zlacker

>>mmaria+(OP)
We require people to verify their age in person to access pornography, it doesn't seem like that far a stretch to require it online. You can't even by a ticket to an R-rated movie without age verification. That seems reasonable to me. I see I'm in the minority here. I understand the slippery slope argument but if we succumb to that then nothing could be done anywhere ever. I understand this could be abused, but it's up to us to make sure it isn't. I think that's why people don't like it, it requires diligence and effort to keep things sane. Much easier to just allow children to view content they absolutely shouldn't then be politically active and make sure our laws are sensible and our representatives are held accountable.

>>thinki+1i4
With in-person access it’s easy to do two things:

1. Verify the ID without storing it in your system. Someone just looks at it.

2. Visually confirm that the photo on the ID matches the person entering the building.

Neither of these apply online.

Has everyone forgotten how kids operate? They’re not clueless. They’re going to realize that they don’t need to submit their ID. They just need to submit someone’s ID.

At first they’ll just use fake ID generators and submit those photos.

If that loophole gets closed somehow, a market will appear for buying ID verified accounts for trivial prices. People will create ID verified accounts and sell them cheap for side money. The only way around this is to start storing ID information for every account to make sure IDs aren’t used multiple times.

It’s one giant slippery slope of consequences for the adults forced to submit IDs, while the people who want to work around it do so trivially.

>>Aurorn+Pm4
Right. Just like kids would hang out outside a 7-11 and ask someone older to buy them a Playboy. Or pay a homeless person to buy them beer. Should we remove the age limit on alcohol purchases because kids aren't clueless? That's not a rhetorical question. Should we remove all laws that can be abused? Your argument falls apart very quickly.

>>thinki+yn4
Your analogy needs modifying. If we remove the laws, a child could walk into the store and buy beer with their pocket money, no questions asked. This isn't the same as them browsing the internet no questions asked.

The child is not paying for their devices or internet access. Their parents are paying and providing the needed equipment. In a way, it's like giving keys to after hours access to the local mall, where all kinds of stores can be browsed including adult magazine stores, without any shopkeeper to apply the laws.

So one solution is don't give kids the keys. Or, since their online activity leaves a digital trail, even if they did have keys, there's a chance to moderate their activity via seeing what they have done rather than police where they might go.

>>exodus+Wz4
So because a kid could go stand outside a store and ask someone to get them porn, we should not allow kids outside. We should not give them the "keys" to go to the outside world.

>>thinki+IH4
> "...we should not allow kids outside"

That's not an equivalent analogy. Freedom of movement, to stand outside a store, is a human right. It is not the same as "freedom to lurk around online spaces on Mummy's laptop and Daddy's internet account."