I simply do not understand the optaphobia of the tech literate. Social media already tracks it's users with or without laws. The general populace simply will not wish to anonymize themselves on the internet. So ID Laws only serves as a benefit by restricting children. Regarding pornography, the demand will always be there. Adding ID tracking will just shift the business model to be more covert, which is also a net be…
Similarly, I do not understand the willful ignorance and bootlicking attitude of those who want to support coercing others into sharing orivate information. The reasons are mentioned every single time these laws are brought up, I can only assume you're willfully ignoring the concerns people have: It's a security black hole, increasing our attack surface astronomically. It causes undue compliance costs for websites to…
> Similarly, I do not understand the willful ignorance and bootlicking attitude of those who want to support coercing others into sharing orivate information.
I think by enacting these ID laws, we immediately add a barrier of entry to social media. Social media has been too easy to participate, and many people have let their guards down allowing them to collect our data and sell our attention. Just like how cookie banners annoy users, my hope is that the additional barrier of ID laws will make people think twice before submitting themselves to social media.
> The reasons are mentioned every single time these laws are brought up, I can only assume you're willfully ignoring the concerns people have:
> It's a security black hole, increasing our attack surface astronomically.
Do you mean the possibility of a data leak? Social media is public. When people are broadcasting their location willingly, I don't see how an ID number adds harm.
> It causes undue compliance costs for websites to meet basic security standards.
And they should. Restaurants follow food safety and hygiene regulations. Websites should follow child safety regulations. That is fair.
> It does not reliably prevent the determined teenager from bypassing these restrictions, e.g. with a vpn, but imposes enormous costs on allegedly a nontarget demograpgic (e.g. everyone else). Small benefit with a large cost is a bad policy.
The effect of juvenile subversion, I think, has been overstated. The UK government released a study that [30% of teenagers used VPNs](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/childrens-circumv...). If 70 percent of teenagers are off social media, I think it's a worthwhile endeavour.
> The problem is entirely manufactured by bureaucrats, the public is concerned with gas prices and making ends meet. The parents that are concerned about their child's internet access can and do take the appropriate precautions because child controls already exist.
One can do both. Again, child safety is not an issue of the individual. Peer pressure is a real phenomenon. I wouldn't blame a parent stuck in the ghetto for not being able to give their children better opportunities.
> Whatever justification is given, the end result is mass surveillance, with the expected consequences in reduction of personal and social liberties. This is nothing to scoff at.
I would like to add that it is mass surveillance of public spaces, which is already plenty surveilled. I believe in ID laws for public online activity, not your personal WhatsApp chats. If this sounds like a slippery slope, there are many alternative solutions to be found.
The crux of ID laws for child safety should not be its existence, but its scope. Apply it to social media companies who have shown that they cannot be trusted with the attention of children, nothing more.