Anonymity and the Internet

[crazy canuck]

How is legislation meant to curb the power the technology oligarchs supporting the technology oligarchs

The first thing that has to be fixed is the knee-jerk reaction of going to freedom of speech whenever there is a legislative attempt to regulate the dark corners of the Internet.  Actually let me fix that it's no longer just the dark corners. It is the Internet.

[HisMajestyBOB]

The age verification bills are backed by Google, Meta and others:
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/13/california-advances-effort-to-check-kids-ages-online-amid-safety-concerns-00563005

[crazy canuck]

And?

Imagine the reputational damage if they opposed it

[Sheilbh]

Well for example, European regulations places a lot of obligations on the large platforms around "harmful content", unlawful content, age-gating. That entrenches their market dominance and deepens the walled gardens they've built, not least in their core business which is advertising. It also - and this is an issue you will hear on any European tech circles - makes it very, very difficult for European companies to even try and compete. Because those regulatory obligations can be burdensome (unclear if they're actually effective) and interact with monopoly or at least a dominant position in the market.

"Regulation" is meaningless it's just a buzzword. The real issues are how are we regulating, how is it enforced, what is the technical understanding of regulatory bodies etc.

This is a lesson Europe is learning - the Draghi report was very strong on this. Off the top of my head there are at least six really significant digital regulations working their way through the EU process (most broadly have an aligned ish UK equivalent) - they're a nightmare for European companies while the American (and Chinese) monopolies add another few hundred grand onto their compliance budget. I think some of the success of the GDPR led Europe to a slightly regulation happy phase digitally (heretically I actually think Californian privacy laws get the balance better) - and most of its subsequent digital regulations have been less imitated and I think less effective. But sort of passing regulations was the end in itself. This was sort of a point Thierry Breton who was the relevant Commissioner made about the the EU AI Act where he commented that people in Brussels were celebrating the world's first AI law, when the bigger issue was that there weren't any European companies that would be regulated by it. The EU AI Act has, incidentally, been suspended (less than two years after being passed) because it's not particularly effective, no one is copying its approach, it set the bar way too high and it's part of the Draghi recommendations. So again the effect was to entrench the already established market position of American and Chinese providers.

[crazy canuck]

Regulation is not a buzz word.  And you do a lot of damage by suggesting that it so.  Not the first time and I really wish you would think more carefully about your broad generalizations.

You empower those who think regulation is evil. Much better to do what you did at the beginning of your post to critique the regulation and suggest ways in which it could be made more robust.

[Sheilbh]

The age verification bills are backed by Google, Meta and others:
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/13/california-advances-effort-to-check-kids-ages-online-amid-safety-concerns-00563005

Yeah they can afford it and also in the US especially this area and privacy have had a lot of state laws. The tech companies would absolutely love a federal regulation or to just adopt California's standard.

But you know it's like McDonalds backing nutritional information in restaurants - it's a small line item for them. For a smaller, growing chain or ones that want to change their menu (eg for seasonality) it's a pretty big cost. I'd add that the evidence from that policy intervention is that it barely changes consumer behaviour so is not particularly effective in achieving its goal - like everything based on nudge theory it's probably based on bullshit.

[Sophie Scholl]

And it's bipartisan.
This is one reason why I don't think Democrats will ever stand up to the anti-democracy oligarchs. They're also all to willing to go along with authoritarianism if they get their paycheck.

Yup. They won't even stand up against the boondoggle of data centers proliferating across the country. Opposition to those are bipartisan and popular, but supporting them pays well. Heck, even Ron DeSantis is starting to speak out against them. If you can't get ahead of Ron on something, you're in trouble.

[HisMajestyBOB]

And?

Imagine the reputational damage if they opposed it

They're the ones pushing for it in the first place. They came up with the copy-pasted bills that are being introduced all over the country. If they weren't pushing for it, there'd be nothing to oppose.

[crazy canuck]

And?

Imagine the reputational damage if they opposed it

They're the ones pushing for it in the first place. They came up with the copy-pasted bills that are being introduced all over the country. If they weren't pushing for it, there'd be nothing to oppose.

Again, I ask my question, and?

The go to play of industries that are lightly or non-regulated is to propose regulation when they see there is no longer a way to avoid it.

The problem isn't regulation, it is the attitude toward regulation in the US (and here) which makes it possible for weak regulatory provisions to be put in place.

The reaction to this should not be - "oh no, free speech" the reaction should be "oh no, this didn't go far enough".

[frunk]

Big tech is always more than happy to have more information and more control over us.

[Sophie Scholl]

To my eyes, it seems to be regulating users, though. Not big tech. It gifts big tech (and presumably the government) lots of information and helps big tech cover themselves in case of lawsuits. It does nothing to benefit the public, though, only cost them privacy, time, and giving up even more data to more "partners".

[HisMajestyBOB]

To my eyes, it seems to be regulating users, though. Not big tech. It gifts big tech (and presumably the government) lots of information and helps big tech cover themselves in case of lawsuits. It does nothing to benefit the public, though, only cost them privacy, time, and giving up even more data to more "partners".

 

In fact it's an attempt to avoid regulation. It's in response to the lawsuits that social media is harmful to minors and the companies haven't done anything about it. If the laws pass, Facebook etc. can wash their hands and say they're not at fault.

[DGuller]

I'm reasonably sure that the government already has ways to do entity resolution to associate anonymous accounts with people, but enabling all vendors to do it by removing Internet anonymization would be really bad.  ChatGPT already has a very good read on my personality, strengths and weaknesses.  The idea that, for example, a sales agent can do an AI query on my personality before deciding on what buttons to push to make a sale feels dystopian.

[Grey Fox]

We, as a society, need to end the monitezation of the user created (content) internet. 

[Syt]

Meanwhile, in Utah.

https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/utah-will-ban-vpn-use-to-circumvent-age-verification/

Utah Will Ban VPN Use to Circumvent Age Verification
Experts warn that the legislation could lead to websites banning all VPN addresses due to technical limitations.

Utah is set to become the first state to prohibit the use of VPNs to avoid age-verification barriers after legislation goes into effect on Wednesday.

Senate Bill 73 will hold websites liable for people who mask their location while in Utah and will effectively treat anyone who connects to a Utah VPN as someone physically in Utah for age-verification purposes.

The legislation follows similar proposed bills from Wisconsin and Michigan and is seen as the first major US step toward regulating VPN use to avoid age verification.

However, privacy advocates warn that the legislation could lead to a blanket ban of all VPN addresses in a "technical whack-a-mole that likely no company can win". The Electronic Frontiers Federation wrote that "if a website cannot reliably detect a VPN user's true location and the law requires it to do so for all users in a particular state, then the legal risk could push the site to either ban all known VPN IPs, or to mandate age verification for every visitor globally."

In the past year, both Australia and the UK have enacted age-verification measures to restrict access to "harmful content." While Australia's legislation has been called an "unmitigated disaster" by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, it's been reported that children in the UK have been drawing on mustaches to get past age barriers.

Representatives for the EFF and the Utah Senate didn't respond immediately to CNET's request for more information.