this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2026
438 points (97.0% liked)
Technology
83893 readers
2849 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The motives are irrelevant. This will destroy the internet as we know it and disempower citizens. I can't help but wonder if the empowerment LLMs may have to an individual is terrifying leaders into an authoritarian mindset, finally demanding to be able to know and track what we do online, everywhere we do it. This is about protecting their ability to rule, not children from harm.
LLMs are here to enrich the rich, not to "empower the individual". They require ridiculously expensive computing power, which makes them impractical or even impossible to self-host (with data centers buying up the market, the required hardware becomes unaffordable to the individual). Now you're at the mercy of renting out the compute from the oligarchs and their companies, and you're also relying on their censored and biased models (see Grok and his "Mecha-Hitler" antics if you want a taste of the future). Please don't expect that to empower you, or anyone else. It can't, and even if it could, it wouldn't be available to you.
Unless we democratise LLMs, they'll just become yet another tool of enslavement in the clutches of the Epstein class.
It could greatly boost the use of decentralized apps. Which will ultimately give people more power than they have right now. So in the long run, it might have some positive side effects.
Cracking down on decetralized apps will be the next logical step
How would they do such a thing? Require every open port on every internet connected device to be registered? Disallow https and implement full scale layer 7 scanning?
No, they will expand the mandates for providers to filter traffic. Everything ultimately goes through a handful of big ISP companies, so they will just make them comply with the filtration. It will not work great, even simple DPI is resource intensive, but when an ISP is ultimately at fault, they will have to find a way. And ultimately it doesn't have to work all the time forever, it just need to degrade services enough so most people find it inconvenient to use. As a tool of control, it needs to prevent unwanted communication to be easy, this will ensure only the nerds will do it, and nobody cares about handful of nerds.
They don't have to invent anything, that's exactly how it works already in every country that controls their population and the internet in their country. It took Russia 8 years to transition from completely free unobstructed internet to everything being unavailable and everyone being used to it. Europe is way more capable technically, it will take most of the countries less.
It is possible but doesn't sound all that realistic to me. A truly decentralized app cannot be blocked by dns or endpoints. Thus a country would have to DPI the entire internet which is very resource intensive. And even then the data will be encrypted so you would have to resort to fingerprinting and finding patterns. From an age verification app to automatic data blocking based on deep packet inspection with fingerprinting of the entire internet - that seems quite a leap. Personally I don't think decentralized apps are next in line to be blocked.
You'd be surprised how easy it is to ban specific protocols or apps, if you put your mind to it. DPI is dead easy this days. Again, Russian example is right there, the only thing that managed to resist the block so far was Telegram, because they're doing some very advanced block avoidance. Russia is poor, and losing brains very quickly, a country with better equipment and people will not have this problem.
Yeah, it's resource intensive, but that's ISP's job, and they have equipment and motivation already. Small ISPs if they still exist will die, but that's just added bonus. And you don't even need the complete blockage, you need to make it annoying enough to use so it's not very popular, so most of the communication will happen on platforms that are under control. You can't fight all the nerds, and you don't need to.
It's not a leap, it's the only next logical step. A government doesn't start carding everyone on the internet because they're bored. They do it because they don't want uncontrolled communication for some reason or another. "For the children", of course, why else. That's why everyone needs to have an ID app on their phone, and all the websites should be tied to it. It's for the children.
The internet as we know it is a playground for billionaires to get richer. Good riddance.
And the new internet that is on the horizon will be the definitive establishment of these same billionaires as feudal lords.
Unlike most other age verification system, this doesn't reveal any other personal information but your age. No credit card number, no personal id.
So I'm curious how you get to your conclusion?
In order to make sure that the age a person provided is real, the system will gather all that information anyway. I don't know what you mean by "reveal", but it will gather it. And that's the main building block of the problem.
That system is basically the government. They already know.
