age verification

in the early days of the internet the web looked indeed like a web: many sites that intertwined. the lack of a central entity that governments can go pester is the worst case scenario for the powers that be. those days are long gone as user engagement has concentrated on a few centralized platforms, creating points of failure this is all old news. frustrating, but old news. centralization was driven by the prioritization of convenience over freedom. fortunately, the cypherpunk movement happened back then, and the movement's focus on anonymous networks and cryptography left a lasting legacy, with its foundations still in use today what's new, however, is the growing awareness among government the internet is actually centralized, and now they are putting increased pressure on corporations to implement age verification mechanisms so obviously there's a significant shift in internet etiquette, from the traditional advice to keep personal information private to the current expectation that users will provide identification to verify their accounts, because think of the children or something several countries, including australia, the uk, brazil, and some US states, have either passed or are considering legislation that would require social media platforms to implement age verification. as this policy debate spreads to more countries (because no one likes FOMO right), expect increased attempts to push this given the de facto failure of previous efforts to decentralize the web (the new webring, mastodon / fediverse, activitypub, etc) as they have not done a dent into the centralized web, i can only wonder how browsing the internet as an anonymous user will be like in the following years so i want to ask you anon, what are your thoughts on what the future of internet anonymity will look like with age verification laws in place? will crimes of identity theft grow? is anonymity-preserving client side age verification feasible? could this impact the legal status of anonymous networks and VPNs? could this decentralize the web? (kek of course not)

I think small or decentralized sites are going to be in for hell in the near future. Depending on how they're classified they'll likely be forced into collecting PII for verification to stay online, and most likely thorough a 3rd party service with ties to intelligence agencies. I've heard there's ways to verify IDs without retaining PII afterwards, but I doubt those would be widely used due to things like data retention laws and that's assuming ID verification services don't need special permission to operate. Though that's not the only option sites will take. Several sites will just host themselves in jurisdictions that don't have age verification laws (yet). Harder to go after sites where one government might not have influence against the one the site is hosted in. However, this also depends on governments not passing age verification laws of their own. There's also nuclear options that could be taken to cut off or block sites nationally that are hosted in certain countries. There's still other options thankfully. The most effective option I've seen is private invite-only sites (e.g., private torrent trackers). Getting in requires knowing a member, and would make gatekeeping problematic people easy. As long as attention isn't drawn to them that would draw government investigation they can last a long time. The only issue I could see is how limited new blood joining would be given that most invites would have to be with people known IRL, or from other existing private communities. Personally I think this is the best long-term option given the proven examples of private torrent trackers staying up after all these years. IMO as someone who almost exclusively uses IRC or private trackers for their online interactions I wouldn't be too affected by this. I'm already in places that would be taken down for other reasons, or have ways around needing to submit PII. If you're able to I'd suggest finding or starting private invite-only communities to get involved in and just use them to avoid services that may require PII. >>25353 >will crimes of identity theft grow? Most likely. Platforms will likely retain data for various reasons, and all it will take is one employee getting compromised or hacked and the floodgates will be opened. I also have a feeling fake IDs, both made by humans and AIs, will see a sharp rise in people trying to use them to make accounts requiring PII. >>25353 >could this impact the legal status of anonymous networks and VPNs? Most likely not. More mainstream content is being put behind paywalls or login pages, so even using anonymous networks or VPNs you won't be able to access a large amount of content without providing PII for the accounts. Though that's assuming you aren't using an account through leaked credentials or somehow got an AI generated ID to be accepted for PII.

No sane person wants to read xitter anyway. What gets me are the login barriers on youtube, github and various blogging sites. Curiously blogspots age verification doesn't kick in when using lynx, must be a user-agent thing. We will obviously see the arms-race between websites and media-ripping software continue. Hopefully not every case will turn out like nitter, yet i fear many small-to-medium websites will end up becoming inaccesible.

A lot of sites are using face and ID scans already plus credit card checks before then. It's a security an privacy nightmare and everything that can be done to stop it should be done. I think the best approach to fight it is hijack idpol. This sort of technology and practice effects everyone but it especially will effect minority groups who could be targeted for oppression and persecution and also poor people for not having an ID or credit card which could be used to guilt trip into policy makers into more privacy/security especially if you threaten lawsuits against corporations.

>>25371 you have to expect things to be as bad as they can get. this is not about x or any other singular platform because laws never target platforms, legal definitions are written to work like a fishing net for prosecutors. legislators use the broadest possible descriptions in order to have a framework ready for the highest number of applicable scenarios suddenly the forum you the sysadmin for is legally considered a social media >>25373 i also thought of that but i doubt choosing a valid scenario and framing it within the lens of a popular position would work in this context because one of the arguments in support of verification is that it would reduce verbal abuse and harassment on social media. though this optics tactic works well for the tor project, they rely heavily on the frame of support for whistleblowers and dissent in autocracies to keep tor legal in the western world. >>25354 false identification is not a solution because it's a crime that could be grounds for aggravated charges. inputting random false data wouldn't work for a long time either way, i'm sure the government would have a partnership with age verification companies that lets them query their database of valid ids

i feel skeptical about this. i anticipate there will always be a destination for those who wish to go anon. even tho it might be isolated and squeezed thin. regarding the "public" web, meta's holdings, x, etc, yes i think it will get invasive. within 5 years i reckon

