alt.hn

6/1/2026 at 11:22:28 PM

Age verification for social media, the beginning of the end for a free internet?

 https://mullvad.net/en/blog/age-verification-for-social-media-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-a-free-internet

by StrLght

6/2/2026 at 12:44:33 AM

So, to post something in 2027:

- You have to have an approved browser.

- It has to be installed on an approved platform, Google or Apple, for which you have a valid account.

- You have to have an account on the posting platform.

- You have to get past moderation on the posting platform.

That's without age verification.

by Animats

6/2/2026 at 1:08:43 AM

You can't sign up for a Facebook account without giving a live selfie.

Any image of your family you post will be scraped by Clearview AI, bypassing the restrictions that make it hard for you to create accounts, to create a worldwide facial recognition system.

by Cider9986

6/2/2026 at 2:15:32 AM

It gets worse. Banks now require pictures of faces to fucking close the account and pull the money out.

by drivebyhooting

6/2/2026 at 1:14:03 AM

Well yeah, Facebook has been a data harvesting scheme from the beginning. It was originally called LifeLog. It is not part of the “free” web.

by simulator5g

6/2/2026 at 1:21:24 AM

[flagged]

by asdefghyk

6/2/2026 at 12:53:54 AM

And your data on all those platforms - Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, etc. are ALL building comprehensive profiles on you, selling your data, and probably tossing it straight to the government in one way or another.

by tmpz22

6/2/2026 at 12:55:44 AM

And just so we're clear: these companies are building these profiles even if you haven't registered and/or logged into their services.

by ElProlactin

6/2/2026 at 1:04:19 AM

One very simple way to give parents control over what their children see and participate in without violating everyone else’s privacy is to create adult and social TLDs and require these sites to migrate to them. So instagram.com becomes instagram.social, etc. Then mandate that all consumer network equipment mfrs and internet providers provide easily accessible ways to block these TLDs. Maybe combine that with some public education materials to teach less savvy parents how to do this.

Now you’ve given every parent a way to easily mass block all adult/social sites/apps if they want and no one’s privacy need be compromised.

by falkensmaize

6/2/2026 at 1:58:17 AM

There was some optimism with .xxx that adult content producers would voluntarily switch over. Spoiler: almost none of them did, except for domain name availability reasons.

by harshreality

6/2/2026 at 1:14:16 AM

Block how? You can block sites now and all it takes is a proxy/vpn to get around it. Nothing short of personalized age verification will work. The best we can do is make sure the age verification system is centralized by the government. The client sites can’t see who you are and the centralized government server should not be able to see the sites you visit.

The only way this can go wrong is if the client sites collude and publish their visitor logs and then the government can do the legwork to identify you. But even this is pretty easily bypassed if you use a VPN.

by dyauspitr

6/2/2026 at 2:09:31 AM

Whether such a system could be bypassed by a VPN would depend on exactly how the age verification works and whether said government decides to ban the use of VPNs.

More importantly, I don't personally have any faith that at least the US government could properly define and build a system that is reliably and provably resistant to tracking. The government has incentives to want to know what sites a person visits, the NSA would be loathed to allow that opportunity to go unused. The government also likely doesn't have the skills or resources to do it in house, I'd expect them to outsource it at an absurd cost to a third party that would also have incentives to want to track usage data through the system.

by _heimdall

6/2/2026 at 1:14:19 AM

Reminder that the internet was created to be live and a indestructible means of reaching one and another, none of what you wrote can meaningfully do what you think it would.

Failing in parenting and lobbied politicians (regulatory capture) on the other side.

by enoeht

6/2/2026 at 12:56:56 AM

There isn't much left of the free Internet anyway. Search engines no longer work, all discussion forums are ranked/censored by interest groups, mail delivery is between large entities.

Maybe we need an alternative set of root servers for a free Internet.

by asjgGa6

6/2/2026 at 1:02:57 AM

And content is increasingly produced for, and by, machines. Human initiative and/or access is increasingly incidental.

