this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2026
19 points (91.3% liked)
Ask Experienced Devs
1467 readers
1 users here now
Icon base by Delapouite under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This isn’t true.
The internet has been around since the late 90s at the earliest…that’s when some kids started freely accessing adult content.
When I was a kid…(and I grew up unsupervised and poor with one working parent - I was free range)…porn mags were like the holy grail. I literally didn’t see one until I was about 14 and I found one in somebodies forest fort. So think about that…not only could I not find a porn mag…but the person that had one had to go hiking to “use” it.
I mean…we also had homophobic molester gym teachers teaching us health class…
There’s got to be a workable happy medium between no access and no information - and everything always all the time to the max.
You said teens. I didn’t know you meant 18. Even if it wasn’t your topic…surely kids having access to hardcore porn, fetish scenarios, etcetc before they have access to sex ed isn’t optimal.
Yeah…things are better, sex ed wise, then they were in the 80s. Miles better. That’s a great thing - but as I said above, sex-ed can’t keep up with what children are being exposed to. We’re not talking about Playboys and R-Rated movies here.
You didn’t really get my point, no. My point was that some children are being bombarded with sexual information from all angles, and it’s having unintended consequences. We essentially opened a new all-encompassing type of media and barely tried to regulate it.
The question isn't whether having access to hardcore porn is harmful. The question is the relative degree of harm.
When a web service can reliably distinguish between adult and child, it can specifically target content to either. Netflix can provide age-appropriate content to its users. That's great.
Groomers can specifically target members of their desired audience. That's not so great. That's bad. That's really, really bad. That's much worse than kids finding hardcore pornography. And that degree of targeting is only possible with widespread age verification laws.
There’s no question that certain types of adult content, not restricted to hardcore porn is harmful…we know it is.
It’s not “we deal with groomers OR we deal with harmful adult content…OR we only regulate popular streaming sites. We can do all of the above. We certainly don’t just throw up our hands and say “it’s not profitable to protect our children” (not what you’re saying, but rather what’s happening).
The way regulators are currently dealing with age-gating - say, in Australia - isn’t what we need to do. That certainly empowers groomers because there’s zero expertise or thought out into it: it’s an ISP-friendly virtue signal that attempts to preserve profits while making Boomers feel like something is happening.
I don’t have the answer…but I DO know there are a ton of answers that include actually attempting to study and regulate all addictive content, including adult content - ie content at the hosting level and requiring that providers and purveyors regulate their content with actual humans. We can never “win” the war if the status quo is automated moderation and profits above protection.
No, we cannot. At a societal level, we can't do any of it.
Protecting a child from content on the internet requires a massive invasion of the child's privacy. That degree of privacy invasion should not be granted to society in general. It should not be granted to the operators of a pornography site. It should certainly not be granted to the groomers.
The only place where that degree of privacy invasion is reasonable and acceptable is between parent and child. If you want to protect the children, you give parents the tools to regulate content. You don't provide those privacy-invading tools to the content providers and you certainly don't expect them to take a parental role over your kids, let alone your neighbors and yourself.
Well, we can protect them as societies and villages and we do.
This notion that somehow groomers are neutralized if we abandon any attempt at protecting children at large is absurd…talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water. Imagine a world where we just ignore the source of the issue…the groomers would have a hay day. “Sorry kid…you should have had better parents”.
Putting it all on the parents just means that a small portion of rich and savvy parents will be able to “protect” their kids, usually with draconian practices that put kids far more at risk. Pardon me…but you don’t know what you’re talking about.
No, here in reality we should continue to institute and advocate for effective measures.
No. I never suggested that. My argument is that using age verification makes it easier for groomers. That is a harm that arises from age verification. The harm to children from age verification greatly exceeds the benefit to children.
Correct. And I described how we can do that: By providing parents with the means to do it. Not pornographers. Not groomers. Not society in general. Providing these means to anyone except the parents is an unacceptable invasion into the privacy. Even to the parents, these measure deprive the child of a certain degree of privacy, but children have no broad expectation of privacy from their parents. It's OK for parents to invade their child's privacy; it is not OK for anyone else.
I'm not "putting" it on the parents: It's already on the parents. That responsibility should stay with the parents, because nobody else is qualified to wield it. Pornographers, groomers, politicians, and you will not invade the privacy of my children, and I should not be empowered to invade your child's privacy either.
