When I was 8, I remember being bored and curious and touching a lot of parents stuff… phones… wallets… legal documents…
Most parents don’t put their stuff in safes…
Like… THE WALLET IS RIGHT THERE… I COULD JUST GRAB IT!
If they had age verification stuff back then… I could’ve just… quickly snap a pic of their ID and just YOLO it…
Chilling effect has a different connotation. This is a directly desired effect.
Do you disagree that it’s harmful for young children to see pornography and the distorted view it presents of sex and especially of women? If it were just a question of chilling adults who want to look at porn, rather than of privacy violation, it’d be an acceptable price to pay. For example, if they used zero-knowledge proofs, that’d be completely fine.
I, as an adult who wants to visit a site, circumvent such a requirement. As a child who does not, I obviously would not.
Yes, and you’d probably do this by using unregulated sites, like many impacted by the UK law https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/unregulated-sites-porn-uk-age-verification-b2895231.html
A child with unregulated access to the internet will always see content not appropriate for them. Personally i’m much more concerned about violent and morbid content than porn. You’d never see that censored because it’s part of the news and plastered all over the internet.
Always? Bullshit.
There’s the black and white thinking again. How often have you ended up looking at an unregulated adult site by accident? How much effort have you had to put in to find them over finding regulated ones?
Even among adults the substitution isn’t perfect, as the article says. Even more so for children, who aren’t, on average, as motivated nor as knowledgeable.