>>25375 > i also thought of that but i doubt choosing a valid scenario and framing it within the lens of a popular position would work in this context because one of the arguments in support of verification is that it would reduce verbal abuse and harassment on social media. though this optics tactic works well for the tor project, they rely heavily on the frame of support for whistleblowers and dissent in autocracies to keep tor legal in the western world. Well that's easy enough to turn the tables on. You then frame it in the light that having ID checks makes it easier for people to be harassed cross site and in real life as well as stalked in real life. I really feel scared for the future of the internet. It's my only home which has already trashed badly enough by corporatization and enshitification by politicization of everything as result of social media algorithms pushing negativity and echo chambers.

>>25353 >in the early days of the internet the web looked indeed like a web In the early days of the internet there was no web and it was a hell of a lot better that way.

The web is lost. That's all there is to say. You're never going to get the average person to move to anything privacy respecting because for them the internet is all about convenience and nothing else.

>>25353 If it becomes illegal to use the internet without providing your drivers license then I'm going to start breaking the law

>>25453 you should be breaking it already law is a joke for goys anyway

Maybe then there won't be as much stupid stuff on social media. Like this thread.

it's been 6 months since op and the trojan horse is entering troy with ease. things have been getting worse for anonymity on the clearnet with each passing day some samples: >switzerland thinking of changing their data retention laws to outlaw anonymity: https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/psa-infomaniak-supports-mass-surveillance-calling-for-legal-change-to-end-online-anonymity-mandatory-metadata-retention/28065 >eu planning on testing an online age verification app this year: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-age-verification (obviously, in european fashion, their "privacy-preserving" solution leaks lots of metadata that can be used to fingerprint you) >online child safety act enacted and ofcom working full time sending out emails: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/protecting-children/letter-to-part-3-services-that-allow-pornography-outlining-heaa-requirements https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/statement-protecting-people-from-illegal-harms-online (they say if you don't comply they will take you to court and even if you don't give a soykaf about britbongs they will threaten your infrastructure / ad networks instead, great stuff) >france new age verification law https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/vpn-demand-jumps-1000-after-pornhub-pulls-out-of-france/ar-AA1GeUAN >france also wants golden keys for encrypted communication providers https://tuta.com/blog/france-surveillance-nacrotrafic-law >texas passes law requiring app stores to implement age verification https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/texas-governor-signs-app-store-age-verification-measure/ar-AA1FFfgc and of course the many US states that have signed age verification laws there has been some pushback from the eff, the free speech coalition etc. i hope it amounts to something tough times ahead. how will federated platforms or small centralized sites operate with these laws, i have no idea. the lawmakers have no idea either as they think "the internet" is this thing controlled by fagman at this point i'm just glad that darknets exist, at least anonymous p2p is possible

>>26467 4chan is now under investigation by OFCOM for having failed to respond to their demands: https://www.yahoo.com/news/ofcom-investigates-notorious-4chan-forum-132941630.html i wonder what rapeape will do. forcing users to undergo age verification would kill the site, i'd hope

>>26490 >fringe websites I bet 4chan has more visitors than the legacy media sites trying to get it shut down.

>>25353 the only decentralized parts of the internet are TOR nodes and websites. I do hope that in the future more people will use them and make that a kind of save haven against the enshittification

Conform. Protect children. Install camera in your bathroom. The Big Brother Cares. Honestly just unroll the fuarrrking cyberpunk. Make access to the line ID restricted, then organize everything on the line in the Tor-like way, so your actions are obscure. Children safe. nonfat-soykaf drinkers are content. Everyone's happy. What crime they are preventing is beyond me. 95% of serious crime originates from governments. fuarrrking Jesus. Kill the state.

>>26544 Hear hear. I'm so fed up with the current state of the world. I'm so done I'm secretly hoping a regular WW3 starts and it all just fuarrrking collapses. In the meanwhile I'll be taking a break from all "regular" social media. I'm addicted to the scroll. It's worthless, but they hacked my psychology, so stopping is extremely hard. I can't take it anymore.