It's easy to create an alternative. The problem isn't that, it's keeping that alternative clanker-free. (As well as free of all the other enemies / plauges on the useful, generative, Internet.)

by dredmorbius

6/2/2026 at 1:12:10 AM

> keeping that alternative clanker-free

which brings you right back to verification...

by 2001zhaozhao

6/2/2026 at 1:51:52 AM

The future is balkanized.

Occasional communities may survive in a walled garden fashion.

Sorry, Tim Berners-Berners-Lee.

by smitty1e

6/2/2026 at 1:03:44 AM

Already exists: Opennic.org

by 1970-01-01

6/2/2026 at 2:14:24 AM

Well, no, certainly not the beginning of the end.

by emodendroket

6/2/2026 at 12:52:21 AM

“Introducing age verification is based on the state being able to force social media companies to verify their users’ identities”

Users have been doing this themselves without state coercion for twenty years now by putting their real names all over Facebook and all the other socials. Nobody forced them to use their real names and post countless pictures of their faces alongside, and pour out the totality of their worthless opinions on every issue. Compared to this, when considered sensibly, the verification is almost a trivial step.

by gizajob

6/2/2026 at 12:57:07 AM

Growing up I remember all the ads about avoiding narcotics talking about getting hooked on free samples and then going to jail for theft and/or possession. The people behind that propaganda didn't know drugs do cost money, dealers being dorky teens and twenty-somethings who are about as dangerous as a butterfly. But this propaganda also illustrates how some elements aren't very bright. The internet age with free email, free social media, etc. got everyone hooked and now Zuckerberg, et al. are giving doe-eyed, hat-in-hand, and crying poverty. If people were wise to those PSAs, past and present, they'd see how the loyal opposition has been playing with their cards face-up on the table under the guise of good intentions. Much like the pedophile scare during the teens, pun unintended, with Comet Ping Pong and then come 2024 it's revealed Epstein and his cadre of deviant cronies were doing it all along while deflecting poorly to innocent parties. Goodness knows what else is still right in front of our noses but their reality hasn't come to fruition in the zeitgest.

by tobadzistsini

6/2/2026 at 1:59:33 AM

> getting hooked on free samples

It's not a free "sample": drug dealers give their stuff for free at parties where vulnerable young people are in the form of sharing what they are themselves taking. Then they have that teen on the hook for extortion and having them do things or pay "debts". I "gave" you some drugs because you're my friend, but now you have to pay back, you have to do this favor, take this stuff from here to there. Another common thing is that the "debt" has to be paid in money again and again and again. You don't want us to go talk to your parents who think you're their perfect little boy/girl? You don't want them to know that you took drugs, do you?

As dangerous as a butterfly... It's a filthy world on all levels, filled with demonic people who spend all their time thinking about how to use and abuse others - the more innocent the better.

I know it's a tangent.

by carlosjobim

6/2/2026 at 2:05:55 AM

[dead]

by cindyllm

6/2/2026 at 1:05:11 AM

[dead]

by cindyllm

6/2/2026 at 12:56:22 AM

EU law gives every citizen a right to a bank account.

I wonder if EU law could give every citizen a right to a google or Apple account, including a forced recovery option if the account is 'deactivated'?

If at some point such an account becomes essential to function in society, access to such an account becomes a legal mandate.

by mylifeandtimes

6/2/2026 at 12:59:14 AM

I mean, try getting a job without an email account and a cell phone number.

by Avicebron

6/2/2026 at 1:13:12 AM

Indeed.

Here in Australia, the local and state governments push the use of their Apps as well.

These Apps provide access to identity documents, offical notifications, and messages for health, benefits and taxation purposes.

Then there is Banking and the issues around becoming a cashless digital society…

It’s become less about access to hardware devices, as useable devices can often be free when donated by a friend or relative, and more about continuity of access to your digital life.

