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

American capitalism can create ARPA but capitalism did not create the internet

Neither American companies, nor "private citizens" looking to profit, paid for the research into computer networking that resulted in the internet. At that time, there was no commerercial incentive to support such research

"Computer networking was developed and spread widely in an environment _outside_ of commercial and profit considerations, an environment that supported such research."

Hauben, Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet (1997)

Without American capitalism, specifically "Big Tech", there would be no "age verification" legislation

Let's cut to the chase. The "age verfication" problem has nothing to do with "American capitalism" or other silly HN tangents. The issue is the lack of rules governing governing data collection, surveillance and advertising, rules that would interfere with the Big Tech "business model". "Age verification" will be another means of data collection for Big Tech but it could also intefere with Big Tech's access to U16 ad targets. It could interere with "indoctrination" into a belief system where Big Tech _is_ the internet

The truth is that the internet does not require "Big Tech" in order to exist and have value. I know this because I used it before so-called "tech" companies existed and, with respect to the state of the art _at that time_, it was amazing. Information was shared between internet users without any attempt to profit from it financially. Today, so-called "tech" companies intermediate (act as a middleman for) the sharing of other peoples' information over the internet in order to profit from data collection, surveillance and advertising. This is unnecessary

The myth that commenters supporting Silicon Valley try to spread is that the internet can only exist and have value if "Big Tech" exists. Their "business model" is "free" intermediation of information retrieval or communication over the internet, thus their argument in favor of status quo becomes something like "online advertising (and associated data collection and surveillance) is essential for the internet to survive"

Their next argument may be that a "healthy AI ecosystem" is necessary for the internet to survive

But parents should be penalized/inconvenienced if they can't control their children, not the store/website.

In some states, bounty hunters can find violators of various laws and bring them to the state in exchange for money. Allowing bountry hunters to be on the lookout for underagers trying to enter stores and report them could be a profitable endeavor for both the bounty hunters and the state, providing a market-based incentive to protecting children.

Stores/websites should only be penalized if they are specifically targeting and inviting children to enter.

Certainly there are some types of stores that are very safe for children to enter. So, the exception should be structured like this: "Stores that only sell these items mean that parents will not be fined if children enter it unaccompanied." Additional conditions could be attached, e.g. "a safe store shall verify the ID of anyone purchasing alcohol." And maybe other benefits can be attached to being a "safe" store, like tax incentives, etc. If the store violates that condition, then it should pay a fine or lose any other benefits of being considered a "safe" store. But a business should have a right not to be a "safe store" and the duty to prevent children from entering those should 100% fall on the parents.

Do you mean like, hey chatbot stop trying to be my best friend ?

This marketing tone that every company I do business with cares deeply about me as a person - this corrosive hypocritical nonsense has obviously been sucked up into AI training materials.

So I agree 100%.