642
Age Verification Is Coming for the Whole Internet (nymag.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
196 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 13 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Why do you assume that the old school forums are going to get exempted? They are going to get on the bus or get run over by it just like everywhere else. Government has already proven that they can, and will, regulate those forums.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    Great question!

    First, that the definition of content that is considered "adult" doesn't necessarily mean every forum qualifies. Privacyguides.org likely would not. A car forum likely would not. Facebook must comply because links shared can be "harmful" anywhere on the platform. The fractured nature of Web 1.0 is a feature now, not a bug.

    Second, that proxy measures can reasonably work for forums with smart admins. If I register with an email I can show has been in use since 2007, some forums are willing to accept that as enough evidence. I saw an article somewhere I can't find right now that someone was accepting 5 year old tickets to a concert or something that was an 18+ event. Typically age verification laws are focused on large Web 2.0 platforms and can include lower cost, lower threshold options for sites with a very small number of users.

    Finally, that it might simply take a longer time for anyone to care or even notice some smaller sites. By the time someone comes calling, policies might have already changed several times and reasonable exemptions now mean no work is needed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    First, that the definition of content that is considered "adult" doesn't necessarily mean every forum qualifies. Privacyguides.org likely would not. A car forum likely would not. Facebook must comply because links shared can be "harmful" anywhere on the platform. The fractured nature of Web 1.0 is a feature now, not a bug.

    if it were so easy. you can post links to the privacyguides forum too. but the bigger problem is that anyone can post anything. if they don't do age verification, they are liable for any forbidden content that slipped through. that can also be used as a form of blackmailing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    Sure you can post links, but that's not the topic of the forum, and it's not specific the a xountrybor market, which is also a factor right now with the UK law, so it doesnt ping as a problem worth dealing with.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (3 children)

    where did you read that it's the topic of the forum that matters?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I've read what seems like 30+ articles and explainers about the UK law the last few days - this has some lousy (official) defintions. I think the most recent episode of Power User with Taylor Lorenz might cover some of this enough to get the overall sense.

    The topics under scrutiny of the "user-to-user" site is extremely vague beyond obvious porn, but it amounts to if it allows the sharing of links of basic news of any topic, it counts. Because in terms of categorizing "harmful content" for minors, seeing fucking protests happening anywhere, at all is "controversial adult content." But if the links are limited to a very specific topic, say Honda Ridgeline owners, privacy and cyber nerd shit no one cares about) etc., cooking, and other innocuous things, it's a grey zone that doesn't demand compliance. YMMV, but even for a fascist wannabe set of policies can't justify "harmful" material for kids with a Linux forum or a forum for owners of the Honda Ridgeline (WTF?)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    ok but my point is that if someone posts a protest article link to the honda forum, then, as I understand, the forum will become legally liable for that too. so if the forum guarantee that the link won't even get publicly visible for a second, that's when they don't need to do age verification

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    Forums have mods and admins. As long as they don't allow a topic habitually then, per my understanding for the UK law right now, that would make it exempt.

    Compliance with the ID law is actually quite expensive if you contract Persona as the ID checker. If 1 user of a site not based in tje UK or about UK things posting 1 news article a mod deletes in 10 minutes is enough to trigger a $50,000 compliance contact, then it's enough to be amazing standing for an easily won lawsuit about burdens on small business.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent