I'm not talking about theory, but what's happening in practice. In case you're unaware, Australian style ban is enforced via surveillance, such as a a mix of methods, such as facial age estimation, behavioural signals and an option to upload government-issued ID.

Literally what a ban for under-15-year-olds is.

If you're going to argue, please do so in good faith by taking my whole post into context. Thank you.

In existing areas where France requires age checks, such as adult sites, they require sites to offer doubly anonymous verification. In doubly anonymous verification the site does not learn the user's identity, and the site that actually does the age check does not know which site the check is for.

Furthermore, France is in the EU. They expect to deploy their implementation of the EU Digital Identity Wallet by the end of 2026.

That allows users do age verification using protocol between the user's smart phone and the site with the age restriction. (Later they are expected to add support for smart cards and security tokens like YubiKey so a smart phone won't be required).

That system works by storing signed identity credentials tied to a hardware security device you provide, and using a zero-knowledge proof based protocol between your device and the site to prove to the site that your identity credentials show an acceptable age without providing any other information to the site.

The EU has been working on this for several years, and it is currently undergoing large scale field trials.

> Furthermore, France is in the EU. They expect to deploy their implementation of the EU Digital Identity Wallet by the end of 2026.

> The EU has been working on this for several years, and it is currently undergoing large scale field trials.

Considering the recent track record from the EU regarding digital privacy, I would soon rather use a VPN than let the EU digital ID wallet verify my age and pinky promise not store any data about the sites that I browse.

How does Mark Zuckerberg triggering a genocide in Myanmar, among election interference, rank up with your disdain for EU digital policy?

Are politicians not supposed to do anything about Zuckerberg after watching Sarah Wynn Williams testify about Mark Zuckerberg selling out Americans for his fetish for kissing up to the CCP? Or hearing the current administration threaten the EU over impinging on Zuckerberg to engage in election interference in EU countries?

> In case you're unaware, Australian style ban is enforced via surveillance, such as a a mix of methods, such as facial age estimation, behavioural signals and an option to upload government-issued ID

Sure. Australia opted for private compliance. Adults who choose to use social media are subject to more surveillance (because that’s how the social media companies chose to comply). In exchange, not only does that level of surveillance not apply to children, but the default state of surveillance they were under from social media companies (and being normalized towards) is gone.

Thanks for clarifying some of your points. I agree with you that the methods (like ID uploads and face recognition) aren’t the best. But I’m not sure if there are viable alternatives.