitly blocked in her phone and our home network (OPNSense + AdGuard Home) using a VPN.

I dis not blame the sites, or the ISP, or even the VPN provider. She has a PC and Phone because we, her parents, allowed it, so that’s on her for choosing to circumvent the security implemented, and on US for providing the means.

So, she has no access to any technology until further notice. Why the fuck does everyone have to pay because some of us are not parenting correctly?

I certainly don’t want any company or government deciding what my kids can or cannot have access to, that’s my role, not theirs.

I hate how effective the whole “think of the children” rhetoric is. Every person I talked to about this irl is either indifferent or even in support because they want children protected and they “don’t do anything they need to hide” anyway so they don’t mind presenting an ID… I agree children should not be on social media, but it’s kinda just the parent’s responsibility to not let them near it and the tools are out there. Plus let’s not pretend kids aren’t smart enough to figure out there’s alternatives…

Even after explaining what I would have done to them,

with that data, if I had the data, when I worked in advertising… [or even just explaining their basic human dignity of privacy]… the rhetoric remains strong enough to not have the cognitive dissonance be itchy enough to stop fallaciously repeating their mantra “nothing to hide”,

… and so that’s why they’re fine with this dystopian nightmare, this single point of failure, this hijacking of humanity by totalitarian government (or at least just megalomaniacal parasites wanting total dominating control, even in banal mundane petty ways, like just doing their job, serving their client as best they can, maximally manipulating mentalities to maximise wealth extraction)?

It does not make sense.

As for who’s on social media… yeah, maybe lets not have a corporate attention snare that learned from the billions invested in Las Vegas casinos for their ability to snare and direct peoples attention, keeping them going back in for more, keeping them addicted, maximally extracting wealth from them. “Social media”, such an Orwellian marketing spin term. … The ambiguity and resulting conflations help camouflage what the crooks are up to. Not all “social media” are alike. As surely we here on the fediverse know.

Children should not be on “social media”? Depends what one means… but typically I’d say children are due the same rights, and are not to be under classed. Y’know? Wanna take away children’s access to parts of the world? The parts that can be used for good too? … I just picture what that different world’s like, where Aaron Swartz gets denied access to something even younger… where that precedent goes, how much worse the dystopia can be, compared to what it already is. … Or… as you allude to… How much more fervently pursued, freedom is, by the young, the tighter they squeeze.

You raise a good point in that last paragraph, I’ll honestly have to think about that. When I say they shouldn’t be on social media, I specifically mean stuff like Instagram and TikTok and not the internet in general because as you say the internet can be used for so much good. But these slop machine type sites engineered for attention and addiction are honestly nightmare fuel, that shit is not good for any person, let alone someone whose identity and judgement is not yet fully formed. Not to mention how alarmingly common extremist ideologies are even on mainstream sites. So, while I understand what you’re saying, I know for a fact that if I was a parent I wouldn’t want my kids near that crap.

I know for a fact that if I was a parent I wouldn’t want my kids near that crap.

Yeah, it’d be some kind of non-mamalian (let alone inhuman) approach, to let your offspring freely frolic in dire dangers, and not actively protect and educate them. Roads. Crocodile infested rivers. Corporate “Social Media”.

How is your freedom reduced tho, an app produces a yes or no, how is that a reduction of freedom. Search for zero-knowledge proof and the techniques behind it
Sources for ZKP: ageverification.dev/…/annex-B-zkp/ en.wikipedia.org/…/Elliptic_Curve_Digital_Signatu… Vulnerabilities: www.encryptionconsulting.com/…/what-is-ecdsa/ [Api2025] Rutchathon Chairattana-Apirom, Franklin Harding, Anna Lysyanskaya, and Stefano Tessaro, “Server-Aided Anonymous Credentials,” available at eprint.iacr.org/2025/513, 2025

www.youtube.com/results?search_query=computer+say…

I choose what runs on my computer. I already kicked out SystemD for “an optional age field” so “an app that produces yes or no” can go straight up the author’s ass.

EU being shitty as always.

Yeah, no.

Ursula von der Leyen, making the internet progressively worse year by year. Cookie banners, GDPR consent dialogs, and now ID verification. Please just retire and take up a different hobby, like knitting.

Neither Cookie banners nor GDPR consent dialogs need to be bad. They are only bad because companies try to do their shit. It’s companies not regulation that make Cookie banners and GDPR consent dialogs bad.

That said, the id-verification stuff is just pure awful for privacy concerns.

Bullshit. They are bad because EU legislation is written by incompetent and/or corrupt (pick one) morons and accordingly full of loopholes. It would have been trivial to order web sites to respect browser ‘do not track’ settings.

I’m always ready for some ursula blaming but the first two are really not the fault of the law. majority of the companies “comply” maliciously, often also illegally, to make people hate privacy laws

So Orwellian.

Great, this might actually kill centralized social media in a long run. Future generations will grow up on decentralized web because it will be the only one they can access.