The risk of losing access to your online identity or having it stolen are very real with often traumatic results for individuals.

by firecall

6/2/2026 at 1:36:31 AM

The problem is kids on social media. This doesn't need to be a problem for anyone except social media companies and social media users. Sloppy policymaking is making it a broader problem, but I don't think this is some nefarious scheme (at least in the U.S., it looks sketchier in Europe). It's just policymakers pulling the first proposal off the shelf to respond to intense demand for a policy from voters.

by JumpCrisscross

6/2/2026 at 2:10:37 AM

That's a problem, but I'm not sure its the problem. There are plenty of issues that wouldn't be fixed by prevent kids from using social media.

by _heimdall

6/2/2026 at 12:55:31 AM

So there are walled gardens with restrictions. The internet will route around these restrictions.

by SapporoChris

6/2/2026 at 1:34:54 AM

Does anyone think of social media as free?

by neves

6/2/2026 at 1:17:05 AM

Mullvad VPN is great. Mullvad Browser is a great balance for preventing fingerprinting and also usability vs the Tor Browser. Most browsers I've found, even ones with claimed fingerprinting protections, are easily traced by fingerprint.com and other tests. Mullvad beats it.

There's this cool new feature that they added to the Mullvad browser extension, which is built into the Browser. It gives you a random different proxy for each site, kind of like the Tor Browser.

Mullvad understands that VPNs overpromise and underdeliver, but if you combine a trustworthy VPN, a fingerprint-resistant browser, and uBlock Origin, you get a damn good internet privacy. The browser is not ideal for daily-driving because it's always incognito so you get signed out on close, but I heard they're working on a persistent version.

by Cider9986

6/2/2026 at 12:59:13 AM

hey claude build me a small social media site i can use with my friends...

the beginning of the freedom of every person to become a developer

by hkon

6/2/2026 at 1:06:55 AM

I can't let you do that, Dave

by NopIdoN

6/2/2026 at 1:46:07 AM

Age verification is a project 2025 backdoor to ban porn, and also a way for Meta and others to advertise much more aggressively without violating age restrictions, and also a mass surveillance opportunity for the government. It is definitely not for the children or anyone’s safety. It threatens the most basic civil rights we have like free speech. The fact that so many people blindly support it is really depressing and disturbing.

by SilverElfin

6/2/2026 at 1:02:43 AM

>and that you can no longer post anonymously on social media. You cannot be certain that your criticism of the government will not be followed up by the authorities.

sorry but I don't get this point. If you're on Instagram or Facebook, did you think fifteen different three letter agencies weren't already watching you? It has the word 'face' in the name, the entire point of that site is that people mindlessly share their personal information, it's not some underground space for activists.

You can be perfectly anonymous on the internet, but demanding to be anonymous on Facebook is like trying to start a Das Kapital book club at Goldman Sachs or decrying commercial culture while you're in a Disneyland theme park

by Barrin92

6/2/2026 at 1:08:44 AM

[dead]

by qotgalaxy

6/2/2026 at 12:18:10 AM

Good arguments there, and for once addressing privacy-preserving age verification.

I just don't like that proponents of age verification are systematically (including in this article) dismissed as authoritarians hiding behind "just another “what about the children” excuse to introduce mass surveillance and censorship". Many people genuinely want to find a solution that is better for the children, and telling them "if you are open to age verification you are either a fascist or a moron" is not constructive.

Also I find the way ZKP is criticised a bit manipulative. It kinda implies that "fundamentally, any kind of ZKP system can be switched off remotely and without anyone realising", and that is wrong. It can be implemented in such a way that people have pretty good guarantees about it preserving their privacy, similar to end-to-end encryption. I find it hypocritical to say "E2EE can be reasonably trusted, but privacy-preserving age verification fundamentally cannot", just because tech people like the former and not the latter.

by palata

6/2/2026 at 12:45:29 AM

> Many people genuinely want to find a solution that is better for the children

at the expense of everyone and everything else all to not have to be an actual parent.

