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

551–560 of 622 posts

Re: Claude is only available to people over 18 years

#551

Post by oceanplexian »

choo-t wrote: post #300
breezey3po wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of myopic comments about children on HN, but this argument is so insane it's worth pointing out. You're essentially arguing to poison a well instead of inconveniencing yourself. You have agency, you're allegedly intelligent. But it sounds like you're so dependent on Claude you can't even conceive of using an alternative. There are NUMEROUS alternatives available. If you lack the agency to subvert the ch…

> But it sounds like you're so dependent on Claude you can't even conceive of using an alternative. I don't use Claude whatsoever. > There are NUMEROUS alternatives available. If you lack the agency to subvert the check or implement an alternative that's on you. I know there is, but I also know this trend of age verification bullshit is coming for everything, and that's a problem.

Ultimately it will be ID verification. How else are you going to check age?

Once everyone is used to handing over an ID to use AI, eventually it will be restricted to a small group. If you get on the naughty list you will be banned from ever doing knowledge work again.

Re: Claude is only available to people over 18 years

#552

Post by wavemode »

pixl97 wrote: post #478
alt227 wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> children with shitty parents deserve as much safety and support as they can get too. I know my opinion is not popular, but I do not agree that it is the states responsibility to pick up the slack for bad parenting.

Define bad parenting? Should the state do nothing about children not being sent to school? Should they go hungry when not fed? Should we just throw the kids in jail instead of programs that provide support? The libertarian "eh whatever" means of government has a lot of negative side effects too.

> Should the state do nothing about children not being sent to school?

> Should they go hungry when not fed?

> Should the state do nothing about children not being sent to school?

Of course the government should do something. They should punish the neglectful parent, and take away the child if needed.

What I'm missing is the logical leap to "everyone must give their sensitive personal information to an overseas corporation".

Re: Claude is only available to people over 18 years

#553

Post by HWR_14 »

Zak wrote: post #501
erg0s4m wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right this is exactly what happened with the new sesame laws. The government declared sesame as an allergen and enacted heavy fines if it was undisclosed. This lead to manufacturers adding sesame because they couldn't guarantee they were sesame free.

"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.

Then there would never be a reason not to list "may contain sesame". Just like every product causes cancer in california.

Re: Claude is only available to people over 18 years

#554

Post by owisd »

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…

We already tried that. The companies had the option not to exploit kids and chose exploitation, and given trillion-dollar companies they can massively out-resource any parent's individual action - no amount of parental controls will stop a teenager saving up their pocket money and buying an inexpensive second-hand device themselves - the parents' only option to fight back is the ballot box.

Re: Claude is only available to people over 18 years

#555

Post by throwitaway222 »

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…

I want to live in a free society that has some level of justice.

Re: Claude is only available to people over 18 years

#556

Post by kragen »

skybrian wrote: post #100
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…

This is almost right, but it shouldn’t be “is a child using the device?” It should be “is this a child-locked device?” There should be a children’s Internet, just like there are children’s libraries, and child-locked devices should give access to it. Adults should be able to use the children’s Internet to see what’s there and children should be able to use the adult Internet when supervised by parents and teachers. T…

There should not be an HTTP header indicating that the client is a child-locked device. That puts the onus on the server to respect the header, and HTTP doesn't require any action on unrecognized headers. Also, it reveals to the server that the client's user is likely vulnerable to manipulation — exactly the opposite of what you want!

Instead, there should be an HTTP header indicating that the server is an adult-only website. Then, child-locked devices can refuse to show the content to their users. Moreover, this can be more granular than just a single adult-only bit.

This standard has existed for 30 years and was supported in Internet Explorer 3; it's called PICS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_for_Internet_Content_...

If the current age verification controversy was intended to protect children rather than destroy anonymous speech, it would be focused on requiring the implementation of PICS or something similar.

Re: Claude is only available to people over 18 years

#557

Post by notesinthefield »

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…

You always take the written policy win over thoughtful technical controls. Way easier for the whole org.

Re: Claude is only available to people over 18 years

#558

Post by kragen »

sajithdilshan wrote: post #484
skybrian wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is almost right, but it shouldn’t be “is a child using the device?” It should be “is this a child-locked device?” There should be a children’s Internet, just like there are children’s libraries, and child-locked devices should give access to it. Adults should be able to use the children’s Internet to see what’s there and children should be able to use the adult Internet when supervised by parents and teachers. T…

> http header indicating that the client is a child-locked device what happens when the request goes through a proxy and that proxy is configured to strip this header?

The Web is HTTPS now, so that can only happen if either the origin server or the user trusts the proxy.

Re: Claude is only available to people over 18 years

#559

Post by rajay99 »

skybrian wrote: post #100
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…

This is almost right, but it shouldn’t be “is a child using the device?” It should be “is this a child-locked device?” There should be a children’s Internet, just like there are children’s libraries, and child-locked devices should give access to it. Adults should be able to use the children’s Internet to see what’s there and children should be able to use the adult Internet when supervised by parents and teachers. T…

If you want to make a child-safe website that is OK, it can go be in it's walled garden g-rated brand-safe reality. But that is retarded. The rest of the internet still exists, and will not stop existing. Porn/defense distributed/much more insidious things will still exist.

All the age verification is is creeping totalitarianism by governments.

Re: Claude is only available to people over 18 years

#560

Post by ratelimitsteve »

lo_zamoyski wrote: post #525
SoftTalker wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Today's 13 year olds say that word more times than that before breakfast.

Which is, of course, a bad thing that ought not to be encouraged and that ubiquity does, in fact, encourage and normalize.

>Which is, of course, a bad thing that ought not to be encouraged

I'm not actually willing to take that as read. It's just the word "fuck". You may personally find it distasteful and you're welcome to discourage your children from using it but it seems like you're committing Pargin's Blunder here (mistaking norms specific to your social group for universal truths).

Post reply on HN