I'd just buy my child a VPN to avoid this shit.

My parents would have beat my ass if I did something like that. That was a pretty good deterrent.

The US federal courts had an interesting opinion there: parents may always allow their children to access protected speech. Even with sex-related materials, the Supreme Court has stated

the prohibition against sales to minors does not bar parents who so desire from purchasing the magazines for their children.

They regarded as constitutionally defective laws that impose a single standard of public morality. Instead, they'd allow laws that "support the right of parents to deal with the morals of their children as they see fit". Laws that take away parental control are also impermissible.

“It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder.” Prince v. Massachusetts, supra, at 166.

In another decision, they regard & defend parental responsibility & discretion in leaving access open to children, and they find measures "enterprising and disobedient" children can circumvent preferable over unacceptable alternatives.

The Commonwealth argues that central blocking would not fulfill the state’s compelling interest as effectively as the access number does because minors with phone lines could request unblocking or could gain access to unblocked phones. It also argues that a parent who chooses to unblock the home’s phone to gain access to sexually explicit material for himself or herself thereby places dial-a-porn phone service within the reach of minors with access to that phone. In this respect, the decision a parent must make is comparable to whether to keep sexually explicit books on the shelf or subscribe to adult magazines. No constitutional principle is implicated. The responsibility for making such choices is where our society has traditionally placed it — on the shoulders of the parent. See Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U.S. 60, 73-74, 103 S.Ct. 2875, 2883-84, 77 L.Ed.2d 469 (1983) (parental discretion controlling access to unsolicited contraceptive advertisements in the home is the preferred method of dealing with such material).

Even with parental control, the Commonwealth is undoubtedly correct that there will be some minors who will find access to unblocked phones if they are determined to do so. As the Supreme Court noted in Sable, “[i]t may well be that there is no fail-safe method of guaranteeing that never will a minor be able to access the dial-a-porn system.” 109 S.Ct. at 2838. Nonetheless, the Court did not deem the desire to prevent “a few of the most enterprising and disobedient young people,” id., from securing access to such messages to be adequate justification for a statutory provision that had “the invalid effect of limiting the content of adult telephone conversations to that which is suitable for children.” Id. at 2839. We hold that because the means used, requirement of an access code, substantially burdens the First Amendment right of adults to access to protected materials and is not the least restrictive alternative to achieve the compelling end sought, the statute cannot survive the constitutional attack.

So, according to them, presenting such content to children ought to be left up to their parents, and laws shouldn't infringe on their right to do that.

Anyway it’s not about Age Verification, it’s about control, coercitive control. You go to an environmental manifestation and your dad get a call, that type of thing

As long as the platform can pretend there are no children it doesn’t need to provide safety features for them. Thats what this is about.

Adults can be exploited more freely and legally. As a bonus they are getting more personal information of having you provide proof that you are of exploitable age.

That kids will fake it will be blamed on the parents and not them.

Most age verification providers also require video with the person's face doing specific movements, which is then matched with the ID, so stealing an ID probably wouldn't be enough.

Not that it'll stop kids from trying, and sending their parent's ID to some random sketchy company without their knowledge anyways.

If a website requires a photo of a person ID or something like a drivers license, this is not "age verification", it's "identity verification".

That leads down a whole other rabbit hole of being tracked online.

Also if something like a website or pc starts asking me to upload documents with personal identifiable information on it (that not related to banking, healthcare, or a government service, I will straight up stop using it and block at my network level.

Yes. None of these laws prevent children from viewing porn or whatever. It just forces them to do this or go to unregulated sides.

"Well, Mr. Smith... I see here that your son used your ID to access illicit materials on the internet. Did you not think to secure it? You realize you're criminally liable for allowing a minor to access inappropriate material? And I see you were at the government protest last week... such a poor role model you are, Mr. Smith..."

Don't worry. Over the coming years they will find all the loopholes and tricks and close them off one by one until we're all securely tagged with electronic brain implants that can detect when you're thinking about lying about your exact age.

It's going to create a cottage industry of virtual humans. They completely exist on paper, but not in real life.

Unless they verified their age first.

Can even just find a picture of a random ID card. Maybe mock one up in Photoshop. Like, what's actually being fucking verified? That it's a picture with a human face? I mean, if it's ID or facescan, those facescan shits have already been tricked with images of video game characters.

None of the additional measures to verify age remove the need for “parents to parent.” This isn’t an either or situation. It’s an all of the above situation.

reminder that South korea has been doing this shit with KSSN for games. anybody thinking IDs would stip kids is kidding themselves.

I think The People's Republic of China was having this issue with the videogame rule. I saw Public Information Films playing on loop on their trains, one of which had a child who took his dad's ID and credit card and started spending a lot of time and money on mobile games

I have been saying this for about a decade now

The only thing requiring government IDs online will accomplish is the creation of a market for immaculate fake IDs. That market will be fully satisfied.

It's more about a difficulty barrier.

You could grab your Dad's ID, you could AI his face, his voice, even his writing style. But if that's too inconvenient/finicky for 90% of the population, that's "good enough" for the liability escape/coercive control the system is intended to create.

And then it becomes the parents fault and won’t be the fault of the [shadyinternetcompany^tm^] anymore.