Claude is only available to people over 18 years

Post by embedding-shape » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 11:27 AM UTC

cyanydeez wrote: post #57

embedding-shape wrote: post #33

Claude Executive: Damn, we hardly know who our users are, can't we just force them to say their full name or ban them? Claude Product Manager: No, that'll piss people off too much, and sadly we can't just ask for ID either... Claude Executive: There must be some way we can force people to link their government IDs with our platform so our analytics get better and more accurate? Claude Product Manager: We could limit…

none of this is about knowing their customer; I find is bizarre people think knowing a single boolean about 18 years of age provides anything they're not getting by finger printing your browser and sharing that fingerprint with an ad network. This is about reducing liability and making everyone else responsible for their inability to manage their community.

Post by scronkfinkle » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 11:28 AM UTC

walrus01 wrote: post #53

scronkfinkle wrote: post #47

I once heard someone suggest that this should be on the OS level and I'm slowly coming around to the idea. There should be some kind of OS level flag that can easily broadcast to products that a child is using the device. No ID verification required, the parent is responsible for setting it, and all downstream applications are regulated to respect it, If applicable to the product. This removes the incredibly invasive…

Building this functionality into an operating system is an extremely slippery slope to even further centralized corporate and government authoritarian control of people doing what they want with the personal computing devices that they own and possess.

Post by onion2k » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 11:30 AM UTC

logicchains wrote: post #36

pr337h4m wrote: post #30

The dehumanization of children and teenagers is getting out of hand.

It's not dehumanization, they just dread a future where kids can learn from 24/7 tutoring from an entity smart enough to solve Millenium problems instead of from some B student who's also teaching 20 other kids at a government propaganda factory.

Post by layer8 » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 11:30 AM UTC

matheusmoreira wrote: post #50

layer8 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adults are assumed to be responsible for what they expose themselves to, unlike children. Mandatory warnings like for tobacco might be in order, however.

And parents are assumed to be responsible for their own children, not governments or corporations.

Post by walrus01 » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 11:31 AM UTC

scronkfinkle wrote: post #63

walrus01 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Building this functionality into an operating system is an extremely slippery slope to even further centralized corporate and government authoritarian control of people doing what they want with the personal computing devices that they own and possess.

I think you may be misunderstanding a bit. There's no forced verification. It'd be more of an RFC that gives parents the ability to communicate their underage child is using the device without revealing or verifying any further information. Or do you suspect that giving any ground will cause the ID verification and centralized behavior?