132

Age verification mean end of anonymous account (nord.pub)

submitted 4 days ago by bruh@nord.pub to c/privacy@lemmy.world

54 comments fedilink hide all child comments

today I created a burner google account. these days google requires an Android phone in order to even create an account so I used an old phone to scan the QR code ( I am pretty sure this lets google grab all of the metadata of the mobile phone ). after about 1 hour creating the account. google's automated system disabled the account however I appealed and got the account back. before someone asks I need google because of where I live.

this made me wonder what if google mandates age verification? if there were age verification google would immediately notice that I am creating another account ( burner account ) which it won't like. burner account won't be created in the first place!

we already have too much surveillance and this makes it worse. my mobile number is already tied to my read government identity. I DO NOT want my online account to be tied to my read identify too! it is sad, it really is

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] HelloRoot@lemy.lol -6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

You keep speaking in extremes and absolutes. There is also pornographic content walking outside on the street in the city if you so wish to classify it (and some people certainly do to they point where they get turned on by seing a bare ankle).

Certainly the pictures and videos on wikipedia which you chose to consider pornographic rather than neutrally informative have a different set of qualities then what you would find in the extreme sections of porn-serving websites.

There is a middle ground. You can give partial access. And age verification is one more tool for that (we already have parental controls for routers and mobile internet simcards and smart devices)

I don't like nor want age verification btw. I just don't agree with your arguments against it, because I find them weak.

[-] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 4 days ago

Certainly the pictures and videos on wikipedia which you chose to consider pornographic rather than neutrally informative have a different set of qualities then what you would find in the extreme sections of porn-serving websites.

Look into the Wikimedia Commons category "pornographic videos" and you'll see what I'm talking about. Not linking to it because I'm not sure I'm allowed to do that here.

There is a middle ground. You can give partial access.

Hence why I wrote specifically about the open Internet. You are right: there are ways to give people access to only a selected part of the Internet. If parents decide to do that, fine; doesn't have to concern any website operators, or any adults.

[-] HelloRoot@lemy.lol 0 points 4 days ago

Hence why I wrote specifically about the open Internet. You are right: there are ways to give people access to only a selected part of the Internet. If parents decide to do that, fine; doesn’t have to concern any website operators, or any adults.

Like I said, I agree. But your initial argument is no good. You toss everything into one box to make your claim appear stronger but in doing so you actually make it dismissable. Stay differentiated.

[-] LupertEverett@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

You keep speaking in extremes and absolutes

YOU are the one that immediately jumped to porn, shithead. You DON'T get to decide on talking about extremes and absolutes.

[-] HelloRoot@lemy.lol 1 points 4 days ago

I didn't jump to it. It's the primary reason for age verification.

Calling it "information" to avoid talking about it is intellectually disingenuous.

this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2026

132 points (98.5% liked)

Privacy

10726 readers

127 users here now

A community for Lemmy users interested in privacy

Rules:

Be civil
No spam posting
Keep posts on-topic
No trolling

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

iopq@lemmy.world