I really wish they'd stop calling it "age verification". It's "identity verification".
this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2025
410 points (98.3% liked)
Technology
74545 readers
3932 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
That would be too obvious
They're trying to control other people's children. It's evil
No, they're trying to control everyone. This is so they can more easily track absolutely everyone
They're trying to do both, they're starting with children because they believe that they should have the right to control everyone's children and they're using it as a wedge issue to oppress everyone else. Fascists always start with the people with the fewest rights
I don't think you get it. If you verify your age you're identifying yourself. They aren't "starting with children." They're only using children as an excuse to identify everyone. It isn't about getting children off of these sites. It's about tracking anybody online.
☝️
Its probably more difficult to block multiple mastodon instances than the single bluesky site.
The problem isn't that the state is blocking it; its that they threatened to impose a $10,000 fine for each user who can access the site without first proving their age.
You can afford that risk if you live outside the US. Not if you're a US corporation
If a minor hosted their own instance for friends, would the state fine them $10,000/pop?
Yes
Something I do wonder about these laws: could a person self-hosting a private fedi instance that only they have an account on, argue that they meet age verification requirements by virtue of personally knowing the age of the only user? Or at that point would the whole network of federated servers count as the "platform" rather than the instance?
This kills the fediverse.
this doesn't kill the fediverse. mississippi can't do shit to you if you aren't in mississippi unless the state you're in agrees to cooperate with them. and that's only after they subpoena your hosting provider, which might not even cooperate with them at all if they are outside US jurisdiction. and if you go through cloudflare? that's another subpeona from a corporation that doesn't like revealing information about their users and has gone to federal court on many occasions to fight both state and federal governments.
any state that doesn't have one of these laws on the books is unlikely to decide to extradite you for something that isn't illegal where you live, especially since it's not a criminal charge.
Missisippi lawmakers are too idiotic to know what the reducers is and their law enforcement is too busy to learn what a fediverse is to enforce it
And that's where you'd be wrong. It's the fediverse's time to shine, really.
I assume the hoster would know the age of his friends? Or is the law more spesific in how the verification must happen.
Also, a detail but:
https://www.pcmag.com/news/supreme-court-lets-mississippi-age-verification-law-go-into-effect-for
It's considered likely to be unconstitutional.
The ruling now allows Mississippi to enforce its social media law while case continues in the lower court. In the ruling, Kavanaugh also cited several district court rulings opposing similar age-verification laws, concluding that "the Mississippi law is likely unconstitutional."
Don't think the constitution has mattered for a while, mate.
Didn't SCOTUS recently uphold one of these age verification laws?
For Porn sites only
These laws will make Americans seek escape from empire monitoring through VPNs. Empire will coopt the VPNs and then democrats accessing Bluesky without identity verification will be charged with hacking crimes.
You know the law must be bad if they block Mississippi due to this, but not the UK.
With the UK, they can block content that's known to be NSFW. With Mississippi, they get fined if kids access the site at all if somebody else on there sees something NSFW.
Jesus christ, that's even worse.
Does this law apply to all social media/social media-type sites, or only social media websites under the umbrella of the NetChoice group?
The articles on this are all frustratingly vague. Bluesky is not under NetChoice so I assume all social media sites will eventually be blocking MS IPs?
My understanding is that it applies to every site which hosts any NSFW content, whether or not minors can access it
So I'm curious. If this law is in play in Mississippi now, are Mississippians being prompted for their ID on Discord, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit etc? I would check myself but my VPN doesn't have a Mississippi server.
If not, and they're not bothering, then why is Bluesky reacting like this specifically?
I kinda wish the big companies would do the same and just block the states that pass these laws. Like, the state just loses access to a big chunk of the internet as soon as the bill passes, prompting an uproar and a learning opportunity for those lawmakers.
Obviously that's probably unrealistic, but I can dream 🙂
PornHub blocked us in Florida.
Yeah but that's a porn site, not Discord, Reddit, Instagram, X, etc. A porn site is at least understandable. I mean, people have had to show ID to buy physical porn for years, so it's at least not a new concept. (I would never upload my PII in exchange for porn, but I can at least understand the logic.)
Bluesky likely doesn't want to deal with the hassle and the percentage of users from the state that use it is so minimal they just don't view it as worthwhile.
I suppose it's more me being curious about why the bigger-boys aren't using age-ID there.
the "bigger-boys", as you put it, are currently fighting it together on appeal in a lawsuit. once the appeal is finished, it will probably head to the supreme court, where Kavanaugh has said it will likely be found unconstitutional.
They can afford the fines?
I’m about ready to cancel my internet and buy a book. Maybe even go outside.
Extreme times, extreme measures...?
Didn't some woman shoot up Google headquarters because of some age verification process on YouTube where she specifically made makeup videos geared toward children and lost all her revenue or subscribers?