[It] does require websites to give users the option of “anonymous age verification,” which is defined as verification by a third party that cannot retain identifying information after the task is complete.
Its not anonymous if you have to give up anonymity to complete the process.
Also seems ripe to use as a poor tax. How many Lemmy instances could survive a 10-50k fine per offense? The NetChoice gang can afford to fight, and if they lose, implement this.
Just to be clear, I’m not arguing for children on social media. This is just not the way. If the authors of this bill actually gave a shit, they would be fighting for living wages and less work so families can actually spend time together.
It’s anonymous from the perspective of the website.
You have a trusted third party check the ID,
so you don’t have to hold that ID data.
It’s kind like Stripe for credit card processing. You can integrate Stripe into your website and they handle all the credit card details in a way your server never has to see those credit card details.
I understand the protocol. If I have to reveal my identity at any point during a transaction to any party, it is not anonymous. It may maintain some privacy between me and the content owner, but my activities are no longer anonymous.
“I need privacy, not because my actions are questionable, but because your judgement and intentions are.”
This goes for corporate and state level actors. I don’t trust Daddy Government or the age verifier to have my best interest in mind when they can start building a profile on the content I consume they deem not suitable for minors.
There may be a specific flavour of a zero knowledge proofs that works to maintain anonymity. Like, I’d rather pay with monero, and I do so when I can, than stripe for this very reason. My payment activity is decoupled from my real identity used to purchase the monero from a KYC institution.
That is not what this bill is proposing, so its not anonymous.
Also seems ripe to use as a poor tax. How many Lemmy instances could survive a 10-50k fine per offense?
I would say zero. I have not read the bill, I’m not sure how they are defining social media or if they have guard rails to protect something like lemmy. That is a good point though
https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/25/24087979/florida-desantis-social-media-age-verification-parental-consent-law
Its not anonymous if you have to give up anonymity to complete the process.
Also seems ripe to use as a poor tax. How many Lemmy instances could survive a 10-50k fine per offense? The NetChoice gang can afford to fight, and if they lose, implement this.
Just to be clear, I’m not arguing for children on social media. This is just not the way. If the authors of this bill actually gave a shit, they would be fighting for living wages and less work so families can actually spend time together.
It’s anonymous from the perspective of the website.
You have a trusted third party check the ID, so you don’t have to hold that ID data.
It’s kind like Stripe for credit card processing. You can integrate Stripe into your website and they handle all the credit card details in a way your server never has to see those credit card details.
I understand the protocol. If I have to reveal my identity at any point during a transaction to any party, it is not anonymous. It may maintain some privacy between me and the content owner, but my activities are no longer anonymous.
This goes for corporate and state level actors. I don’t trust Daddy Government or the age verifier to have my best interest in mind when they can start building a profile on the content I consume they deem not suitable for minors.
There may be a specific flavour of a zero knowledge proofs that works to maintain anonymity. Like, I’d rather pay with monero, and I do so when I can, than stripe for this very reason. My payment activity is decoupled from my real identity used to purchase the monero from a KYC institution.
That is not what this bill is proposing, so its not anonymous.
I read about the fine more and if I read it correctly, it is really strange. The youth would be able to sue to get the money.
That means people could create fake accounts and bombard the sites with lawsuits.
I’m not a fan of that. I’ll have to find a better source and verify that I read that correctly.
Same conclusion in my research. All these bullshit bills are erosions of privacy and/or a poor tax. CISPA, SOPA, PIPA, CASE, KOSA, etc…
I would say zero. I have not read the bill, I’m not sure how they are defining social media or if they have guard rails to protect something like lemmy. That is a good point though