These arguments are not coming from places of concern, they are coming from laziness and people taking advantage of that laziness to further even worse agendas.

by mhurron

6/2/2026 at 12:57:05 AM

Indeed it’s much easier to understand when you realize the people advocating for these laws and regulations do not give a flying fuck about your children, it’s merely an apparatus to gain control of the general populace

by SOLAR_FIELDS

6/2/2026 at 12:34:05 AM

Do you believe people should be able to traverse the internet anonymously?

by Avicebron

6/2/2026 at 2:17:43 AM

Yes. At least to read.

by Xorakios

6/2/2026 at 12:52:53 AM

You can't. Even if you haven't registered or logged in, companies like Facebook have identified you and track you everywhere you go.

by ElProlactin

6/2/2026 at 12:58:31 AM

[dead]

by nullsex

6/2/2026 at 12:45:24 AM

There is a solution, it is regulating social media companies to stop abusing their users, and by extension, children. strict laws around adtech and tracking tech. more consumer rights, in other words - that’s why this solution comes off as authoritarian, because there is such a variety of ways to tackle this problem, and this is the most authoritarian one.

by JohnMakin

6/2/2026 at 12:45:46 AM

Parents need to either control the internet, or control their children’s devices and screentime. The latter sounds like the obvious option, except that Google wants every second grader to have a school-mismanaged chromebook and Google wants to mediate control of the internet, and by pushing parents to the former they win on both fronts.

by QuadmasterXLII

6/2/2026 at 12:52:15 AM

Requiring parents to police their child's every move is not going to end well.

by benfortuna

6/2/2026 at 12:56:50 AM

And having the state do it is better?

by cdrnsf

6/2/2026 at 12:55:41 AM

Age verification literally already exists in a way that doesn't require orwellian centralized control. The <meta rating> tag has existed for decades. If you want to restrict access force websites to apply these tags, then use a browser that obeys them. Parents control what their kids access, mostly, like it's been since forever.

Think carefully about why a politician might disregard this extremely simple mechanism and you'll have your answer about the real goals here

by idiotsecant

6/2/2026 at 12:33:38 AM

Many people genuinely want to find a solution that is better for the children, and telling them "if you are open to age verification you are either a fascist or a moron" is not constructive.

We know they'll take a mile if you give them an inch. Ditto with "trusted" computing and the rest of that wormcan. That's why the opposition has to be absolute.

by userbinator

6/2/2026 at 12:52:05 AM

Sure but that absolute opposition hasn't, as far I can tell at least, achieved an iota of success. So it's largely a self indulgent merit badge than an actual strategy.

by homeonthemtn

6/2/2026 at 12:51:00 AM

Who is this "they" you speak of?

We have age verification for all kinds of things that can harm minors. Most of them have adequate penalties for breach such that operators of said harms ensure they comply (checks for ID when selling alcohol, entry to over-18s pubs/clubs, etc.)

There's nothing sinister going on here, just attempts to prevent social/mental harm to minors.

by benfortuna

6/2/2026 at 12:57:22 AM

> There's nothing sinister going on here

There absolutely is you're just not aware of it.

This whole thing is meta financially backing right wing conservative groups that want age verification because meta wants to avoid liability for the harms their platforms cause.

In addition, this is the beginning of the end of any sort of anonymity on the internet, which has disastrous consequences for politically minded individuals, minority populations, or targets of stalking. This is a privacy nightmare bring pushed through in the guise of "muh children".

by esseph

6/2/2026 at 1:33:20 AM

This is so lame, it seems like a small number of pedophiles have forced us to deal with all this age verification stuff.

Porn has always been around (national geographic, anyone), and parents can use screen time to limit access for their children if they want.

by apt-apt-apt-apt

6/2/2026 at 1:49:11 AM

Current policy is victim-blaming: it excludes from social media potential victims (children) but allows perpetrators (convicted csam users).

But this was always about governments wanting to know who's posting what (and controlling them, through chilling effect); not about saving 'the children'.

by nomilk