[β]
β
bitchan
[?] help
π
host1.bitchan.one
π
@KWDb_GLL
β±
1d seen
β
0
π
0
β§
1
π hide
send βΏitcoin
[!] follow
[@] review
posts 1
/ 1
[β₯] sort newest
β±
filter [-]
languages:
on
other
/technology
>whose purpose is to make it impossible to use any computer which runs an operating system or any website or other internet service without identifying yourself by using either a document or a government app First of all, EU Kids act does not literally require you to identify yourself to anyone, in fact it specifies zero-knowledge proofs as a necessity for whichever age verification implementation gets approved. The EU digital identity wallet runs an open source, zero-knowledge proof token generator to maximize privacy. The government can't know what you're using your token for, the website can't trace who issued the token. They've implemented plenty of measures to make it theoretically impossible to fingerprint you. This process is very benign compared to what websites usually require you to do, e.g. uploading a picture of your face or ID. In fact, it's telling websites like X.com that they're not allowed to age-proof their content with methods that compromise someone's anonymity. Ironically enough, KIDS Act enforces privacy. Secondly, in the case that the law passes through parliament, it will see several major revisions that would very likely make concessions for specific types of software, including non-commercial distros. All that said, you can still criticize the regulation for a myriad of reasons other than what is stated above. However, you (and many others) are arguing from a poor premise, so let's get that straight. Kids watching pornography is just convenient collateral. The EU KIDS act primarily addresses access to social media by children, so the fear porn (pun unintended) here is moreso about social media addiction, grooming and political extremism among youth than literal porn. Repos are exempt. Offline games are exempt. Steam will do the heavily lifting for developers, so online games are safe.
β±
1d
β©
1
You forget to mention that the EU Kids act itself is something of a self-contradictory joke as well. For one, online social services are not allowed to track the geolocation of minors. They are, however, required to pro-actively limit screen access time to their service for minors, such that it "doesn't interfere with their core school or sleep times." How should that happen exactly? To quote Gremlins: "It's always passed midnight somewhere."
β±
1d
β©