A small portion of parents use draconian practices that put far more kids at risk? What the hell are you even talking about?
Age verification is not an "effective measure". The only person who needs to know the user's age is the parents.
With "age verification", we are supposed to place our trust in the pornographer and the groomer. Most of them aren't even in the same legal jurisdiction and are immune to criminal prosecution or civil judgment. Yet, we are supposed to grant them the power to invade our childrens' privacy, as well as our own. That is by no means an "effective" measure.
An effective measure would be creating a free, publicly available blacklist of adult content, and any number of free apps to implement that blacklist to block content on the child's device. Which we already have. Hundreds of them. They are extremely effective at protecting children, without invading their privacy or enabling grooming.
You’d need to demonstrate that age verification protects groomers v children…all the data says the opposite. On a basic level, we know anonymous age-gating works…but it goes nowhere near far enough.
Your only strategy can’t be tools for parents. That’s one, albeit important, pillar. You’re essentially giving tools to the people who need them the least, and leaving the children at risk out in the cold. The majority of parents aren’t savvy enough, aware of, or have the time to use the tools.
I’m talking about the real world outcomes of “leaving it to the parents”. The most common way for parents to try to protect children is prohibition…and we know that prohibition puts kids more at risk. This isn’t an edge case…this is well meaning parents putting their children in danger because they don’t understand the realities of danger. Again…draconian prohibition is currently the most common strategy - that’s what I’m talking about. These parents most often the same parents who want to restrict sex education in schools, by the way.
You have a strange and incorrect understanding of how age verification functions, or can function. You’re creating this straw man scenario where children are broadcasting their age publicly…that’s not really a thing. There’s an array of private ways to verify who a person is…we do it all the time when we’re protecting money assets or for other security. The only problem here is the expense of instituting these methods on a large scale, and requiring that the data isn’t harvested or sold or used in any other way. It’s bizarre to suggest that because a tiny portion of is vulnerable…we should stop looking at data. The harm reduction option is definitely not “leave it to the parents”.
I highly recommend educating yourself about the methods of restricting adult content…which aren’t limited to age verification by the way. It really seems like you have a specific and personal axe to grind with internet restrictions that you’re not talking about.
All I need to show is that groomers can use the tools to distinguish between adults and children. The California law requires your OS announce your age to a "developer" before downloading an "application". The way the law is crafted, though, "developer" = "web server", and "application" = "web page".
Furthermore, the way the law is written, groomers aren't just allowed to get your age; they are required to get your age if they offer web services to Californians.
You'd be hard pressed to find an adult who was successfully isolated from pornography as a minor. From that, we can conclude that the overwhelming majority of children aren't actually harmed by porn. Quite the contrary, instilling the idea in them that seeking pornography is somehow sinful or disobedient is quite harmful on multiple levels. But I digress...
The fact that fucking everyone has seen porn before their 18th birthday --without harm-- demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of kids don't actually need the tools. You see parents not using the tools as not knowing they exist or how to use them; I see parents trusting their kids. I see parents feigning ignorance of such tools in order to keep puritanical nitwits off our backs.
No, that puts fewer kids at risk. Only the kids of those draconian parents are put at risk by those prohibitions. Age verification expands that to every kid. You've got the test backwards.
While those draconian parents are putting their kids at risk, their normal peers are inoculating them with sanity. Expand their insane bullshit to the rest of society, and that sanity is replaced with puritanical dogma.
Read the California law. That is a thing, effective January 1st, 2027. There are provisions against requiring data for other purposes or giving it to third parties, but those provisions require first-party groomers to have their webservers collect that data on every page load.
I see, yes, you’re reacting to specific family of regulations that I already criticized earlier in this thread. Just like I don’t think putting it on on the parents is a good thing, I don’t think having companies regulate themselves is a good thing. This is what I was talking about when I said I don’t believe we should take an approach that protects companies profits.
The alternative to self-regulation isn’t to just give up (put it in the parents hands) - it’s to have a multi pillared approach that includes everything that works, including (but not limited to) education, user tools, age gating etc. But that’s basically what we’re doing now…and instead of coming up with a comprehensive plan to regulate data at the source…we’re putting in a patchwork of company friendly virtue signals that make us less safe at the end of the day. Again: removing consumer age-gating and replacing it with nothing is a bad idea.
