14 comments

[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 46.2 ms ] thread
"We're just doing it to protect the children!" has been the rallying crying of authoritarians to surveil, censor and strip adults of their rights since the dawn of time.
Won't "age verification" just mean one of those useless forms where you're supposed to enter your birthday?
Or it could mean Google's age verification for YouTube: send them a copy of your national ID or add a credit card. If you don't do that then you can't watch Battlefield trailers.
> you can't watch Battlefield trailers.

This reminds me of how dumb gaming age ratings are, almost nobody follows them. Everyone plays COD be it a kid or an adult.

I thought those were intended to help parents make purchasing decisions.
Which country? I've never had to add any of those things to my Google account to verify my age on YT.
In the EU. Only some accounts were flagged for this restriction and I believe in the past year it was removed or changed. But for a period of several months I could not watch Battlefield trailers.
If Canada's implementation is anything like the UK's, the ISP will be responsible for this mechanism, not the site operators themselves. By default, it would be "on", blocking sites which are "adult" in nature. Not sure how they determine what to block beyond a known-list of adult sites and scanning headers/metadata. I assume there are lots of false positives.
There's no fix here if parents still let their kids consume the firehose of the internet unsupervised.
this is true; same with TV and magazines. there's an easy fix for parents that cannot supervise their kids on the computer: simply remove either the internet (physically) or the computer itself. weee
Straight out of the WEF playbook: https://www.weforum.org/impact/online-safety/

> "We penetrate the cabinet. So yesterday I was at a reception for Prime Minister Trudeau and I know that half of his cabinet, or even more than half of his cabinet, are actually Young Global Leaders."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Schwab

The ultimate objective is the complete de-anonymization of the internet, so that all dissenters can be identified and unpersoned.

We should start looking into how much of SBF's lobbying money went into initiatives like that (and also the minimum $600 transaction reporting)
So it's yet more fuel for the VPN industry boiler?

No one is going to enforce this other than Canadian businesses that require it, like ISP companies and Canadian hosted porn sites (I'm not going to google statistics about this at work even on my personal phone for obvious reasons haha)

And so unless Canada makes VPN technology illegal its not going to be very hard to just use a VPN to "leave Canada" and resume using the internet as normal.

Starts to make me wonder if the VPN companies have started lobbying as a weird form of regulatory capture...