They are against it because they know a bait-and-switch set up when they see it. The people promoting this hardest are not concerned about child safety, what they want is a monitoring/censorship system for the internet for the in vast political and economic control it would enable. Even if they did implement a perfect ZKP initially, it would not be long before it got diluted and eventually becomes a full-on tracking system.

ZKP still needs a provider I trust. Sure, the same is true for the web of trust, but it doesn't consist of shitty ID providers. And companies currently jumping on that train for bucks certainly aren't really convincing.

And even then data leakage is entirely possibe, perhaps even very likely.

There is plenty of justification. It allows government to put up and demand arbitrary walls. A single legislative change and any criticism is illegal. It is not a power government should have. I don't think people supporting such efforts really thought about implications.

What about bots accessing content? The good ones I mean. You would cement knowledge to large data hoarders. You give big tech power with that. I could write whole pages...

> Imagine a hypothetical ideal implementation.

You say it yourself, it's hypothetical. In reality it will be one in a way that enables all kinds of abuse and security issues.

The history on this is really clear: when you create a "for your safety" speech control, it gets used for all sorts of other stuff.

In my dataset of free-speech limiting examples for safety reasons, 89% eventually expanded in scope to limit speech relating to LGBTQ, feminist, women's health, and politics. This isn't a hypothetical - it happens over and over again. Each time we have folk pointing this out, and each time we have people saying, "You're overreacting."

ZKP or not, if you make Chekhov's gun, someone's going to use it. Privacy isn’t the point. Unless your ZKP also magically prevents scope creep and political misuse, hard pass from me.

It’s like going to the gunsmith and saying, "Don’t build Chekhov another gun, you know it’s going to go off," and he just shrugs and says, "There’s no way it happens a twentieth time."

Can you overview how this limits free speech? And where do you find examples similar to age checks in the past for it to be checkov's gun?

When you say even if this helps protect the children (which from what I've seen, probably yes) you are against it anyway, I would put your objection before the end of that sentence

I'm going to give you a homework assignment. Find twenty examples of free-speech limiting laws, policies, or practices. Then go through each one and determine if it was also used to limit political speech, feminist or LGBTQ related speech, or information on women's health. Report back with your findings.

I won't do it because it is offtopic until I understand why this is speech limiting. So if you can show how it's speech limiting please enlighten

This exercise will explain the answer to your question and give you the background needed to understand it. Please, don't be willfully ignorant to prove a point.

You still trying to prove a point that free speech limiting laws will limit feminist/LGBT topics. I literally never argued with that. Try to prove how age screening limits free speech and we can continue

I see what you're doing here. You're narrowing the scope of the argument in order to make a specific point. This is a common rhetorical move, especially in legislative debates: "Because this exact bill hasn’t passed, you can’t point to any real-world failures." I get it, and I understand your logic, but it misses the bigger picture.

The conversation is about the broader category of laws that limit speech. Treating age verification as if it's completely separate from the patterns and risks we've seen in speech-limiting legislation is, honestly, a weak position. Age verification requirements aren't immune to scope creep or abuse. They’re subject to the same risks as any other law that restricts speech.

I know you can make a stronger argument than this. Besides, if you did your homework, you would find the examples you're looking for.

Then let's just not have laws if it's such a slippery slope.

To clarify, I am not suggesting this is a slippery slope. That was your characterization, not mine. My point is that, based on available data, laws that limit free speech are applied in ways that restrict political, reproductive rights, feminist, and LGBTQ-related expression 89% of the time.

It appears that there may be some misalignment in our discussion. When prompted to share your perspective on the topic, you have chosen not to engage directly. Additionally, the conversation has shifted scope several times, which makes it challenging to address the core issue. If you would like to discuss the topic further, I am open to continuing. If not, I respect your decision to move on.

So

> the broader category of laws that limit speech

How is age verification in that category? I ask repeatedly but you can't explain.

Your argument is "scope creep". I said it applies then to every law, the first time you have laws you have opportunity for scope creep. You deny. So apparently there is a line for you. Why is this age verification crossing the line but something else doesn't? Is it just because "it was this way before so I don't want change"? Anything else?

We don't always agree, but this is spot on. Administrations change, but system of surveillance and control persist. Just because we can imagine a way for a system to do good does not mean it will mostly be used for good.