[CivBase]

> This is false. Age verification is not mandatory for all accounts. You will be able to join a Discord with your friends, chat, and do voice without age verification.

You are correct. For now. But why would they stop there?

Supposedly this is to protect teens. If that's true, why would they continue letting teens chat with anonymous users? What if they get tricked into sharing sensitive images or video of themselves? Surely we need to know everyone's ID to ensure teens aren't unwittingly chatting with a known predator. It's for their safety. But for now that's a bridge too far. For now.

And why should we believe this even has anything to do with protecting teens? That's valuable data. Discord says they're not holding onto it... for now. But Discord is offering quite a lot to users for free. Why let such an obvious revenue source go unmonetized? They're doing this now because they're going public soon. Investors want an ROI and this action is sure to invite some competition. The people leaving want an alternative, so a competitor could get a foothold. Discord needs to stay ahead. And the users Discord keeps after this stunt are going to be the most resilient to leaving - the most exploitable. Surely they wouldn't care if the policy changes in the future.

The sky isn't falling. But the frog is boiling.

[renewiltord]

Indeed, I've been saying this for decades now. Hacker News needs usernames to post. How long before they require real names? And then how long before they require IDs for those real names? And then how long before they need you to show up in person with your IDs for those real names? And then how long before they need you to bring notarized documents in person with your IDs for those real names?

All so that we can post online about how Google is invading our privacy?

[CivBase]

I gave reasons for why Discord would escalate things. Your mocking example did not. That's the difference between a slippery slope fallacy and a legitimate argument.