Good arguments there, and for once addressing privacy-preserving age verification.

I just don't like that proponents of age verification are systematically (including in this article) dismissed as authoritarians hiding behind "just another “what about the children” excuse to introduce mass surveillance and censorship". Many people genuinely want to find a solution that is better for the children, and telling them "if you are open to age verification you are either a fascist or a moron" is not constructive.

Also I find the way ZKP is criticised a bit manipulative. It kinda implies that "fundamentally, any kind of ZKP system can be switched off remotely and without anyone realising", and that is wrong. It can be implemented in such a way that people have pretty good guarantees about it preserving their privacy, similar to end-to-end encryption. I find it hypocritical to say "E2EE can be reasonably trusted, but privacy-preserving age verification fundamentally cannot", just because tech people like the former and not the latter.

So, to post something in 2027:

- You have to have an approved browser.

- It has to be installed on an approved platform, Google or Apple, for which you have a valid account.

- You have to have an account on the posting platform.

- You have to get past moderation on the posting platform.

That's without age verification.

“Introducing age verification is based on the state being able to force social media companies to verify their users’ identities”

Users have been doing this themselves without state coercion for twenty years now by putting their real names all over Facebook and all the other socials. Nobody forced them to use their real names and post countless pictures of their faces alongside, and pour out the totality of their worthless opinions on every issue. Compared to this, when considered sensibly, the verification is almost a trivial step.

So there are walled gardens with restrictions. The internet will route around these restrictions.

EU law gives every citizen a right to a bank account.

I wonder if EU law could give every citizen a right to a google or Apple account, including a forced recovery option if the account is 'deactivated'?

If at some point such an account becomes essential to function in society, access to such an account becomes a legal mandate.

There isn't much left of the free Internet anyway. Search engines no longer work, all discussion forums are ranked/censored by interest groups, mail delivery is between large entities.

Maybe we need an alternative set of root servers for a free Internet.

Growing up I remember all the ads about avoiding narcotics talking about getting hooked on free samples and then going to jail for theft and/or possession. The people behind that propaganda didn't know drugs do cost money, dealers being dorky teens and twenty-somethings who are about as dangerous as a butterfly. But this propaganda also illustrates how some elements aren't very bright. The internet age with free email, free social media, etc. got everyone hooked and now Zuckerberg, et al. are giving doe-eyed, hat-in-hand, and crying poverty. If people were wise to those PSAs, past and present, they'd see how the loyal opposition has been playing with their cards face-up on the table under the guise of good intentions. Much like the pedophile scare during the teens, pun unintended, with Comet Ping Pong and then come 2024 it's revealed Epstein and his cadre of deviant cronies were doing it all along while deflecting poorly to innocent parties. Goodness knows what else is still right in front of our noses but their reality hasn't come to fruition in the zeitgest.

hey claude build me a small social media site i can use with my friends...

the beginning of the freedom of every person to become a developer

>and that you can no longer post anonymously on social media. You cannot be certain that your criticism of the government will not be followed up by the authorities.

sorry but I don't get this point. If you're on Instagram or Facebook, did you think fifteen different three letter agencies weren't already watching you? It has the word 'face' in the name, the entire point of that site is that people mindlessly share their personal information, it's not some underground space for activists.

You can be perfectly anonymous on the internet, but demanding to be anonymous on Facebook is like trying to start a Das Kapital book club at Goldman Sachs or decrying commercial culture while you're in a Disneyland theme park

One very simple way to give parents control over what their children see and participate in without violating everyone else’s privacy is to create adult and social TLDs and require these sites to migrate to them. So instagram.com becomes instagram.social, etc. Then mandate that all consumer network equipment mfrs and internet providers provide easily accessible ways to block these TLDs. Maybe combine that with some public education materials to teach less savvy parents how to do this.

Now you’ve given every parent a way to easily mass block all adult/social sites/apps if they want and no one’s privacy need be compromised.

Mullvad VPN is great. Mullvad Browser is a great balance for preventing fingerprinting and also usability vs the Tor Browser. Most browsers I've found, even ones with claimed fingerprinting protections, are easily traced by fingerprint.com and other tests. Mullvad beats it.

There's this cool new feature that they added to the Mullvad browser extension, which is built into the Browser. It gives you a random different proxy for each site, kind of like the Tor Browser.

Mullvad understands that VPNs overpromise and underdeliver, but if you combine a trustworthy VPN, a fingerprint-resistant browser, and uBlock Origin, you get a damn good internet privacy. The browser is not ideal for daily-driving because it's always incognito so you get signed out on close, but I heard they're working on a persistent version.

This is so lame, it seems like a small number of pedophiles have forced us to deal with all this age verification stuff.

Porn has always been around (national geographic, anyone), and parents can use screen time to limit access for their children if they want.

Does anyone think of social media as free?

The problem is kids on social media. This doesn't need to be a problem for anyone except social media companies and social media users. Sloppy policymaking is making it a broader problem, but I don't think this is some nefarious scheme (at least in the U.S., it looks sketchier in Europe). It's just policymakers pulling the first proposal off the shelf to respond to intense demand for a policy from voters.