Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Claude is only available to people over 18 years

support.claude.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 625 posts

Re: Claude is only available to people over 18 years

#511

Post by wakamoleguy »

alt227 wrote: post #499
siddthesquid wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also these kids will grow up to do harm to the communities in that state, which will spend more money at the end cleaning up those mistakes.

Right now governments in western societies are pouring more money and resources than ever into support programs, and yet we still have record high levels of mental health, unemployment, poverty, waiting times for doctors and support staff etc etc. Government intervention and welfare is proven not to solve the things it tries to. See here for much information about how spending has increased in these sectors in the UK…

These statistics don't necessarily imply that the programs don't improve the situation, only that mental health outcomes are worsening faster than programs are improving them. The existence of support programs could also encourage more measurement of mental health issues, which says nothing about the ground truth.

Re: Claude is only available to people over 18 years

#512

Post by alt227 »

AlienRobot wrote: post #429
webdood90 wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you intellectually prepared to believe that Claude Code is as dangerous as cigarettes Yes. Death is just one of the results. There are many, many other ways this could dangerously impact children.

People have a right to privacy. People should value that more, before it's all gone.

If people have a right to privacy, why is it disappearing?

Re: Claude is only available to people over 18 years

#513

Post by tangotaylor »

munificent wrote: post #443
mayhemducks wrote: post #195

Need we remind Anthropic of the 153 million drirvers licenses available for sale on the dark web thanks to a 3rd party ID verification service? https://krebsonsecurity.com/2026/09/fbi-probes-service-selli... The fact that Anthropic only receives a result, not the data itself, does not make me feel any better about this. I really wish we could leave these types of decisions up to parents and parents only. Leave the co…

> I really wish we could leave these types of decisions up to parents and parents only. I am strongly sympathetic of this point. But, also, children with shitty parents deserve as much safety and support as they can get too. This is an extremely difficult balancing act. Various laws and organizations get it wrong all the time, but it does require balance because there is no simple solution here that just works. There…

> children with shitty parents deserve as much safety and support as they can get too.

I had an abusive caregiver as a child and I can confidently say that age-gating websites wouldn't have done shit to help me.

The way to protect these children is through the family court and foster care systems, which are both seriously under-resourced and overwhelmed.

Re: Claude is only available to people over 18 years

#514

Post by newswasboring »

p-e-w wrote: post #362
newswasboring wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The need is not in question, the solution is. This annoying glaze machine is not it for mental health tasks.

Tens of millions of people disagree with you. What makes you think you know better than them what is right for them?

The plethora of AI psychosis reports. The existence of my boyfriend is AI subreddit and almost all the content on it.

Re: Claude is only available to people over 18 years

#515

Post by newswasboring »

p-e-w wrote: post #480
z0r wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This line of reasoning doesn't hold up for many harmful habits that people voluntarily partake in. It's OK for someone to believe that using an AI as an approximate therapist might be a bad idea, especially in light of the many publicly documented cases of AI feeding delusional thoughts and encouraging suicide.

> This line of reasoning doesn't hold up for many harmful habits that people voluntarily partake in. It absolutely does, you just believe you can decide for others what’s harmful for them.

Who's deciding for anybody?

Re: Claude is only available to people over 18 years

#516

Post by kikoreis »

Wow, I realized today this is pretty crazy. but turns out it's old news, as old as Dec 2025, though the support page was only linked to in Jan 2026.

https://web.archive.org/web/20251223014541/https://support.c...

https://www.anthropic.com/news/protecting-well-being-of-user...

The ToS already prohibited it when it showed up back in Feb 2024: https://web.archive.org/web/20240225205440/

Re: Claude is only available to people over 18 years

#517

Post by ghostpepper »

xacky wrote: post #495

This will mean the next generation will grow up with open source AI. High schools and junior colleges offering computer courses will have to give their students different coding tools than the industry standard.

Or the industry standard will change

Re: Claude is only available to people over 18 years

#518

Post by Zak »

GloriousKoji wrote: post #508
Zak wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"May contain" labeling seems like the better solution to this problem. This should be allowed for allergens that are present in the manufacturing or packing facility but not intended to be ingredients in the product.

That's part of the problem. "May contain" doesn't provide legal protection and then if you make it a standard there needs to be testing for compliance which ends up as the same original problem and you just add compliance tits to your food product. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34116211

"May contain" should provide legal protection. It may be compliance tits in some cases, but that's better than forcing the addition of a compliance ingredient.

Re: Claude is only available to people over 18 years

#519

Post by crtified »

alt227 wrote: post #499
siddthesquid wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also these kids will grow up to do harm to the communities in that state, which will spend more money at the end cleaning up those mistakes.

Right now governments in western societies are pouring more money and resources than ever into support programs, and yet we still have record high levels of mental health, unemployment, poverty, waiting times for doctors and support staff etc etc. Government intervention and welfare is proven not to solve the things it tries to. See here for much information about how spending has increased in these sectors in the UK…

It's a complex fantasy humanity has made up, where our current generational burnout is instead given names like autism and ADHD - so that we can pretend that we have something to "fix".

The irony is that the goal of the fix is to "get these outliers back into society, (so that humanity can be as collectively productive as we should be)".

Even more ironic are the next cries : "They're not getting fixed. Take away their money."

Re: Claude is only available to people over 18 years

#520

Post by tangotaylor »

jonas21 wrote: post #440
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…

More likely, this is being done to comply with SB 1119 (Adam's Law) [1,2] and similar legislation. These create extra steps that a service has to go through before releasing a new model that minors can interact with and exposes them to prosecution if a minor is harmed or harms someone else due to their interaction with a chatbot. It's safer for Anthropic to just exclude minors -- and they're unlikely to be paying cus…

Thank you, I'm glad someone brought up SB 1119. I hate it.

California already has BPC §§ 22601-22606 to protect people from chatbots encouraging self-harm and I don't see a legitimate reason why they had to ratchet up the restrictions.

This law seems a blatant regulatory capture grift by OpenAI to calcify their teen mode into law and hurt competitors. https://openai.com/index/supporting-california-bill-advance-...

Post reply on HN