this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2026
511 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

82227 readers
4424 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] RisingSwell@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 hour ago

YouTube's can be broken and that's the only one I cared about. I guess steam would be an issue if they tried it.

Pretty sure anything else I can easily just bail on.

IMO steam does a reasonable job of age verification - if you've registered a credit card, you're obviously old enough to have one.

[–] Arkthos@pawb.social 2 points 1 hour ago

I ordered some alcohol online because I couldn't find the brand of rum I was looking for locally. They did some age verification before I could order, same that I could have encountered in a grocery store.

Of course they just got sent a token and not a photo id which changes the calculus some. I'm against trusting random websites with personal information, not an age block on its own.

[–] MortUS@lemmy.world 1 point 1 hour ago (2 children)

I do think each Nation does need some form of online verification.

It's pretty clear what kind of damage malicious actors can do by posing as a Nations citizens online, especially en masse and orchestrated.

The solution is better media literacy, better education, yatta yatta but that straight up ain't happen, and certainly not at the scale needed to circumvent that kind of damage.

What other solutions do we have other than Nation wide online verification systems?

[–] Lfrith@lemmy.ca 1 point 7 minutes ago

You need to trust your government or trust it to not turn evil to be willing to see them take on the task of knowing every single online account you use. And hope whoever comes into power doesn't find comments you made in a past a threat that it wasn't before. Like something as benign as the belief politicians should be held accountable could be flagged as treasonous for daring to question the government's credibility.

Which is the real goal of online verification. Police citizens and eventually kill off or curb sharing of thoughts and ideas for fear of current or future retaliation depending on who comes into power. Automated flagging of potential abnormals based on profiles generated from linked citizen online accounts is the end game.

The idea that this would help stop malicious foreign actors itself seems like yet another false belief that this type of system would be used for the good of citizens as opposed to tracking and move towards Big Brother.

[–] masta_chief@sh.itjust.works 1 point 53 minutes ago

Seriously. We need a functional government and world leaders who can manage id systems and verification with privacy and security in mind, and act reasonably in the public's interest, just like they do for driver's licenses, voting, taxes, etc.

looks outside

Oh no

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 8 points 3 hours ago (1 child)

"Why don't you just trust me that I was born January 1, 1900?"

[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 3 hours ago (1 child)

Nice, same birthday

I'm born 1.1.1970

[–] aceshigh@lemmy.world 1 point 1 hour ago

I changed to 2000 because it’s less scrolling.

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 15 points 4 hours ago

Age verification wouldn’t be a problem if there was a service I trusted that could verify my age, generate an anonymous one way hash or public/private key pair that could verify my age, and then dispose of all information that would could tie me to that info, I’d be ok with it. The problem is there isn’t a group that I’d trust (well that would be willing to do it) and everyone wants to hoard information and create a central repository that will be broken into. It’s not that there is a possibility it could be, but a certainty that it would be. This isn’t really an unsolvable technical problem, but an unsolvable trust problem.

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 7 points 3 hours ago (1 child)
[–] londos@lemmy.world 8 points 3 hours ago (1 child)

IRS should already know what I owe and not worry about who logs on to pay it.

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 1 point 2 hours ago

Oh yeah, the states is like that right.... I meant for filing and claming tax benefits.

[–] deadymouse@lemmy.world 9 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

If you've put your real identity on your passport on some platforms and you're going to use those platforms for purposes other than work, get ready to be a good and loyal dog.

[–] SnailMagnitude@mander.xyz 5 points 5 hours ago (1 child)

Personally I've found online banking, medical and travel services rather hard to resist.

Those new mobile phone things the kids are using also have biometrics and internets and look pretty handy to have around.

[–] Diurnambule@jlai.lu 1 point 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Trying a service and scanned my ID. We will see

[–] NarrativeBear@lemmy.world 46 points 10 hours ago (3 children)

People have been forgetting that home routers come with something called parental controls.

This is the most privacy respecting solution that puts all the power of parenting into a parents hands.

If the government were really "thinking of the children" I would propose a group of bipartisan curators to curate the Internet. Thinking of how libraries function, we have librarians that classify books by age and genre. The same can be done for websites, and these curated lists be made available to parents. This can be funded by local government and be region and country specific.

These lists would effectively function as whitelists, blocking everything that's not on the whitelist. Parents can then turn on a specific whitelist for their kids if they so choose, and they gain access to a curated list of age approved websites.

