[subscribed]

The only thing this is going to achieve is to bar unverified users form the vaguely reputable and mainstream places into the small, completely unregulated spaces, sites and networks.

I presume you prefer hard requirement of IDs.

I'm saying this will make kids go to i2p, tor, to the obscure fora in countries not giving a f* about western laws.

As a parent to the teens and teens, THIS makes me concerned. The best vpns are very hard to detect (I know, I try it myself).

[otterley]

> I'm saying this will make kids go to i2p, tor, to the obscure fora in countries not giving a f* about western laws.

Some will, but most won't. Similarly, most kids who are dissuaded from buying alcohol because they don't have ID are not going to break the law to get it, or switch to hard drugs as an alternative.

You can't let perfect be the enemy of better.

[subscribed]

I my kids' school some 30% of the kids vape. They don't drink because it's no longer a thing in this generation. Those who want to get the alcohol still get it very easily (by the means of £10 tip for the bum).

I agree with your last paragraph but the current development (for example the intentionally imprecise OSA in the UK) is NOT aimed at "protecting children" (whenever I hear someone say "think of the children" Id prefer they stopped thinking of mine all the time, creeps).

Here's the long article unpicking it in details: https://consoc.org.uk/the-online-safety-act-privacy-threats-...

> Under the cover of protecting children – a catchphrase repeated as the reason for the urgency of the legislation – the government has already conferred on itself future powers to access end-to-end encrypted messages (as soon as the technology becomes available), as well as powers to restrict what can and cannot be said on social media platforms as regards “false communication”. The categorisation debate reveals a kind of mission creep toward the spread of information, and the government’s inability to control it – rather than the actual harm information may cause.

Notice: the stated lie is "we protect the children!" but the intention of the act is to access everything everywhere.

Predictably the MPs are ramping up the pressure calling for more https://committees.parliament.uk/work/8641/social-media-misi...

And more: https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/uk-government-vpn-restrictions-onl...

And more: https://support.apple.com/en-gb/122234

And more: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/keeping-children-safe-onl...

And more! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp82447l84ko

AND THEN: https://cybernews.com/news/and-then-mullvads-anti-surveillan...

Do you really, honestly, hand on heart believe that it's just about "protecting the kids"?