Age Verification Is Coming for the Whole Internet
-
I pay for mine in cash, they don't even know my name.
wrote last edited by [email protected]You can do that in the US as well, but it will cost more because you wouldn't be agreeing to a fixed term. For example, my ISP charges $25 a month for 200 mb/s if you agree to a one-year term, but it's $40 a month if you do not agree to a one-year term. And there's also the added inconvenience of having to go to one of the ISP's physical stores every month and put cash into their kiosk.
They will ask for your name here when signing up, but nothing prevents you from lying about your name if you're going to be paying in cash. They ask for an e-mail address as well, but you can say you haven't got one, and they'll create one for you using their own e-mail service and assign it to you. You don't actually have to use it, but it is for receiving their bills and notices.
-
I mean, wouldn't lemmy qualify as darknet because it isn't the top 10 websites? We should be growing the Federation anyways so I'm down for that. At least they won't ban me for making Trump jokes.
No, Darknet is just a website that's not listed anywhere. Lemmy is listed in many places.
-
It's not about actually protecting children. It's about data.
This is the correct answer. Notice that they have no compunction about punishing parents who secure gender-affirming care for their trans kids, but there has been zero discussion of holding parents responsible for their kids' internet usage.
Far-right groups in the US have been crying "Big Brother" about everything for years because their whole plan has been to create a surveillance state where to gather information about dissenters. Every accusation is a confession with these people.
-
Right, I'm imagining it as a service set up to be used if wanted/needed with no broad mandate. There are people running NSFW sites and channels that genuinely do not want minors interacting or accessing, and many would integrate this type of verification voluntarily if there was trust that it worked correctly and did not collect and distribute data about individuals. But I agree, that's not what is on offer. So far from the UK it seems like they are letting private businesses figure it out.
Right, I understand the idea, it's just very common that any capability that is created will be misused.
-
The real goal is to eliminate anonymity from the internet.
It’s about control. They can grant you access or revoke it based on your id.
The powers at be hate that they can’t control the narrative as well as they used to so this is their solution.
-
This post did not contain any content.
No it's not, maybe for some mainstream websites. Saying the "whole internet" is clickbait hyperbole.
-
No it's not, maybe for some mainstream websites. Saying the "whole internet" is clickbait hyperbole.
wrote last edited by [email protected]They mean most of the internet for most people
Only the vast socially relevant parts of the internet -
It's not about actually protecting children. It's about data.
They're using children as human shields while they attack our human rights.
-
I don't see how anybody could come for lemmy. I feel this just attacks centralized services
Lemmy is still very centralized,
sure there are many servers
and that takes care of the /u/spez problem
but very little else, most topic generally have one big community
and it's on the one big serverYou can go elsewhere, if you like speaking into the void and nobody even hearing you.
-
If it was so trivial why would they even bother making everyone show their IDs?
wrote last edited by [email protected]Not a static target. What we consider a profile today is vastly more comprehensive than what was deemed sufficient a few decades ago. Ad networks today would put intelligence agencies back then to shame. They can always get more info. Adding biometric face data is useful to them. In a few more decades people might be talking about if Google and governments should be allowed to read your thoughts. The tech making this possible is already being developed and further along than many might expect.
-
Nah the government would love for nobody to have access to the internet lol
The US government created the internet
-
Lemmy will be pressured into age verification also and most hosts will crumble. $50M per caught infraction is wild.
We gonna end up going back to libraries. Which actually would be cool as fuck. Like Yentl when all those dudes are hanging out in a big ass room talking philosophy. It'll re-spark the postal service. Live music will thrive. Coz everyone will be like fuck the internet, we'll do it live.
Lemmy will be pressured into age verification also and most hosts will crumble.
Then just self host
-
Lemmy will be pressured into age verification also and most hosts will crumble.
Then just self host
ah ha! Guess that's how we beat the system.
People would need to sub to your instance though for you to post content right?What would the pros and cons be?
-
No one needs the internet outside of work. The moment I'm forced to show my ID or get my face scanned, I'm done for good.
No one needs the internet outside of work.
As someone with a disability (and no car), the internet has played a massive role in allowing me to live independently, which in turn has a profoundly positive impact on my mental health. There are a wide variety of circumstances in which the internet has enhanced life experience - let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
-
I think we need to organise a massive campaign for people to cancel their entire Isp for at least a month, I'm betting all this would get reversed almost overnight.
Anything but that I fear they win and we all end up on the darknet.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Hahaha
Good luck doing that.
People can't even delay their non-essential shinies to make a statement against price gouging/raising bullshit.. You think they're gonna willingly sacrifice something like internet? for a month?
-
Not much more than the www.
By proportion maybe?
(Just guessing, I’m not on there)
-
By proportion maybe?
(Just guessing, I’m not on there)
Yeah, it's all relative. It's like the www before corporate takeover. Like the old www, you need to have some sense on where to go and where to avoid.
-
No it's not, maybe for some mainstream websites. Saying the "whole internet" is clickbait hyperbole.
Australians will soon be subjected to mandatory age checks across the internet landscape, in what has been described as a huge and unprecedented change.
Search engines are next in line for the same controversial age-assurance technology behind the teen social media ban, and other parts of the internet are likely to follow suit.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-11/age-verification-search-engines/105516256
-
It's not about actually protecting children. It's about data.
The purpose is to protect the mainstream media.
-
Can you have age verification and still be anonymous on the Internet? (Fixed fukted typo)
Yes, but the legislation specifically rules out that technology. The purpose is to remove anonymity.
