• wheresmypillow@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    73
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think a lot of these states are going about this wrong. We should be helping parents restrict access for their children rather than trying to verify identities of adults who likely want to remain anonymous.

      • EighthLayer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s the same rhetoric that the UK government are using to get a backdoor on messaging apps with E2EE.

      • Khotetsu@lib.lgbt
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, anytime you see somebody making the “think of the children!” argument, look at what the possible end goal could be with that removed. Protecting kids is a favorite smokescreen because kids can’t speak up for themselves in these cases.

    • psychothumbs@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah I think that’s the proper route. Parents who want to restrict what their children see need to take responsibility for doing so and not try to make the government do it for them at the expense of everyone else’s privacy.

    • BoofStroke@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Make a kid safe tld that requires whatever government certification. Done. Now parents, if they choose, can filter all but the kidsafe tld. Trying to instead blacklist is never going to work.

      Whether companies choose to certify and publish there is something those who want this type of thing should provide incentives for.