IMHO, the push for age verification is just a stepping stone towards requiring a mandatory ID for all social media posts made from EU. Given the current trends against freedom of speech, it's not unreasonable to think that by the end of the decade any site, including HN, might need to link usernames with their respective eIDs in case posts come from EU IP addresses.

> officially sanctioned hardware and software

Right now, if you want to run an alternative OS, it's already an uphill battle to use tons of member state services, as well as to do banking. Even if you have microG available, the situation is terrible. I imagine it's going to become harder. I cannot understand why the European Commission wants to reduce our reliance on FAANG services, and at the same time they make Google Play a de facto standard, reinforcing the mobile duopoly. In this context, free alternative mobile platforms, such as Sailfish, cannot flourish.

Hate to say it mate, UK is already one of the worst offenders.

In their own "internet bubble," with curated Google searches that only present a very "Commonwealth countries bias" in search results. After I worked in the UK for a couple of years, I noticed there is a strong bias toward the same sites (Government and UK companies, especially biased toward "facts"). Second, you leave the UK. You will never get it. Try a VPN outside of the UK and search for the same stuff, you will notice it right away.

The UK have used the "think about the children" excuse for different stuff they don't like (Remember the Porn pass Idea? Where you had to go down to your local Tesco to get a "wanker pass" from the cashier.)

Same thing, now just for EU, and they use the "protect the children" excuse, but they have now started to aim at video game companies and others to "verify" age for the sake of "protecting the children". It is horrifying that they want to ID children in the excuse of their "safety". In a couple of years, they will likely offer free in-game currency to trick users into giving away their personal information.

I think you're trying too hard to post cynical remarks as if the were this major gotcha. Even though the bill is quite awful, Occam's razor is quick to point out this has all the hallmarks of an overzealous technocrat than authoritarianism. Try to think about it for a second:

- the goal of the legislation is to ensure adult content is not provided or actively pushed to children,

- adult content is pushed primarily by tech platforms,

- the strategy is to allow access to adult content only to users who prove they are adults,

- the strategy followed is to push an age verification system.

- technocrats know age verification systems can be circumvented if tampered with.

- technocrats proceed to add provisions that mitigate the risk of tampering age verification systems.

The detail you're glancing over is US's hegemony over social media and tech platforms. The world is dominated by three platforms: Microsoft's, Apple's, Google's. Even Samsung is not European. How do you expect to push a technical solution for an authorization platform without leveraging the systems that people use?

Also, the way the current US administration is pushing their blend of fascism onto the world is something I do not find funny. If anything, this would mean the American fascists are succeeding.

I don't know how it works technically, but clearly there's a way to fake it.

Well payed "transatlantic" lobbyists across all political parties of the EU at work.

They are self-serving and learnt to give a big F* about the citizens of the EU.

But slowly slowly it will turn into mass terror and deaths. The control freaks in power are taking our freedoms away inch by inch.

The problem is relay services that supply positive age verification results to any interested user for a fee. With a non-privacy-preserving solution, those aren't a problem, law enforcement can just track whose credentials those services are using and shut them down.

I'm not a fan of the whole idea in general, but if we have to choose, I choose privacy over hackability.

We say this, but many also want to entrust all our PC games to one closed source launcher. Or have videos/TV all on one subscription service. There's definitely a spectrum of benevolent and greedy dictators people draw lines on.

But it's nice so many people care about the last few places where hard freedoms exist. The biggest risk is missing the forest for the trees and not seeing the local extensions of short term political comprise.

    Protecting Kids from Social Media Act (Tennessee HB 1891)
    Sponsors Representative William Lamberth (R‑TN) 
    Requires: Social media platforms to verify users’ ages and obtain parental consent for under‑18 users; restricts retention of verification data; allows parental monitoring & time limits. Went into effect January 1, 2025.

    Utah Social Media Regulation Act (SB 152 & HB 311)
    Sponsors: Sen. Michael McKell (R) , Rep. Jordan Teuscher (R-District 44)
    Requires: Mandatory age verification for all users; parental consent and oversight for under‑18s; bans algorithmic targeting to minors; curfews; data‑privacy protections. (As of mid‑2025, enforcement blocked by litigation.) 

