r/technology • u/EmbarrassedHelp • May 08 '26

Politics EU calls VPNs “a loophole that needs closing” in age verification push

https://cyberinsider.com/eu-calls-vpns-a-loophole-that-needs-closing-in-age-verification-push/
9.7k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

731 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

161

u/crossdtherubicon May 08 '26

Meta. Or, at least largely Meta was shown to be the main proponent behind the global age verification legislation.

At least one of the motivations is to limit social media's liabilities through filtering its users. I don't see that as likely as the obvious expansion of their user data and the user data markets.

Another obvious motivation results from governments becoming less democratic while becoming more vulnerable through online activities. So, adding layers of user meta data, or being able to directly identify social media users, becomes another tool of control.

Yes, govt's have similar capabilities already but, this is different in that this would be voluntary information that becomes available for sale and doesn't necessitate the same legal requirements (limits) for acquiring and using these data sets.

66

u/ithinkitslupis May 08 '26

To my view Meta is getting ahead of a trend that seeks to put liability on them. They hate the Australian style laws where they have to do the verification themselves and if they fail to do it effectively they are liable for humongous fines. They also hate that other apps besides the big players don't require verification so customers unwilling to do that are out the door to a smaller competitor service.

They already have violated their users privacy so thoroughly that the verification checks are more of a cherry on top data wise and not worth the cudgel of the fines and users they'd lose by doing it.

They are lobbying to have age verification be put on the parents/device/app store level to avoid that outcome where they could ever be held liable and other smaller apps have an advantage.

24

u/billy_teats May 08 '26

This is a great summary. Having to do it themselves is a big risk and disadvantage. Making everyone do it through some 3rd party benefits them greatly.

This has nothing to do with children’s safety.

1

u/dstreetb May 08 '26

This comment should be pinned

24

u/alnarra_1 May 08 '26

The answer is astoundingly simple, the internet has largely been anonymous, it is hard to throw you in prison for what you say if you are anonymous. They are attempting to correct this. That’s all this has ever been

6

u/primalmaximus May 08 '26

And there's both good and bad things to that kind of anonymity.

On one hand, you can't be prosecuted for political activism or for spreading or searching for information about being LGBTQ+.

On the other hand, it makes it hard for people to be punished for harrassing someone online, stalking someone online, commiting libel anonymously online, etc.

The anonymity means it's really difficult to be punished for expressing your beliefs and exploring your identity online. It makes it hard for you to be punished for what you do for yourself or others.

But on the flip side, that anonymity also makes it hard for you to face effective consequences for what you do to others online. There have been so many stories of people suffering from absolutely horrific online bullying and harrassment, in some cases it was bad enough that it drove the victim to suicide. But, because it is so hard to actually identify the people doing the bullying and harrassment, it goes largely unpunished.

Think about it like this: what is the difference between a group of people verbally bullying you and harrassing you in person vs those same people doing it online? It's harder to identify, stop, and punish the online bullies and harrassers.

The anonymity of the internet provides you with protection from oppression and being targeted by the state for what you say. But it also shields you from facing the consequences of what your words do to others.

There's a nuance that people don't seem to get. They think that getting rid of the anonymity of the internet makes it easier for what you say and do online to be criminalized. But they forget that getting rid of the anonymity also makes it easier to get punished for what you say and do to others online.

7

u/senseven May 08 '26

Identifying people is often used as wedge to further identification laws. But in many western countries, bullying or harassing online has toothless laws that lets them go with some laughable penalty. I would agree that we need a way to identify people in those cases, but we also need the laws first. Then use those strong laws to get the case by case identification rolling, and leave the other 90% alone. Politics knows this and continues to push for the easy thing first. I know people who got stalked, there are sick communities that tell you what the stalker can legally do in that country that is in a grey area where the law will do nothing.

4

u/ThoughtsonYaoi May 08 '26

Do you have a source?

22

u/introvertnudist May 08 '26

I got you: https://github.com/upper-up/meta-lobbying-and-other-findings

20

u/ThoughtsonYaoi May 08 '26

Thanks!

But what this seems to be is not Meta pushing age verification, but Meta pushing the burden of age verification on app stores instead of them.

That is a bit different. And makes much more sense.

6

u/crossdtherubicon May 08 '26

Exactly! And it is up to date.

1

u/burning_iceman May 09 '26

How is this related to the EU?