Age verification for social media, the beginning of the end for a free internet?

Social media has never been a part of free internet

> Today I cannot get a VPS without verifying my identity. Can you?

I think it is at least possible to do so in a identity opaque way if you wanted to using obfuscated payment provider, free email and possibly fake name/address (illegal).

I meant more without scanning an actual ID or face.

> I feel like it doesn't start like this.

Of course the train of thought is not "how can we break privacy" usually the concerns/problems are valid (I agree that social media is bad for kids). But in a lot of debates I am a part of privacy concerns are easily dismissed, not taken seriously or not the priority. I'm not talking about if technically private implementations are possible yes or no. I am talking about the conceptual step before that, "what is the impact of this request" how are we limiting people that can't or don't want to comply with what we are asking.

I feel like privacy is one of the most fundamental rights since it is at the root of a lot of other rights required for democracy. For example freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to property and more. Privacy it is continually devalued, invaded and the right to it eroded.

That leads to undermining of the other rights as in this issue a lot of people are bringing up, in the article freedom to be anonymous is brought up but also the freedom of expression of young people.

The discussion should be the other way around, no options should be considered UNLESS it can be done in a private manner. The right to privacy is more important then the right not to be hurt by watching harmful content and therefore the responsibility of the government to protect privacy is of higher importance then their responsibility to not get you hurt.

I don't think we have to accept that "kids on social media" is inherently a problem. I don't think kids on a 2005-era-myspace social media would be a problem. As I see it, "social media" is now defined as the highly addictive and exploitative products from Meta et. al., and we shouldn't have to destroy any semblance of free or private internet so that they can't be hindered in any way from making the maximum amount of profit and influence regardless of the harm it causes kids (and adults, too).

You understood the opposite of what I wrote. Read the comment again, it's not about being hooked on drugs at all. It's about having them on the hook for blackmail.

And yes: Taking drugs or hanging out with people who take drugs is enough "kompromat" for a teen to then be extorted by drug dealers, because they don't want their parents to know.

Especially in countries where the law looks very lightly on extortion, looks very favourably on "young offenders", and is very lacking in empathy for young victims.

Not to mention: Do you think a 15 or 16 year old wants to go to the police and tell them that they are being used by drug dealers, when the first thing the police is going to do is also book the teen for drug use?

Drug dealing aren't just Mexican cartels or hood gangs, it's a network with branches into everywhere, and they need a constant supply of victims. Read some court proceedings from low-level drug cases, and you'll see how these criminals operate. It's not like TV.

i think in most cases sites like HN for example would be exempt due to not having enough users.

The internet used to a technology people used to do interesting things, and with that came all its expectations. Now in addition to that, it is how modern live is negotiated. What used an optional thing is now a critical infrastructure upon which a person's life revolves, in most cases without any choice of their own.

When you drive your car on the road, do you complain about not having "a free road like back in the day" for being require to have a driver's license, and a registered car? not too long ago, you didn't need any of that to ride a horse or horse and carriage.

A free internet, as in the internet is like a public square, that isn't what society wants. Ultimately that is the issue, and you can't fault the public either. The public expects change, things to improve, and policy makers need tools with which they can enforce their policies. Telling both parties "um..no, i like my freedoms" won't stop the this train.

Let's take the example of mullvad here, and being able to purchase a VPN with bitcoin/cash (been there, am a customer) and access any site. It is entirely reasonable for governments to not want that. but the real enemy is the acceptance of this false dicthotomy of extremes. one of the things the internet has allowed us to have is to be able to prove entitlements without disclosing our identity. It is possible to prove that meet whatever legal requirements by having a government notarize a certificate of identity which you can present to sites and software as proof, while removing the government's own knowledge of what sites or software you're using, and removing your identity from the sites that are verifying your entitlements.

You're allowed to be in public without having to prove your identity (well.. that used to be the case in the US at least, now if you look like an immigrant, no longer the case). But to sell things, or buy restricted items, you have to show your identity, even in public. Certain businesses are required to verify your identity before engaging in commerce. Even worse, once you're in public everyone can record everything you do an identify you. Facial recognition, license place tracking, etc.. are all very real parts of the physical world today.

Lots of reform is needed, but we're getting the worst end of it because people gravitate to extremes out of laziness. if accessing social media, sensitive sites and commerce could be done in a privacy preserving way, there is no need for (or you can make a strong argument against) silly things like installing ubuntu requiring your ID, or needing to verify visitors IDs to your personal blog.