    The Walker Montgomery Protecting Children Online Act (Mississippi HB 1126)
    Sponsors: Walker Montgomery (R‑MS)
    Requires: Digital service platforms to verify age using "commercially reasonable" methods, obtain parental consent for users under 18, limit collection/use of minor’s data, moderate harmful content (self‑harm, grooming, etc.)

    Texas SCOPE Act (HB 18, “Securing Children Online Through Parental Empowerment”)
    Sponsors: Bryan Hughes (R-District 5)
    Requires: Platforms to verify the parent/guardian age if the account is for a minor; parental consent before collecting data for users under 18; content filtering for self‑harm, etc. Enforcement partially blocked by lawsuit. 

    Kids Online Safety & Privacy Act (S. 2073 – pending)
    Sponsors: Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA)
    Requires: Commission study into age‑verification technologies; does not mandate verification itself

    Utah Social Media Regulation Act S.B. 152
    Sponsors: Sen. Todd Weiler (R)
    Requires: Mandatory age verification, parental consent, time‑bed restrictions, limits on algorithmic recommendations; currently blocked in court 

    Mississippi Walker Montgomery Protecting Children Online Act (HB 1126)
    Sponsors: Representative Walker Montgomery (R‑MS)
    Requires: Age verification for digital services, parental consent, limits on data collection and harmful content moderation

    Georgia Protecting Georgia’s Children on Social Media Act (SB 351 / Act 463)
    Sponsors: State Senator Brandon Beach (R)
    Requires: Platforms verify age of new users; under‑16 require parental consent; schools to ban social media access 

    Virginia Amendment to VA Consumer Data Protection Act (SB 854)
    Sponsors: Sen. Schuyler VanValkenburg (D) , Sen. Lashrecse Aird (D)
    Requires: Requires age determination, parental consent for under‑16, limits usage to 1 hour/day unless overridden by parent, fines up to $7,500 per violation

    Louisiana HB 142 (and HB 570) Online Age Verification for Adult Content
    Sponsors: Representative Laurie Schlegel (R)
    Requires: Websites where ≥ 33% of content is adult must verify users are 18+ via IDs or transaction data; private causes of action allowed

    Ohio HB 96 (2025 law)
    Sponsors: Bryan Stewart (R-Ashville)
    Requires: Criminal penalties for commercial sites failing to verify adult content users 

    Iowa SF 207 / HF 864
    Sponsors: Kevin Alons (R-Disctrict 7)

    Texas SB 2420 (App-Store Age Verification)
    Sponsors: Angela Paxton (R)

    South Carolina HB 3405
    Sponsors: Representative Brandon Guffey (R‑SC) prefiled Jan 2025
    Proposed: Require app stores to verify age and obtain parental consent for minors; still pending


    Protecting Kids on Social Media Act (S. 1291 federal bill)
    Sponsored by: Senator Brian Schatz (D‑HI), Senators Tom Cotton (R‑AR), Chris Murphy (D‑CT), Katie Britt (R‑AL) 
    Requires: Social media platforms to verify user ages, prohibit access to under‑13s, block algorithmic feeds to users under 18, require parental consent for minors

    App Store Accountability Act (H.R. 10364 / companion Senate bill)
    Sponsored by: Rep. John James (R‑MI‑10); Senate version by Sen. Mike Lee (R‑UT) with Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D‑CT) 
    Requires: App store operators verify ages and obtain parental consent before minors download apps or make in‑app purchases; federal preemption and FTC enforcement

Do not think for a moment that ID verification primarily protects children and only incidentally enables authoritarian restrictions on speech. Do not think for a second that verification initiatives are designed without anticipating this outcome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...

Not commenting on ID checks but depending on the protest, some images can be violent and definitely "adult".

I never understood why we go out of our way to "protect" children against seeing naked people, but real people in a pool of blood, nah, no problem. I think that people bloodily fighting each other for causes that I have a hard time understanding even as an adult may not be what we want children to be exposed to without control. Images of violence create a visceral reaction and I don't think it is how we should approach political problems, in the same way that porn may not be the best approach to sex, the same argument for why we don't let children access porn applies to political violence too.

The point I wanted to make is that whatever your opinion is on ID checks to access to adult content, "adult" doesn't and shouldn't just mean "porn".

The average person could never do that; critical evaluation was always needed (and it was needed for the material people encountered before the internet, too.) The only thing that is a change from the status quo ante in the first sentence is “LLM generated”.

