[ed_blackburn]

I think the creeping invasion of privacy argument is backwards here. What we have today isn’t privacy, it’s abdication. Platforms are externalising risk onto parents and pretending the internet is exempt from the safeguards we accept everywhere else.

Either the tech industry solves this, or governments will. That’s not ideology, it’s capitalism. If we don’t build workable, privacy-preserving primitives, regulation will arrive in the most blunt form possible.

There’s a reasonable middle ground. Identity can be a first-class citizen without being leaked to every website. I don’t need to hand over my name, address, or documents to prove I’m over 18. I need a yes/no assertion.

Imagine the browser exposing a capability like:

> “This site requires age verification. Are you over 18?”

The browser checks via a trusted third party credential and returns a boolean. No DOB. No tracking. No persistent identifier. Just a capability check, much closer to how physical ID works than today’s data-harvesting mess.

As a parent, I already police my kids as best I can, and it’s imperfect. But the offline world has friction and gates: bars check ID, cinemas enforce ratings, shops refuse sales. Those mitigations don’t make parents redundant; they support them.

Online, we’ve chosen to pretend none of that is possible. That’s not a principled privacy stance.

If we don’t design these primitives ourselves, we will get crude, insecure age databases, mandatory uploads of passports, or blanket bans instead. This is the least bad option, not a slippery slope. Collectively we have solved far harder problems.