zlacker

> You are approaching this from a uniquely U.S. perspective.

It’s not uniquely U.S. at all

What other countries require ID checks for services like Discord?

The U.K.’s implementation of this law is much more unique than you’re claiming.

>>Aurorn+(OP)
You don’t need age verification to access all of Discord, just NSFW servers. You can certainly argue that that’s an unjustifiable interference in people’s freedom to access the internet services that they want to access. But please don’t exaggerate.

>>Aurorn+(OP)
Discord’s own articles about this change explain that the fundamentals (content filtering) are applied to all accounts owned by teenagers worldwide. The only U.K. specific aspect of all of this is that if you tell Discord you are over 18 you must prove it. That’s a very small difference and not something most people in most countries care about. I’d go as far as to say, I think the majority of people in the majority of the world would be in favour of requiring people to prove they’re over 18 online if they want to claim to be over 18 online.

https://support.discord.com/hc/en-us/articles/33362401287959...

>>abxyz+a2
> The only U.K. specific aspect of all of this is that if you tell Discord you are over 18 you must prove it. That’s a very small difference

Requiring ID verification in one country is not a small difference.

The rest of the world checks a box. People in the U.K. must submit to ID verification.

It’s so strange to see things like this claimed to be small differences.

>>Aurorn+n3
Again, this is a radical internet-libertarian-freedom-at-all-costs view. Normal people do not think that proving you are 18 is notable. We’ve been doing it for decades with credit cards. The system is more mature now but it is not fundamentally different.

>>foldr+E1
> You don’t need age verification to access all of Discord, just NSFW servers.

That’s not correct. The Discord support explains that it’s required to change automatic content filtering or unblur any content that gets caught by the automatic filters.

>>abxyz+f4
> Again, this is a radical internet-libertarian-freedom-at-all-costs view

The current global status quo is “radical” and the U.K. is the only country doing it right?

You were accusing others of being U.S. centric a few posts back, but now you’re pushing the U.K.’s unique laws as the only valid solution.

> We’ve been doing it for decades with credit cards

Age checks for credit cards are required because minors legally couldn’t be forced to pay their debts.

If companies issued credit cards to minors then the minors could spend as much as they want and the bank would have no recourse to collect.

I don’t think you understand these issues if you’re using this as a comparison. Either that or you’re not even trying to have an honest conversation.

>>Aurorn+f5
My position is very simple. I believe that most of the world is fine with age checks on the Internet. I think that the U.S. free speech laws and attitudes are unique and because English speaking internet culture is U.S. culture, these discussions always end up with an assumption that U.S. values are the values shared by the subjects.

I don’t think my view on the law matters, I haven’t shared it. I am speaking specifically about how everyone here is talking as if people in the U.K. care about “draconian” surveillance. People in the U.K. are not people from the U.S. Age verification is not a philosophical issue for U.K. people as it is for people in the U.S. People from the U.K. are not principled free speech absolutists. Ask a person in the U.K. if porn should require age verification and they will not think nor care about the free speech or surveillance implications of voting for such a law.

And people in the U.K. are not unique. People in the U.S. are. Spend any amount of time outside of our U.S. Internet bubble and you’ll discover nobody cares about any of this.

Whether I care and whether you care is not relevant to the British voters. Not the Australian voters. Nor the Swedish voters. Or the Thai voters. Or the Japanese voters…

>>Aurorn+r4
Yes, that’s what I meant. You can still access Discord, just not any content that’s detected as NSFW. Generally speaking that content will be on NSFW servers (the kind that e.g. the iPhone app would block you from accessing by default).

Obviously there is not going to be a “nah I really want to see this tho” button, or the age check would be completely pointless.

>>abxyz+M6
In fact you have shared your opinion: 'Again, this is a radical internet-libertarian-freedom-at-all-costs view. Normal people do not think that proving you are 18 is notable.'

I would actually argue you've expressed dozens of opinions related to this law and very few facts. Any source on whether Swedish or Japanese voters care for example? What led you to this conclusion?

Furthermore in your last comment you first argue you are only speaking to UK sentiment ('I am speaking specifically about how everyone here is talking as if people in the U.K. care about “draconian” surveillance.') and then double down on your argument that US is the outlier.

>>abxyz+f4
Uploading your government-issued ID to random sites to prove your age is insanity.

We have daily reporting about database breaches where people were duped into uploading their picture/ID, and then it gets posted on 4chan. This is true for the latest "Tea" app this past week, but also ID verification services for big companies like TikTok and Uber. I draw a hard line: I will not upload my ID for some private business to review, because they will never delete it.

>>abxyz+M6
Yeah, you are right, we would be fine with age checks. If and only if it was done through zk-SNARE or ZKPs in general. Uploading a photo of myself to a random company's server is a no-go, whether for having my age checked or whatever else.

I am Eastern European, and there is no way in hell I will ever use a service that requires me to verify my age through a photo of my ID.

>>foldr+la
That is not true. Try going to a server that asks for your age and then go ahead to choose "2020".

> Obviously there is not going to be a “nah I really want to see this tho” button, or the age check would be completely pointless.

That is exactly how "ignoring" an user on Discord works. Their messages are still there and you have to click on it to have it uncollapsed, so that is kind of ironic of you to say, lmao. So yeah, there actually is a "nah I really want to see this tho" button.

>>johnis+sz
There must be a misunderstanding here. I said in my post that some servers are indeed gated on age verification. Just not all of Discord.

>>foldr+hB
Look, create an account and when you join a server that asks for your age, make sure you set the birth year to one that makes you less than 13 years old.

For what it is worth, it has to do with Discord ToS (per / by country).

In some countries you must be over 13 to use Discord, other countries 14, but if you are below, you MUST verify yourself to be able to access your Discord account after you set it to below 13. This verification process is done through sending Discord an e-mail requesting them to restore your account, with a video of yourself holding your ID card as an attachment.

The list per country can be found on Discord's website.

What I am talking about is separate from the server settings (require phone verification and/or age verification).

>>abxyz+M6
The problem is the privacy, not the age check itself if it could be isolated. I think you're confused on what the US objectors are upset about.