pretty sure what was meant was Facebook et al, which are the places where abuse happens

Is the Fediverse “making billions on endangering & harming our children”?

No, of course not. The vast majority of Fedi sites aren't making money at all, let alone billions. They're paid for by some volunteer's day job and a trickle of donations.

So why are Fedi sites to be forced to either conjure billions out of thin air to pay for age verification, or shut down entirely?

@kasperd @kramse @jwildeboer @michael

There is no such thing as zero-knowledge proof. Such schemes merely change which big government/business gets the knowledge.

See, for example, the European Digital Identity Wallet (EUDIW). The EU government doesn't get the knowledge of which websites you're using…but the app requires the use of a Google-approved phone, so Google gets the knowledge.

Anonymity, and therefore privacy and freedom of speech, is fundamentally incompatible with age verification. Full stop.

Carers need to be able to delegate their restriction requirements to platforms, and trust that they work. They do NOT need to delegate their decision to apply a restriction. That stays between them and the person in their care.

I say we should not hand over duty of care to other agencies 2/2

I suggest this should be more widely considered as a 'duty of care' responsibilty between a vulnerable person of any age and someone who takes care of them.

The carer needs both the tools and the cooperation of potentially harmful information providers to do their duty 1/2

The fascists want ID so they can Dox, Swat, SLAPP, etc those that say mean words that hurt their fee-fees.

#FirstAmendment

Current political discussions are leading in the wrong direction. You want to avoid an abuse that already is implemented in every day life.

Get rid of guns, get rid of harmful platforms.

(note I didn't say "get rid of harmful content", which would also be impossible - the problem here is platforms profiting wildly on serving harmful content in harmful ways & we have both the platforms' own words & the word of the courts on this)

• Don’t let children have completely unrestricted internet access.
• Whenever an adult provides internet connection to a child that adult is responsible for which parts of the internet they are granting the child access to.
• We need tools that can help adults take care of this task. Some tools exist already, they may need improvement. I have more trust in the industry providing such tools than I have in any government implementing an identification system without major security/privacy flaws.

What’s important about this overall approach is that it doesn’t require breaking the internet to implement. Adults can keep communicating on the internet like they already do. And I think that’s an important property of a solution intended to restrict children’s access.

I also have an idea for a simple technical solution that can allow some cooperation between websites and the adults who let children access the internet. My idea is as follows:

When communication is between adults, nothing changes compared to how the internet has been working until now. When a child is communicating a destination option is included in the packets with a single byte of payload containing information about the age of the user. This bytes contains two pieces of information birth year modulus 19 and birth month being a number from the range 0-12 with 0 meaning unspecified.

Assuming the child has their own dedicated device then an adult configuring the CPE can let the CPE know the birth month of each user such that the CPE can verify the presence and correctness of the destination option. It can also be configured to know about some trusted sites which children can be allowed to access without the extra destination option. This for example can be used to ensure that the mechanism doesn’t interfere with installing software security updates.

Each individual device used by children needs to be configured to send this option with a valid value. Without this configuration the CPE would reject all communication. A device administered by an adult can be set up with multiple users some of which are children. Then it needs to be configured to know which users are children and which birth month to send for those users. In that scenario no filtering is needed on the CPE as the individual device handles the filtering.

if the solution ignores effectivity, and bad repercussions - like throwing anonymity away because of the children. It is NOT an acceptable solution.

Dont focus only on expected good, but how can it be abused. Do you want to trust all future politicians with THIS power, and what happens WHEN data is stolen, be practical

it was not me saying it was easy, we dont owe you anything #sealion

What will solve it is holding the platforms responsible & people like you insisting the users jump through hoops in a security theater instead is distracting from that.

Funny you should compare to US firearm problems because that, too, is about dancing ineffectually around the problem when a working solution is right there but corporations are against it.