zlacker

>>doomro+(OP)
Age assurance will be the gateway to government issued(via corporate proxy) internet usage permits.

>>krunck+67
True, but I'm also not convinced that a ten year old being able to be face to face with hard-core BDSM and incest fetish porn within 40 seconds of opening a web browser is healthy.

I don't like this but don't have another solution other than the porn industry self-policing which isn't promising.

>>api+P8
Now take an intentionally extreme opposite (as a thought experiment): if we put death penalty to people who participate in distributing or in relaying such content, could all of that be solved without the “internet pass” and IDing your internet history ?

>>rvnx+Sa
Maybe, but even this is broken with the internet being international. You'd need a system much more advanced than even the GFW.

>>treyd+mb
Somehow this work when dealing with pedophile content, so the tech is already active.

For example, on Discord, all your messages are scanned for such. On Cloudflare as well (for over 5 years).

For now it means they have no interest to remove such content unless coerced or affected by the public opinion.

This would destroy all content though, not just for minors.

Absurd, but it works, in North Korea (death penalty), Iran (death penalty), China (10 year prison), and also protects victims from rape, or "rape" under financial pressure.

The alternative is to let responsibility of the parents to install web filter to their kids, and let others live freely on the internet, without sharing their history or IDing them.

In reality, TikTok also has really traumatizing content, yet is engaging tons of kids and teenagers, and IDing won't solve that, but good parents can.

>>rvnx+Ib
I agree, that does work, but there are parameters which are different that make it worth the tradeoff to police it that strongly, like the size of the audience and the much more severe real harm caused by its production and distribution.