Age verification proposals are often presented as a simple tradeoff: sacrifice a little privacy to better safeguard children online. But that framing overlooks a more fundamental question. What happens to people who cannot verify their age at all? This is particularly a problem when users are required to prove their age with identity documents.
Still makes no sense to me. You’ve failed to make a convincing argument.
The argument itself is convincing, you’re just not listening
I’m sure that’s it
You do realize that a significant amount of laws that apply to the population don’t apply to politicians and the ultra wealthy, right?
It’s currently one of the biggest societal issues on the planet.
The point of this comment thread is not about who can get away with it. That’s not up for debate.
The only point I have made is: the wealthy have no more power to hide their online activities than you or I do
Yes, it is. The statement was that they would be beholden to the same age verification requirements that we would.
What people have been trying to tell you is that your assumption isn’t backed by precedent.
You can argue whatever you like, but that’s not what was being discussed. Maybe start a new thread?
Yea, it was what was being discussed. Your assertion is that it’s impossible for the ruling class to have an exception. You seem to think a technical limitation exists where none does.
You’re factually incorrect, and show neither an understanding of how networking/websites function, or understanding of how the ultra wealthy and the politicians they buy have a very long history of giving themselves loopholes so the rules don’t apply to them.
Stop moving the goalposts
I never asserted anything over legality. Did you paste the wrong comment? You’re not making any sense. I asserted that wealth can’t buy you shielding today. What are you even on about?
Think for a minute about how providing your ID to access the internet would become a requirement.