posh.wiki

And I'm back, with another rant about the modern internet! This time, on age verification.

There's a lot of coverage and opinion online opposing age verification. Many of these are impassioned people making reasonable points, but I find frustration in how many of them manipulate wording and numbers, obscure sources, and use clickbaity titles that border on misrepresenting the stories they're actually covering.

This post isn't about numbers and sources. I'm not giving a single figure or citation. I respect you, dear reader, enough to trust you to do your own research. I'm sure you'll find figures and case studies that support the dangers and ineffectiveness of age verification.

I just want to put you on the track of thinking critically about age assurance and the messaging around it.

The motte-and-bailey doctrine

First up, let's talk about the motte-and-bailey doctrine. It's a strategy in debate where the arguer takes two positions: one that's modest and easy to defend (the motte), and one that's more controversial and harder to defend (the bailey). When challenged, they claim that an attack on the bailey is the same as an attack on the motte.

In politics, a common motte is the idea of protecting children. When someone challenges the bailey, the arguers, as well as anyone who's fallen for the informal motte-and-bailey fallacy, falsely claim that the critics are against the idea protecting children, and thus morally reprehensible and undeserving of consideration. This helps push through laws that would otherwise be unpopular by distracting from the real talking points.

Most, if not all age verification laws are pushed using this doctrine, with protecting the children as the motte. So, let's make this absolutely clear: yes, we should be protecting children. I'm not coming for the motte at all. I agree that children should be kept out of graphic and sexualised spaces online and shielded from anyone who would do them harm over the internet. My arguments are not anti-child-safety; they are pro-privacy and freedom. These are not fundamentally incompatible goals. We don't have to sacrifice one to have the other.

Your personal data in the hands of criminals

When a service asks for proof of age, they usually do it in one of three ways: a scan of your face, a scan of your legal ID, or the details of a credit card. This information is highly sensitive. Biometrics can be used to impersonate your likeness using AI, ID can be used to steal your identity and associate it with debts or crimes, and your credit card info can of course be used to spend your money.

Many age assurance companies sell parts of the data to third parties, which could go on to sell them to fourth parties, and so on and so forth, until it ends up in the hands of cyber-criminals. Your consent to this practice is buried deep within their terms of service in complicated wording.

Even providers who don't sell your data - that is, if such a provider exists - are prime targets for hackers. Even if it's just one platform which re-shares your assurance to several services, your data being out there once is enough to become a victim of fraud or identity theft. Either way, handing over this info risks a bad actor gaining access to it eventually and doing you personal harm or harm in your name.

Disenfranchisement of legitimate consumers

An unfortunate number of people around the world don't have access to a method of age verification. Particularly this includes some of the most vulnerable groups in society, such as the elderly, and victims of domestic abuse, who may not have access to identity documents.

Services that only offer credit card checks as proof of age also disenfranchise their adult users who don't have credit cards. Many adults, by choice or due to ineligibility or inaccessibility, do not hold a credit card, especially outside the USA. This creates an additional economic barrier to access to these services, which can help to keep the rich rich and the poor poor.

Censorship and retaliation

Age verification also grants powers of censorship. Gating information, especially history, news, and culture, behind such checks limits your access to information. Governments can use this to cover up pasts they're ashamed of and prevent us from learning from them, or suppress news of scandals and crimes that would drop their approval ratings, keeping them in power through deception. They can also limit access to vital safety information, such as healthcare options for women and minorities.

Beyond this, ID checks de-anonymise you, which threatens free speech. If your posts, or even your private messages, are associated with your real-life identity, it makes it significantly easier for a government to identify and retaliate against you. This can stop people from both sharing opinions which should be legally protected and spreading news which doesn't fit the regime.

Governments around the world are already doing all of this. Even if you think, "my government wouldn't do that", it sets a dangerous precedent. These powers of surveillance and censorship will be inherited by the next government, and the one after that, and so on. I invite you to imagine the worst possible government, the one that keeps you up at night, and ask yourself, do I trust that government to respect my rights to information and free speech?

Effectiveness, or lack thereof.

All this, of course, to very little effect in the way of keeping children out of adult spaces online. When age checks do work - which they don't always - minors get around it by using their parents' IDs, using VPN (often free ones which are notorious for selling sensitive browsing data), or turning to less moderated parts of the internet which don't comply with age verification requirements.

Most children say that they're getting around age restrictions, one way or another. It's not unlikely that the actual number of kids circumventing the rules is even higher, since there's likely to be at least a few who lie in these studies for fear of punishment.

Every region that's implemented age assurance laws has the same story: The powers that be send out a few fines, remind companies of the consequences of failing to comply, and still, nothing changes. Everyone just gets a little less free.

Alternatives

What might be more effective, and certainly less invasive, is educating parents and guardians on internet safety, parental controls, and cultivating an environment where children feel comfortable bringing safety concerns to their carers without fear of punishment.

It's also important to educate children on the dangers of the internet. Of course, they'll still make mistakes, but giving them the tools to identify danger on the internet helps them and you identify

Conclusion

Age checks threaten your personal security, your right to information, and your right to free speech. All while being largely ineffective at protecting children.

So, I encourage you: for the sake of your privacy, security, and freedom, don't comply with age assurance. For services where you can, use a VPN to get around it. For services that have voluntarily implemented age assurance without a legal mandate (looking at you, Discord), you might consider cancelling any subscription, and avoiding any one-time purchases.

If you're particularly impassioned on issues of privacy and internet freedom, Karen up: send complaints to companies that do voluntary age checks and government representatives who support it. Similarly, let your government representatives who oppose or are undecided on age checks know your stance. Let them know your passions and concerns, ask them if they'll be attending debates and casting votes on the matter, and tell them that if they don't oppose age assurance laws, you will vote for their opponent in the next election. (You don't actually have to vote for their opponent, especially if said opponent is more evil).

And please, if you have them, keep an eye on your kids. Be honest with them about the dangers of the internet. Let them know it's alright to make mistakes, and that they can come to you in confidence with any concerns. Teach them to live freely and responsibly.