Parents can then, if they so choose, add or remove items form the list to grant their children access to specific sites.

All this tech is already available and it would prevent children and adults from having to provide a website any extra information. It would also mean websites would now not need to build infrastructure to collect this information.

Could you imagine a publisher of books needing you to send them a picture of your face to verify your age and identify before you even opened a book? Why are we proposing the same equivalent concept for a website or "digital book".

[–] Sturgist@lemmy.ca 8 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 child)

People have been forgetting that home routers come with something called parental controls.

When my wife and I first signed up with Virgin as our ISP there was parental control turned on by default. Had to put in my credit card info to be able to flap.(Edit: Goddamn Autoassume! FAP not FLAP) This was 2021ish? So before the current stupidity.

Also, it's easy to feel like this is all being pushed by parents who just straight up refuse to properly parent their children...but it's mostly being championed by Puritan lobby/pressure groups. They think even totally consensual, CIS/HET amateur porn is disgusting and sinful. They don't want to see, so they're on a mission to make it so literally no one can see it.
With help from companies and people who have a vested interest in creating a panopticon-esque surveillance state. And the rest of the people involved in passing it are too old or ignorant or paid too well by the other two groups to stand in the way of it, or to have cut out the really egregious shit from these bills before they were passed.

[–] NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 child)

Also, it’s easy to feel like this is all being pushed by parents who just straight up refuse to properly parent their children…but it’s mostly being championed by Puritan lobby/pressure groups.

No, its being pushed by corporations who are interested in identifying you. They pressure the government who ALSO now takes an interest in tracking your for wrong think and power grabbing. The two work together for power and money, and to stay in power.

Parents are just pawns who get manipulated into thinking this is a problem at all.

[–] Sturgist@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 hours ago (1 child)

With help from companies and people who have a vested interest in creating a panopticon-esque surveillance state.

First sentence of the last paragraph.

[–] NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip 1 point 3 hours ago

Yeah but its not with the help of. It is directly BY them.

[–] lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world 18 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 child)

Governments know about parental controls. They know it's the most effective, most efficient, and least destructive way to deal with this. They don't care. And they don't care about the children. If they cared, they'd develop their own parental control software, offer it for free, and encourage it's use.

If they really wanted to get draconian about it, as they are doing now with age verification, they would pass laws to prosecute parents who don't use parental controls for negligence.

But it's not about the children. At all. It's about preventing you and me, and all of us from talking to each other and entertaining ourselves. It's about turning the Internet into TV, a one way faucet of entertainment and information controlled by the wealthy .001% where us peons can't talk back.

These age verification laws are just the first step. They kill small forums and games like Urban Dead, and leave only sites controlled by megacorporations that can afford the age verification infrastructure and the massive corporate fines if a single kid sneaks in. Once you get used to this, it's easier for you to accept not being able to communicate online at all, or start your own forum, or YouTube channel.

[–] halloween_spookster@lemmy.world 8 points 8 hours ago (1 child)

I'm skeptical that governments know about these solutions given how little people in general understand technology. It's a "we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas" situation. Ideally they should have experts available to consult with when making laws to prevent BS like this.

[–] Sturgist@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 hours ago

@lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world

The people at the top certainly don't. There IS absolutely large swaths of the government that definitely do. Even if only subconsciously, all (or most) government workers who use a workplace computer of some kind should understand that sites are able to be blocked. They might think you'd need to be a Grey Beard of the 16th Order to set it up, but I'd wager a fair percentage have tried to go to a site and it's been blacklisted.

[–] hornedfiend@piefed.social 1 point 5 hours ago

Came here for this comment.

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 100 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

The problem with "age" verification is that politicians are confusing it with identity verification.

I should not have to prove my name and other biometrics to prove age.

Age verification is the fascist way to get people to identify themselves and their online activity. Almost every state that has some sort of age verification law has zero method to actually verify age. No digital ID service, no way to share a credential for verification.

They want people to upload an ID.

This isn't about keeping children safe and it never is. It's about identifying critics of the government.

[–] pastermil@sh.itjust.works 36 points 13 hours ago

I hate to point out the obvious, but they didn't accidentally confuse the two..