> [W]hat are your thoughts on what the future of internet anonymity will look like with age verification laws in place? The most boring cyberpunk story every conceived. As is often the case, the tech savvy will go underground and seek out their niches. The others will either leave in protest or learn to live with the changes. Maybe they will even learn to enjoy them. To elaborate. I suppose it depends on what you want to do on the internet anonymously. Talk with people? Sure, there are plenty of solutions that already exist that enable this - Signal (yes, I know), SimpleX, Briar, Cwtch, etc. Consume media? Again, there are plenty of options for that in the form of yt-dlp, alternative video sites like Odysee, BitChute, Rumble, etc. And that's before you get into piracy and pirate sites. I'm mostly considering content creation and consumption, as well as communication, with my arguments. Things like paying for groceries and rent are more mundane and can be done offline (with some difficulty, but still possible). > [W]ill crimes of identity theft grow? Most likely. But there are alternatives as well. >>25354 mentioned the use of AI in generating fake IDs as a theoretical possibility, but services have already cropped up to fill this niche: > https://www.404media.co/inside-the-underground-site-where-ai-neural-networks-churns-out-fake-ids-onlyfake/ (Apologies, the article is paywalled) Beyond that, companies (Discord, at least) are trying to use facial scans to verify age: > https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2025/04/age-verification-using-facial-scans.html Which can be bypassed by pointing the camera at an adult (or someone who looks rather old). > [I]s anonymity-preserving client side age verification feasible? Perhaps? I'm neither a cryptographer nor a policy expert, so I can't say. Will it happen? Unlikely, unless the powers that be are forced into it. Will corporations attempt it, mess it up in the process, and cause a massive data breach that implicates thousands, if not millions, of people? Most likely. > [C]ould this impact the legal status of anonymous networks and VPNs? If they get wrongfully blamed for some crisis or another, perhaps. There are already countries that prohibit the use of Tor/VPNs by individuals: > https://xn--gckvb8fzb.com/infrastructure/#vpn > The use of Tor/VPNs by individuals is derezzed/blocked in the following countries: Belarus, Iran, Iraq, Oman, Turkey, Uganda, and the United Arab Emirates. In China and Russia, only VPN services that get government approval are officially allowed. In North Korea, Cuba, Egypt, Vietnam, Bahrain, Turkmenistan, Myanmar, Syria, Libya, and Venezuela there are no official bans, but due to their strict internet censorship, using Tor/VPNs might not be possible and come with risks. So, it depends on your side of the pond. If not now, then perhaps in the future. > [C]ould this decentralize the web? Depends on your definition of what counts as decentralized. On the one hand, you have the more normal person-esque bubble of content and services. This is the general sphere of social media giants and common services that people seem to cluster on. Think TikTok, Telegram/WhatsApp, Facebook, Twitter, as well as various payment middlemen such as Venmo and CashApp (and their regional equivalents - WeChat for China, Line for Japan, VK for Russia, etc.) The ones where if you're not a member of them you're viewed as odd or antisocial. On the other hand you have people that lurk in pseudonymous spaces and curate a fairly diverse set of sources of content. Blogs (personal and professional), videos (YouTube, Odysee, PeerTube, etc.), media releases (torrent alerts via RSS, IRC via XDCC, the Internet Archive, etc.), and so on. If one goes down, so be it - we have other sources. The same goes for communication options, use multiple for the sake of redundancy. In that regard, we have decentralization already. Long and short of it is, if you'd like to see something tomorrow, archive it. If you'd like to speak with someone online tomorrow, set up various lines of communication on various platforms. IDs and identification be damned, we will go about our lives. If and when we encounter resistance, we work around it.

>>26529 >>26544 that is the most chilling part, the idea that a resistance would have to rely on tor! tor only exists because of the benevolence of various western governments. roger dingledine did wonders advocating for the legitimacy and importance of tor but if push comes to shove a coordinated law enforcement action could seize with ease at least 5 directory authorities so the network loses consensus and then what? it is frustrating that tor is the most researched darknet

>>26561 >and then what? I2P or reticulum mesh network. I do not know how the feds can be stopped from just blocking I2P and if a reticulum mesh network is used they can easily find those who are using reticulum though. In the future people will possibly download lots of files offline so they dont have to go through the internet to access them in order to stay anonymous

I wish people would stop saying the solution to this stuff is for the 4 people on the web who know what a CLI is to go hide out in a secret chat. That is not a solution to the loss of the public sphere. It’s like saying living in a cave is the solution to real estate financials making housing unaffordable. That is a hillbilly mentality.

>https://yougov.co.uk/technology/articles/52693-how-have-britons-reacted-to-age-verification this was such a depressing read holy soykaf

>>26821 >everything keeps getting worse that sounds like the ordoid phenomenon in 3018 A.D.

Not age verification. Internet ID.

>>26821 >majority of people (69%) saying they support the new rules, including 46% who do so “strongly” everyones been wanting to go back to the 90s, after we're done trying to scrub sex from everything we can ban violent videogames bc they cause school shootings, and anything satanic thats gonna encourage children to experiment with witchcraft Beyond embarrassing

>>26821 I hope every single last one of those retards that support that become victims of identity theft

>>26821 >the large majority of people (69%) saying they support the new rules, including 46% who do so “strongly” >only 24% of Britons think the restrictions will be effective in preventing under-18s from accessing pornography online >"Oi blimey, I'm all for this law mate, but I reckon it doesn’t do the trick, innit?" The last bastion of privacy being outlawed with full support from normal users... Really tough times ahead

>>26838 This law isn't about protecting kids. Protecting kids would start by not protecting rapists from the families and not letting knew mentally ill jihadist stay in schools. This law is about shutting down the riots, and that what people support.