Post #357239
2026-02-17 10:15 UTC
Replies (11)
-
@dsilverz@calckey.world 2026-02-17 11:19
@Ladislawgrowlo@lemy.lol @asklemmy@lemmy.ml Let us think outside the box for a bit. First, we already see a phenomenon going on with Fediverse, and Web as a whole: invite-only and/or need-to-apply places. Because of multiple factors (bots, trolls, AI DDoS+crawling), there are fewer places where one can simply have an account without the need for approval from someone else (the instance admins) or needing to know someone to join the "closed club". This means places are already imbuing themselves with gatekeeping, one where it's not so trivial to get approval, especially if someone has no Web history to prove themselves, a lack of "verifiable Web history" of which applies both for introvert adult people and for children as well. In practice, Fediverse and other niche places feel like they're are already kind of gatekept against children. Then there's this requirement shared among those laws being implemented worldwide, "meaningful mechanisms to check age". I can see govs and corps coming up with some kind of API, a centralized "age validator" entity. Using the country I reside as an example: gov.br already has an API so websites and platforms can allow logging in with a CPF ("Cadastro de Pessoas Físicas", Brazilian legal ID). Back in the pandemics, I received, as a DevOps, a freelancer job request to integrate a website with the gov.br API system for validating COVID-19 Vaccination status (at the time, I refused because I was already working on something else, and also because I don't like dealing with bureaucracies). But this means that any website could, essentially, check the user's age by redirecting the user to gov.br auth flow and requesting the official Date of birth. gov.br login has 2FA using facial biometrics via their governmental app. Currently, many Brazilian businesses deal with Pix (instant payment system maintained by the Brazilian Central Bank) through its official APIs because they're being socially compelled to accept Pix as a means of payment. Pix is becoming a model for instant payment worldwide, many countries are copying Brazil's Pix (in turn, copied from India while improving the existing Indian payment system). So it's just a matter of time before we see countries copying gov.br, with corp platforms adding gov-kept authn+authz of citizens to their systems. Then, back to Fediverse: even if instances decide not to implement age checking, let us remember Fediverse, even when "self-hosted", is still part of the Internet, a infrastructure dependent on ICANN/IANA, ISPs, ASNs, overseas fiber cables, national DNS authorities (e.g. registro.br for Brazilian ccTLD websites), etc. So it's pretty trivial for countries to mandate something: upon refusal of compliance, a country could simply cut the dissident from the countrywide DNS, and/or request ISPs to block the access... So, I can foresee a near future where there's no country left without this kind of law, and Fediverse as a whole is compelled into implementing this.
-
@PonyOfWar@pawb.social 2026-02-17 10:20
It might happen for some instances, but I think if some countries start requiring fediverse instances to do this, most users will switch to instances hosted in countries that don't require it.
-
@slazer2au@lemmy.world 2026-02-17 10:24
One of the Aussie ones already does by you providing a pic of you having a drink at a pub. That way the instance owner doesn't have to hold PPI as someone having a drink at a pub means they are over 18 and aren't subject to the law.
-
@HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 2026-02-17 13:51
Likely, Lemmy will be illegal in those countries. However, given the federated nature, I expect a more whack-a-mole approach to banning.
-
@geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 2026-02-17 14:50
Each instance can decide whether to enforce any age restriction law, and possibly get banned in whatever country if they don't apply by it. Seeing how most websites wipe their butt with GDPR however it likely means the age-verification will only be enforced hard on the big social media networks like Facebook where mass tracking happens.
-
@RobotToaster@mander.xyz 2026-02-17 10:21
I don't think the structure of the fediverse allows it. Of course that just means if it becomes popular some asshole politician is going to try and ban it.
-
@Alaskaball@hexbear.net 2026-02-17 14:28
No the european pedo-protectors can pound ~~their heads into a woodchipper~~ sand.
-
@Corporal_Punishment@feddit.uk 2026-02-18 05:45
Do kids even know about Lemmy? Do the government? And even if the answer to both of those is yes, maybe feddit.uk keeps me in some sort of unicorn bubble, but I'm yet to see anything that is even remotely NSFW.
-
@buckykat@hexbear.net 2026-02-17 16:26
> laws to ban children below 15 years from social media platforms, to ~~protect them.~~ keep them from learning about the genocide(s) their governments support and about what resources might be available for their gender identities, as well as to make surveillance of all internet users easier and more effective.
-
@pir8t0x@lemmy.ml 2026-02-20 08:36
If it happens in case of Fediverse, It will only happen in instances based or hosted in countries where there's age verification. But censorship on entirety of Lemmy or Mastodon would be very hard.
-
@Lyra_Lycan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2026-02-17 16:45
I think we should find alternative ways, provided they don't already exist, to ban predators and bad actors that doesn't punish the entire userbase. Unfortunately, with initially ethical control comes state- and money- sponsored surveillance and oppression. It is seemingly impossible for the former to be free of the latter. We're already bombarded by services requiring users give up their age in order to be placed in data farming and advertising categories, with some banning those who cannot be farmed. Hell, every social media provider's user age limit is 13 as per the EU GDPR -- regulators only need to increase that age to 15/16 if they're uncomfortable with its current level. And no - I do not see a way to enforce age restriction without breaching basic rights to privacy. The only reason services demand your permission for cookies, device information, identifying data etc. is because the regulators mandate they cannot take your data without your permission. If they cannot find a way to sandbox the under-18 internet from the over-17 internet, then we should just keep the existing rules and expand support for victims. I dont believe there is an ethical solution for preventative measures.