Skavau

Because age-ID tools cost money to maintain. And most larger instances do not screen every single application individually. If it could be done financially without age-ID, it would certainly make running the instance a complete chore and cause many to shut down on that basis alone.

And asking people to give them a picture of them in a pub isn’t going to be accepted as a valid age technique legally.

You don’t need to ban literally any website that could be classified as social media to have the desired effect. You just need to ban the big ones: TikTok, Instagram etc.

Sure, but recall how this conversation started - we were talking about this specifically in the context of the Fediverse applying age-ID checks. It’s financially non-viable and any attempt to enforce it would force instances to all shut down. Not that it realistically can be enforced.

There’s tens of thousands of sites out there under the description of “user-to-user communication service” with mixed content. If you set the conditions that every single one of them must provide age-ID tools for adult content access (aussie-zone’s improvised solutions will certainly not be legally viable) the level of continued enforcement would be utterly ridiculous. It would be even worse if your country implemented a social-media minimum age requirement and declared that all sites thet enable user-to-user interaction also come under it. OSA in the UK, which does the former (requiring sites to age-gate adult content), attempts to do this - has been active since July of last year and barely scratched the surface.

Those pot shops and liquor stores have actual physical presence on a high street in the same country. A small server run out of someone’s bedroom in Finland and who they have no idea who they are is completely different.

And how on earth would a regulator chase hundreds of different instances hosted all over the world to force them to implement age-ID?

I’m not necessarily advocating for ID verification, but to answer your question: most instances require an application to join anyway, so this could simply be tacked ontop.

How is it enforced on them? How can many even afford it?

From what I understand aussie.zone already does something like this. To join, apparently they require a picture of you at a bar with a beer to prove that you’re over 18. Not a perfect method but procedurally not that different from checking IDs.

This doesn’t scale at all. Also, I’m not sure why aussie.zone is doing that because Australia’s social media requirements specifically only apply to large websites.

And even if it did, there’s no way that if aussie.zone was looked into over compliance that such a method would be considered acceptable by the regulators.

Create it. Advertise it in !newcommunities@lemmy.world and !communitypromo@lemmy.ca and federate it.

If you haven’t given it, your neighbor’s doorbell has. If you’ve used a search engine, you’ve been recorded. If you have a smart phone, they know absolutely everything about you.

We’re talking specifically about my face as provided by me via my own social media accounts.

I’d still like to know how you think this is remotely enforceable on the Fediverse, much less all websites. How can people here even afford it?

Ask yourself why you’re on Lemmy instead of Reddit, or FB, or Twitter.

Privacy is a big reason.

How do you even expect a decentralised service run by hobbyists to even implement age-ID in the first place?

However, the big tech companies are not asking your permission to spy on you, as has been proved by the Guthrie case.

Yes, but again, they do not have my face or my actual ID. They can make a profile from my posts and it would resemble what I believe but in theory, after long posting on Lemmy or Piefed - they could implement tools to do the same thing.

How is this even remotely enforceable?

It will destroy curation. It’s an absurd concept.

Your feed should contain a chronological list of posts made by people you subscribe to

Should that be the only way the feed should be organised by law?

I could think of some reasons maybe, but none seem to stand out. The fact that big-tech is going to increasingly flagrantly violate our privacy as a precondition to use the services is an increasingly major one.

Tbh not really

Sorry, why are you on Lemmy then if you’re non-plussed about handing over your ID? Social media sites (that I use) do not have a picture of me, or my actual identity.

Yes? USA is the least likely to do this. Porn laws in various states don’t apply to social media.

Other attempts have been stuck in legislative hell, been unenforced or have court cases challenging their legality (Mississipi)

Wikipedia took UK to court over the fear of being targeted, it was dismissed purely on the basis of “Well they haven’t done anything to you yet”. And Ofcom clearly hasn’t got the balls to do it.

I just think this is a logistical dead-end for regulators who may rely on the chilling effect of the thought of being targeted rather than actually being targeted. Unless the Fediverse somehow becomes massive, I don’t see that it’ll ever enter their eyes. Especially as many places will be based in the USA who is the least likely country to implement these laws, and the most hostile to any threats from foreign regulators (see again the 4chan example).

Do they? There’s one thing to make it law, another thing to enforce it. OSA in the UK has been around since last July and managed to do nothing other than pick a fight with 4chan and get nowhere. I seem to recall someone mentioned Lemmy to Ofcom in a discussion regarding OSA and they were literally like “What’s a Lemmy?”

How on earth do you imagine a regulator is going to work out how to deal with 50+ federated instances (for instance)?