this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2026
539 points (98.4% liked)

Technology

87627 readers
3838 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] pglpm@lemmy.ca 14 points 13 hours ago (5 children)

This initiative is just a smokescreen; it actually pushes things down the slippery slope.

Citizens must not be forced to identify themselves to access lawful online content or services unless strictly necessary, proportionate and provided by law. The legislation should require anonymous or pseudonymous proof-of-age, data minimisation, selective disclosure

Define "necessary". Define "by law". The pushers for proof-of-age already say it's anonymous – but it can't be.

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

do we sign it this way? it would just agree to doing nothing but with fancy words, wouldn't it?

[–] pglpm@lemmy.ca 6 points 11 hours ago

No, we don't; it's exactly as you say. My impression is that this is something organized by the pro-chat-control and pro-age-verification lobbies, to deceive with words people who are against. They get them to sign and then they can say "people signed for this!".

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)