Political problems cannot be solved through technology or yet another forked FOSS project. They require political power, numbers and threat of violence to those in charge.

They want to stop children from accessing porn, which really isn't all that bad. Certainly it's not nearly as bad as wasting hours on perfectly legal social media and streaming sites

Better check on that.

There was an article in the New York Times last week about how many E.U. countries have actually gone back to border checks. Most recently, Germany and Poland.

The European commission, the top of the EU's unelected and mostly unchecked bureaucracy, is currently suing its data protection office after it declared that its use of Microsoft 365 infringes data protection laws.

I mean, the EU wants to force browsers to recognize its own web certificates, while allowing Google to selectively deactivate your phone's capacity to conduct ID checks. It's the same with the "EU Cloud initiative", that at the end was full of non-EU companies.

The aim of the EU bureaucracy is not sovereignty, but extension of its power, nowadays called as "regulation". And when in place, it can't be removed, even if it's clearly self-harming.

> The EU is not a hegemonic state, but rather an economic supranational organization. France/Germany tend to be primary proponents of increased EU strategic autonomy, while Poland/Czech/Baltic states are less supportive.

Well obviously, these states know how bad the Russians are since they were terrorised by them for decades. They'll be the first on the chopping block. And they know that Europe does not have much deterrent of its own right now so they're screwed without the US. Though this will come.

Germany isn't doing this as much anymore, because Germany Inc has become increasingly dependent on their investments within the US [0], especially after the triple whammy of the Biden-era IRA [1], the sanctions on Russia sparking a domestic energy crisis [2], and Chinese players outcompeting German industry in China [3].

This can be seen with Germany purchasing American weapons for Ukraine over French objections [4]

[0] - https://flow.db.com/more/macro-and-markets/us-german-trade-r...

[1] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-14/german-go...

[2] - https://oec.world/en/blog/bavarias-dependency-on-russian-gas...

[3] - https://www.reuters.com/business/majority-german-firms-feel-...

[4] - https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-donald-trump-weapons-...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px9qhDGv300&t=150s.

(the entire video is interesting and informative, I've skipped it to the France-US specific part, up to about 11:02 where Australia is introduced as the US sycophant it is)

Whether it's logical or not, offences past, even those thought forgotten, are easily recalled when under similar pressures.

Is this meant as a joke? It's not even remotely plausible.

But I agree, forcing verification will not be effective enough, kids will find their way. The real solution is more education on this topic from younger age.

As girls grow up and become women, they become disinterested in men, due to the perceived danger. When boys grow up they become avoidant men who are scared of approaching and asking out women, due to the perceived risk of ridicule, shaming and legal action. This prevents the formation of stable marriages, which then culminates in low birth rates.

This is objectively not true. Not to say that a porn ban combined with age restrictions would help, but it's just objectively not true.

* Rise of incels as a thing, and even violence committed by them

* Various loneliness epidemics

* Rise of movements such as the 4B in South Korea, where women flat out refuse traditional relationships with men

* the rises in STDs and teen pregnancies can probably be explained by other factors

* The rises in various diagnosis (ADHD, etc) and rates of sexual assault can probably be explained by just having more rigorous reporting and testing, as well as higher awareness, but the rise of specific types of sexual abuse (like a popular one, choking without consent, which can easily lead to brain damage) can be directly linked to its prevalence in porn

* significant differences in opinion on equality and general political leanings between boys and girls

That's not to say that porn is a problem, and removing it for <18 will magically make everything fine. But things are decidedly messed up for a lot of teens and young adults, and parts of that messed upness can be potentially inspired by porn, and "the manosphere". The second one is more important IMO.

Basically anything other than going to a legally compliant website and trying to attach your mom's passport to the age verification app and doing the challenge.

But this still wouldn't stop determined kids from VPNing to another country to make their account, and wouldn't stop peer pressure on kids from bleeding to parents to help them.

W T F ? ? ?

> Because the practical reality here is, like, porn is the big scary word, but the actual danger to kids is other people.

Bad news, Champ. Other people also exist off of the Internet. They always have. The world is not entirely safe. And that does not mean children shouldn't get to be part of the world.

The main problem here is panicky idiocy.

