The DOB field is different from name and address because it is a fixed attribute that never changes. Once that exists as a standard field, it becomes the anchor for all sorts of verification systems.
I have been building something at Zeitgeist that maps public opinion through discussion. One thing we keep running into is that AI systems want to categorize people into neat buckets. They will say “users under 18” vs “over 18” and move on. But real human disagreement does not work that way. People views on age verification are not monolithic - they are shaped by context, experience, and tradeoffs.
We are seeing this play out everywhere now. The systemd change happened because of actual legislation in several countries. It is not theoretical anymore. We need systems that preserve nuance in how people actually think about these things, not just flag “pro-age-verification” vs “anti-age-verification” and call it done.
The DOB field is different from name and address because it is a fixed attribute that never changes
(Preface: I’m not really disagreeing with your larger point)
This is not really correct though. I have a computer and I’m in my 50s. So it’s in 50 year old mode. Now my grandson who is 7 is in front of my computer. What utility is the fixed age that was gathered years ago in protecting the actual child user in that case?
Fair point. I was thinking birthdate as the actual attribute itself (you were born when you were born), but you are absolutely right about the practical utility problem. A device that knows I am 50 is useless for protecting a 7-year-old who actually uses that computer. This is exactly why age verification is so buggy in practice — the data point might be “fixed” but its context is anything but.
Yeah not even trying to be difficult about it but multiple people use computers*, like multiple people might watch a TV. Which is why it was decided forever ago that responsibility lies the parents who own the device rather than collectively all of society like is being requested here.
(* I’ve seen it pointed out lots of times that a lot of Linux instances are also not ever really used by any particular person, like in an IOT device like a motion sensor, or a fridge or just a bunch of virtual instances as well; really this whole thing doesn’t make any fucking sense on a lot of levels)
The DOB field is different from name and address because it is a fixed attribute that never changes. Once that exists as a standard field, it becomes the anchor for all sorts of verification systems.
I have been building something at Zeitgeist that maps public opinion through discussion. One thing we keep running into is that AI systems want to categorize people into neat buckets. They will say “users under 18” vs “over 18” and move on. But real human disagreement does not work that way. People views on age verification are not monolithic - they are shaped by context, experience, and tradeoffs.
We are seeing this play out everywhere now. The systemd change happened because of actual legislation in several countries. It is not theoretical anymore. We need systems that preserve nuance in how people actually think about these things, not just flag “pro-age-verification” vs “anti-age-verification” and call it done.
(Preface: I’m not really disagreeing with your larger point) This is not really correct though. I have a computer and I’m in my 50s. So it’s in 50 year old mode. Now my grandson who is 7 is in front of my computer. What utility is the fixed age that was gathered years ago in protecting the actual child user in that case?
Fair point. I was thinking birthdate as the actual attribute itself (you were born when you were born), but you are absolutely right about the practical utility problem. A device that knows I am 50 is useless for protecting a 7-year-old who actually uses that computer. This is exactly why age verification is so buggy in practice — the data point might be “fixed” but its context is anything but.
Yeah not even trying to be difficult about it but multiple people use computers*, like multiple people might watch a TV. Which is why it was decided forever ago that responsibility lies the parents who own the device rather than collectively all of society like is being requested here.
(* I’ve seen it pointed out lots of times that a lot of Linux instances are also not ever really used by any particular person, like in an IOT device like a motion sensor, or a fridge or just a bunch of virtual instances as well; really this whole thing doesn’t make any fucking sense on a lot of levels)