No, that's an app on your phone. That accumulates a ton of data in a way that didn't exist before. The government knows I exist. Now it knows every website I'm visiting, and my identity on those sites. Now the new politician in my country decides to be a little bit more corrupt, and asks the app maintainer "hey, can you gather IDs and home addresses of all the people who criticized genocide online last couple of years, I would like to execute them publicly", and they can do it with basically one sql equerry. The only defense against that will be "but that's illegal, there are laws against that!", which is shit defense nowadays.
Yes, all of that happens. That is a valid worry. Which is why they tried to avoid it.
Did you see how much they did to avoid this? Do you see a flaw in their solution?
Yes, the flaw in their solution is that they require the government ID to access the internet now. That's the flaw.
I’m sorry, but have you read the technical documentation? The design is intentional created this way to avoid tracking.
You are issued a set of ZKP tokens that you hand back to websites. They cannot correlate these tokens back to you, nor can the operator of the system.
Now they could lie, of course, and violate the design (but being open source that’s a little harder), but if the government wanted to secretly track you, much more precise tools exist for this already.
That's the stupid part, it doesn't matter what it will look like at the beginning. It might be the best written documentation now, they can even implement the app correctly. The thing is, the jump from "people can use the internet" to "in order to access the internet you need to provide your government ID to your smartphone" is a big jump, one that can cost a politician career. The jump from "you need to use version 1.4.412 of the govenment id checker" to "you need to use version 2.0 of the Government Id Checker Plus" is minuscule. That's where you introduce a persistent database of the tokens, somewhere on page 5 of the changelog. And only nerds care about that and nobody listens to them.
It's so fucking easy, Russia did this exact gambit in 2017, Kazakhstan couple of years before.
Ok, so it’s the slippery slope fallacy.
But that slippery slope, which it sounds like you believe us to be on, also applies to phone location tracking, credit cards payments, mobile phone train tickets, smart homes, smart cars, home CCTV etc etc.
Do you leave your phone at home, always pay with cash, don’t use any apps? Most people do these things on the basis that the government doesn’t wantonly have access to what we’ve bought online. Why is age gating so different?
You're doing fallacy fallacy. Some slopes are actually slippery, it's just the nature of the slopes.
Government ID connected to all your accounts on the internet isn't much different from other things you mentioned, the only difference is that the other bits of privacy we actually exchanged for convenience. With everything you mentioned and more, you can either opt-out, you don't actually need your car to be "smart" or have a car at all, or it wasn't invented as a control mechanism, like credit cards or smartphones. Using it to do nefarious shit requires effort and additional work, and there are at least some protections in place. But yes, it's another form of control, just way more sudden, invasive, and useless.
If we're doing fallacies, yours called "nirvana fallacy". "We can't have an ideal world, therefore we need not to fight when people are trying to make it worse".
Connecting everything you do on the internet to your id serves the only purpose, prevent people from being able to do speech that the government doesn't like. While we have a democratic government, it might not lead to problems. The second we have all this shit in mind, the government might start asking itself, why do they bother with all this democracy when they have all this authoritarian instruments lying around for no reason.
Again, this discussion is about the EU proposal, which explicitly does not connect your ID to everything you do. In facts it’s designed exactly to ensure that sites can verify you being over a threshold age without having any other knowledge about you. Have you read the EU implementation or are you conflating it with the US proposal?
At last a piece of code free of any flaw, any exploit, invulnerable to any known or unknown attack method!
Of course things can break and something might be able to refer back to you, until it gets fixed.
But if your argument is that “the standard is fine, but something might not quite work”, then the same argument applies to your phone’s location tracking, your debit/credit payments etc. The vast majority of us happily use systems on the basis that they are secure, until they’re not, and then things get fixed.
Your argument has to apply evenly.
It's a matter of exposure and attack surface vs rewards for the attacker, and risk in companies are evaluated by the trio: freqency of occurrence, severity of occurrence (how large), severity of the occurrence. Banks can spend a lot because severity quickly gets very high in money.
What's the incentive again for the next gov to properly fund the system? Oh yes: they would have to say "sorry! shit happens! that's all because of the previous admin!!" and maybe throw one guy under the bus.
and here we go… https://xcancel.com/Paul_Reviews/status/2044723123287666921#m
Extrapolating from US decisions, like I would have done