alt Hacker NewsPerhaps then you could at least vaguely understand the desire of people to avoid having slimy, rightwing, greasy friends of Epstein and other known abusers to ID and surveil their children.
I definitely see both sides of this argument but to pretend the answers here are obvious just means people aren’t being serious. Serious harm is being caused to children and just because that’s a known cliche doesn’t make it not a real concern people have.
Replies
The slimy, rightwing, greasy friends of Epstein own all the main political parties, the UK's mainstream media, most of the social networks, and have their fingers in the NHS.
The UK hasn't been quick to deal with Epstein's associates and has a long history of either ignoring or losing critical evidence in CSA cases associated with politicians and public figures.
With that background, mandatory ID makes it easier, not harder, for abusers to act with impunity and/or official protection.
Look, the excuse is being made that kids are exposed to harms in online places, in general.
Most famously in Roblox (that's now fixed on Roblox side first with age banding, now by sharding it into three parts), and then in socials -- but the impact of, say, Instagram where kids are preyed upon because the algorithms are promoting them to preying populace, and where Meta openly runs experiments with their mental health, knowingly pushing them into harms way, is vastly different from, say, Coverstar.
Impact of abuse from Meta is well documented already, yet Meta is not punished. Kids are being radicalised by being fed toxic content, and it's also well known. Elon Musk's X was knowingly producing CSAM and non consensual nude images of real people and it took a tremendous amount of time for _anything_ to happen - and I don't see Musk on the dock yet?
There are ways to automatically block almost all kids on socials. Take away DMs and comments on the posts from all unverified users and kids suddenly will be much safer. All that can be done today.
The greasy friends of Epstein are running this shitshow, they're in the government (most famously PM of the UK knowingly appointed a longtime Epstein friend as the UK ambassador for the US), they've been covering Jimmy Saville abuses in the BBC, Police forces, the past government, which receives financial incentives from some of these companies to push things exactly the way they want.
Most severe harm to children is caused with the tacit approval of the government and media.
Sneaky access to the socials is not this.
Oh, and you know what? Receipts show it's Meta behind this weird, sudden push for age checks. Meta and their $2B.
So you already know something's off, or at least you should.