Nah, I have it exactly right. The current model is primarily prohibition and nothing for the rest of us….that’s very dangerous. Your fear mongering scenario isn’t a thing. You’re speaking as if all children must publicly announce their age…when you know very well that’s not how the laws function. You’re arguing that if it’s possible for groomers to get the data…then it’s not worth getting the data at all. Meanwhile I’m reality the groomers require an additional step that any system would be vulnerable to. Certainly the groomers are much happier if you win your case and we do nothing…then they have access to every kid with the exception of the few savvy parents who can use the tools effectively.
You’re not making an argument I can take seriously. You can’t just call every company who collects data a groomer, that’s absurd. As I said before…you need an actual groomer working within the system…and groomers are much happier working without a system than with one.
I completely agree that the law is lazy and doesn’t put enough oversight or privacy safeguards in place. I don’t agree that returning the internet to an unregulated hellhole with only user tools is the answer.
Putting it in the parents hands isn't "giving up". That's where the responsibility should be. There is no other entity capable of performing this task without undue invasion of privacy.
This isn't a case where throwing everything at the problem makes it better. It doesn't. Every effort we take is another invasion into our privacy; into the privacy of children. Everything we do makes the privacy problem worse, and most of what we can do will also make it easier to identify and target children for additional harm.
We aren't "removing" anything. Consumer age gating does not exist. It has never existed. It never needs to exist. Age gating isn't just virtue signalling. Age gating is actively enabling harm.
The current model is not "prohibition". The current model is "parental supervision".
No. I'm arguing that groomers are now required to collect the data. We used to be able to prosecute suspicious people for needlessly invading the privacy of others. With the current crop of laws, we require them to identify children.
Strawman. I didn't claim that. What I claimed is that every groomer who happens to provide a web service to Californians will be required to collect children's age data as of January 1, 2027.
Supplanting user tools with centralized regulation is exactly what made the internet a hellhole.
If you believe parents are the only people who can help…then I’m glad you’re not in charge because that would doom us. As I said above…most parents aren’t savvy enough or don’t have the time. If parents could be the solution…it would have been solved already.
Yes, I get it…you’re saying that the groomers are the people collecting that data. Simply not true, like it or lump it those terrible laws will help…even if they’re a terrible invasion of privacy and don’t go far enough in some respects. I’m sorry, I can’t engage with somebody so wildly out of touch any more. I’m a front line worker in at risk children…and poor and at risk children…the children who are majority of children groomed…would be left out in the cold by your simplistic approach.
Parents (and persons serving in loco parentis: guardians, caregivers, etc.) are the only ones who can responsibly impose on the privacy rights of a child. The government needs a warrant to do the same. Society in general includes the pornographers and groomers and others who would do harm to the child, and cannot be broadly trusted with such a responsibility. Any solution for a particular child has to pass through the parents/guardians of that child. The parents/guardians must be the ones implementing it, and they should only be allowed to implement it for their own children/wards. You indicate later that you work with at-risk kids; you might be considered a "guardian" of those kids, and you would be charged with providing this role to your kids. But not to society in general.
You have yet to read or fully comprehend the California law (in particular) if you're making that claim. Go back and read it. When you do, remember that groomers will be making "applications". Some of the developers receiving "age signals" from childrens' operating systems will be groomers. Re-read the law again, but this time substitute "groomer developer" for "developer", and "groomer application" for "application". This law explicitly requires groomer-developers to collect this data.
Violating everyone's privacy is not a replacement for properly supervising children. The poor and at risk kids you're talking about shouldn't exist: Their needs should be properly met, so that nobody is "at risk". Age verification doesn't do anything to help at-risk kids. It does make it easier for groomers to identify them as at-risk kids.
Australia adopted age restrictions on social media. They found that the net effect of their ban was to isolate at-risk kids from support. Kids felt compelled to hide their internet activities from adults and authorities. The act of reporting abuse also served to incriminate the kid for bypassing the bans, so kids tend to conceal both. Their ban is introducing greater harm.
You're not helping kids by supporting these laws. You're putting them at greater risk. As a "front line worker in at risk children", you really should know better.