That idea has never really been realistic short of keeping them isolated from society until 16-18 (which most would consider abuse), but it’s not even slightly possible today with how readily available information has become. It’s an inevitability that they will learn about the topics you’ve been avoiding and take on external influences you may not approve of.

Now to be clear, I’m not advocating for letting kids run wild on the internet with no guardrails, especially earlier on. Guardrails are important, but it’s even more important in my opinion to try to stay ahead of what they may encounter by talking with them about those things so when they eventually run across it, they’re not flying blind and might even seek your guidance about the incident since they know you’re not going to get angry about it. That’s much more likely to bring positive outcomes than if they ran into these things without parental support.

As for other people being the danger, there’s some truth to that for women. I have a daughter, so this will be a concern. But you know, she won’t die. Everyone goes through trauma. The key here is to make sure she feels comfortable enough to talk to me and to my wife before doing anything (too) stupid.

I snuck out of my parents’ house to go see a girl when I was 16. Took my dad’s station wagon. On the way, some car tried to pass me and ended up hitting a big truck on the side. Truck was fine, I was fine, that fella was not. He ended up on the side of the road. Me and trucker just kept going. I still think about that guy a lot, because obviously the correct thing to do would have been to call 911, but I was a dumb 16yo who was out past midnight to go see a girl.

Point is, if things went a little differently, I could have been the one who crashed, or even dead. But that doesn’t mean that the girl I was going to go see was somehow a threat to me. It means I was doing something dangerous.

Again, this is easy to say as a man. The threat model for women is different. But prohibiting minors from the internet without supervision is totally absurd, and I feel bad for any parent who helicopters their kids like that.

Ultimately your kid will grow up and have their own life. Do you want to be remembered as the parent who had them under lock and key in the name of safety, or as a parent who monitored from a distance and occasionally let them do stupid things so that they could learn from it? For me, the latter is far more preferable.

HN and even the GitHub comments mostly start with the assumption that of course we should do this. Of course we should restrict social media to under 16/18s and either are in favor of ID to access the Internet or pretend it won't happen by consequence of this.

Now try to address what I said instead of poorly calling me out.

See, I wouldn't have as much of an issue if you were honest about this real intention, because of how on the nose it is to reasonable people.

The idea that I will have to upload 3D models of my face and ID, or get permission from Google, just to go online because you don't like the idea of someone else's kids using the internet is absurd.

Please stop using appeals to children in your quest to "stop ideas from growing".

Ah yes. Anonymity is the only thing that enables dishonesty and of course it's the government's moral duty to regulate it.

Once anonymity is banned, the world will be honest and good and True and we'll all look back on the Bad times thinking how silly we all were.

The best part of minority report was the way everything constantly tracked identity through retinal scans; i can't wait for the future!

I know politics isn’t logical but if you keep drilling down the root cause, eventually you’ll hit bedrock.

Everyone’s ready. The only reason US is wealthy is those subscription fees and vendor lock in we have.

You are right to be worried. US companies under this administration can’t be trusted to follow the law. Why should they, when our commander in chief isn’t and has a panel of judges who let him do whatever. Just the other day he suggested Obama be investigated for treason. So yeah, we’re toxic, and you all should seriously quarantine yourselves.

That can be improved by making traditional investments (real estate, land) less attractive while making investments into businesses more attractive. You just need to change tax incentives by removing capital gain tax and introducing real estate/land value tax (or raising it). Removing red tape would help as well and then making the common market really common.

As it is there is very little incentive to invest in companies here.

> and the one that was a bit better than terrible was bought by a US company

But here you say EU can make great software? Just that USA then buys it. So we should just ban USA from buying our great software companies, is that what you are saying?

Struggling to think of corporate produced software that doesn’t suck. iOS Safari is ok, I guess.

I can do most anything online, haven’t had to physically visit an gov office for years, outside voting and getting a new passport photo. And everything just works.

Edit: and before anyone points out that we’re not in EU, yes - but we’re in the EEA.

So you complain to the service, they either ignore you or tell you to use the app, and then what? They are not breaking any law as far as I can tell.

And even if it was, class actions in Europe are close to inexistent, and it's not worth it for any one consumer to take the multinational running the service to court.

> there's nothing stopping the governments implementing these standards from permitting GrapheneOS' signature

incompetence and/or not caring

> Very well sir, which digital payment service would you like to use?

> It doesn't matter they all force me to use my phone.