[–] Limerance@piefed.social 11 points 10 hours ago

It is possible to build an age verification system, where you use your actual ID with a cryptographic process without any personal data. The technology has existed for decades now.

load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Zier@fedia.io 32 points 12 hours ago (7 children)

Are we really "protecting" the children? Or is there a huge amount of powerful and wealthy individuals searching for an easy way to get to the children. With the global Trump Epstein Files scandal currently happening, how do we know they are not just stalking more kids? Not a conspiracy theory, just a different point of view. So many horrid groups in the world claim to be protecting children, but they always have a hidden nefarious agenda.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 1 point 3 hours ago

I wouldn't be surprised if Discord's face identification is used to find good looking kids, and then messages ICE to arrange shipment to an island.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 9 points 8 hours ago

You're still thinking too small. They want to be able to see what everyone is doing and saying, no anonymity.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com 92 points 15 hours ago (19 children)

I am actually not fundamentally against the idea of age verification for some things online. We have many things with age restrictions in real life, for various reasons, it kind of makes sense to have it online as well for some things.

but...it has to be done with zero-knowledge proof so we limit the amount of private data exposed to the absolute bare minimum.

[–] Deestan@lemmy.world 90 points 14 hours ago (1 child)

Zero-knowledge proofs are a good concept. They've been possible for a long, long time, and allow age check without surveillance.

So why are they not being used? Because age check is just a cover. These people want to do surveillance, not protect kids.

So it's a good counter. Want age check? Do it like this. Oh, you don't want it that way? Why not, pray?

Whether it works (it has, previously) or not (as with the current bullshit from the US), it does bring to the public debate that this is unnecessary surveillance.

[–] Kissaki@feddit.org 12 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

There's also precedent you can point to. Germany has implemented a reasonable system of digital identification and (seperable) condition confirmation (age gate).

[–] HulkSmashBurgers@reddthat.com 1 point 6 hours ago (1 child)
[–] TechLich@lemmy.world 1 point 31 minutes ago

Whenever this comes up, this style of zero-knowledge proof/blind signature thing gets suggested. But the problem is that those only work if people care about keeping their private keys secret. It works to secure eg. "I own $1" but "I'm over 18" is less important to people and it won't be hard for kids to get their hands on a valid anonymous signing key on the web. Because the verification is anonymous and not trackable, many kids can share the same one too, so it only takes one adult key to leak for everyone to use. It's one of the reasons they push biometrics that at least appears to need a real human. Requiring ID has a lot of the same issues on top of being a privacy nightmare.

I'm starting to think that actual age verification is technically impossible.

[–] chunes@lemmy.world 11 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

There is already age verification. It's called an internet service provider bill.

[–] Wammityblam@lemmy.world 34 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

Maybe in alternate timeline where tech companies have historically acted ethically.

In this timeline where each new company and/or ceo is more slimey than the last, I know that any type of identification will be mismanaged at best or used maliciously at worst

All trust is gone between these companies.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] NominatedNemesis@reddthat.com 32 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

Banking and other finance related services are the only place where I don't mind KYC. Others I drop as soon as they request it and I seek alternatives.

But I will drop my online bank as well as soon google enforce the 'only verified developer applications'. 90% of my applications, incuding system applications like laucher, are not installed from the play store. I plan to switch to a linux 'phone' and only use services which are usable from a browser / without google securnet.

[–] Cherry@piefed.social 21 points 14 hours ago (1 child)

The thing is usually for the bank account you have gone through rigourous checks already to open or maintain and account to prove your age. So face verification via an app is redundant.

We know it’s bull anyway but it’s at least a valid reason for no.

I’m the same as you. I’ll switch to browser and TBh if they piss me off enough I’ll start using cash

load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments (1 reply)
[–] thesmokingman@programming.dev 14 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

In the US it is becoming common for federal services to require ID.me verification. I’ve never really had a problem with social security requiring ID verification. I do have a problem with data portals requiring it.

[–] dan1101@lemmy.world 14 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

I even have a problem with ID.me, it's a private company that the US government wants you to give your driver's license and other information to. I don't trust that.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Patrikvo@lemmy.zip 8 points 13 hours ago (1 child)

Identifying yourself for official business on a government site is not the same as providing official ID to a random picture sharing site. Pretty much every service has had a leak which required heaps of people to change their trusted password. How would you fix this when they leaked your full official identity?

load more comments (1 reply)
load more comments
view more: next ›