I’ve been thinking. Every mainstream social media is age verificated now. But sites such as SomethingAwful, 4chan and the Fediverse weren’t. So why are we trying to populate it if the Fedi’ was popular too, we would ALSO be verificated and spywared (made up this word for this post’s sake)?
Yes, that’s why the made the law. It’s supposed to stop any competition for the already privileged.
Legally it’s currently required if the instance is hosted under a jurisdiction with such laws.
Size or being mainstream doesn’t really matter with current legislations. All it takes is someone suing an instance over that and then owner would have troubles.
Selectively denouncing instances under these laws could basically dismantle the fediverse, specially if this laws end up being approved all across europe and north America.
That’s why you should probably take down your representative and put there someone who is not a moron.
Do these exist on Africa? Should someone make an african instance then?
Africa is not a country.
I said Africa to mean African countries in general, smartypants.
Probably. Regulators usually care about reach, not architecture. If the Fediverse became genuinely mainstream, it would likely end up in the same political spotlight. The real difference is that federation makes compliance an instance by instance problem, not one global switch. That is much harder to enforce.
So, only the popular instance would get verification, not every one?
At present, most probably only those that appear on the regulatory radar in their own right.
The question is what are they to do if a kid starts their own instance. Will the kid get fined?
Age Verification laws, if they are ever enforced against the fediverse, will be enforced against instances, rather than the fediverse as a whole. So the federales will come for feddit.online, or lemmy.world or mastodon.social. The trouble is, to get the fediverse writ large taken down, you have to get every instance down all at once, otherwise the instances will just keep federating content between them. This seems impractical and kind of unlikely to succeed.
The key word being “instance” - they’d have a helluva time trying to take down the whole thing altogether. Much like pirate sites, chop one head off & two more will take its place. Communities will just migrate & reestablish footing elsewhere. If the feds do it enough, then backup plans will become automatic where instances back each other up.
Sure you can make the technology more resilient but if the enforcement is punitive enough then it won’t matter.
Then what’s to stop them from making a law forbidding doxxing-law-abiding instances from federating with instances that don’t force users to doxx themselves?
Perhaps they could. I’m just not clever enough to know how you would draft the legislation or enforce the law – how is a complaint instance supposed to identify a noncomplaint instance, short of checking everyone’s id again?
You openly defy it. Fuck you, Make me. Jurisdiction hop, darknets, etc.
It already did, in Australia. Aussie Zone adopted a unique way to verify us. We sent images to Molly (after Molly Ringwald) and that was enough for the federal government. Things like username at a pub. I’m old and have false teeth so I sent a pic of those.
No, they didn’t like it and they said so, but they found a way round that worked.
We sent images to Molly (after Molly Ringwald)
Who?
I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_Ringwald but nothing in the bio makes the reference make sense
It was what they called their…whatever it is, I think it was an AI they used. I don’t know.
Huh. Can’t find about it by searching.
No worries. It definitely happened
Why would it be named after an American and not after Molly Meldrum?
80s I think was the premise.
What law? Where? How could it even be enforced on something completely decentralized?
They could go after some locally hosted instances I guess but the federated platforms as a whole do not have a “home base” and trying to enforce such a rule would be difficult if not impossible in practice (never mind that age verification was never about protecting anybody).
A lot of the laws aren’t limited by the size of the site, or whether or not it’s non-commercial, so instances with users in some places with age verification laws already do; Australia, Mississippi, and the UK (with the Online Safety Act) are three example. I haven’t heard of any examples of instances getting warnings about this yet – although a couple instances with content that might be considered unsuitable for minors have geoblocked the UK to avoid triggering the Online Safety Act – but it’s only a matter of time.
but it’s only a matter of time.
So we will all eventually have to be age-verified, Fedi or not, one time or another?
Not necessarily – I didn’t mean to sound defeatist! VPNs are a thing (although they’re talking about restricting them in the UK), and there will always be networks run by admins who risk breaking the laws, and at least in Australia teens seem to be quite good at getting around the age verification for their social media bans so we adults can probably figure out ways around it too. I just meant that fedi’s relatively-small size isn’t a protection, and some point some governments will start to go after fedi instances.
In general though I think we in fedi need to take a much more active role in fighting back against age verification bills and other attempts to surveil and censor the internet, rather than just hoping we can continue to fly below the radar. https://piefed.social/c/fediverse@piefed.social/p/2230542/how-can-fedi-help-fight-bad-internet-bills has some more thoughts on that.
Many sites are already using age verification as an excuse to block firewalls. Presumably the fediverse wouldn’t but ……
I use Apple’s “Private Relay” so websites see a regional location rather than my actual ip and location. However oven been seeing more and more sites that block it as “firewalls are not allowed”
Edited for autocorrect
Great point!
This is completely wrong
Age Verification laws have nothing to do with Fediverse “popularity”
They have only to do with the political jurisdiction of your instance, and the political jurisdiction of you as a viewer
I’m pretty sure ze’s (accurately) talking about how many of the enacted age verification régimes only mandate it for platforms with certain amounts of monthly active users.
You can just join another instance that is outside the jurisdiction of these laws or run your own instance with closed sign ups since you don’t have to verify your own age (or the age of known friends if you offer access to them)
The fediverse is inherently resilient to this sort of law, it’s the laws that make platforms liable for the content posted to it, that are more of a concern for the fediverse.
In theory, yes, but it would have to scale up significantly in order to be noticed. And then since it would be split across many difference instances would be a logistical nightmare for authorities.
It can but then again to counter it we have hash based protocols like reticulum and nostr
thats not how it works. there is no company. if your server tries to age gate me, i’ll just use another.
The way things are looking now, your only option might be a server in North Korea.
I’ll run my own is also an option.
Sure, if you want to be a criminal…
.uɐᴉlɐɹʇsn∀ uɐ ǝq oʇ ʇuǝɯǝɹᴉnbǝɹ ɐ sᴉ ʇɐɥ⊥
In one description I saw, part of the criterion was algorithmic feeds i.e. viewer manipulation. Lemmy has a fairly wimpy form of that compared to something like Facebook, and it could be shut off entirely without any loss. If it were up to me I’d shut it off either way.
