Steam now requires ages verification for adult games.

[Count Morado]

And when the things I view or purchase become illegal what do I do then?

Because I am not the one going back and forth on what's permitted or not, it's the retards in D.C.

That's not even the argument. You're moving the argument.

Again, if you are looking to consume products/content that is strictly for adults --- you should be expected to prove you're an adult. That is the argument.


Now you want to talk hypotheticals of what - in your mind - might become illegal?

That's a completely separate topic - not having at all to do with being of age, and showing proof of that.

 

[Rutonat]

Again, you're simplifying the context. Not only that... you're simplifying it completely WRONG.

You have no actual thoughtful take - so you are attempting to make baseless and biased (and immature) comments.

Again --

You have to prove you're an adult to buy these products IN PERSON.
The internet should not make it any different. They are adult products - not for kids - as such, you need to show you're an adult to consume it.

You have no argument against that. If you do, you haven't shown it.

You seem to have problems with the definition of "factually"

Again, in the real world, you have to prove you're an adult to shop for and purchase adult products. Whether it is alcohol, nicotine, firearms, or porn.
The internet should not be any different.

That is not censorship.

And still you act like this is not gonna go any farther, and the whole "give us your ID and/or face scan" shit is only there to protect kids from accessing adult content.
Because you refuse to engage with any argument that doesn't make you sound like you're right, but you're very much happy to accuse others to be conspiracy nutjobs and immature if they don't agree with you.

I'd have a more fun time trying to teach a dog to do taxes than arguing with someone who's only two arguments are "you're talkign conspiracy!" and "you're too immature to accept that this is good actually!".

Have a day.

 

[Count Morado]

And still you act like this is not gonna go any farther, and the whole "give us your ID and/or face scan" shit is only there to protect kids from accessing adult content.
Because you refuse to engage with any argument that doesn't make you sound like you're right, but you're very much happy to accuse others to be conspiracy nutjobs and immature if they don't agree with you.

I'd have a more fun time trying to teach a dog to do taxes than arguing with someone who's only two arguments are "you're talkign conspiracy!" and "you're too immature to accept that this is good actually!".

Have a day.

You have shown no viable information about this being a slippery slope.

None.

How can one have a discussion or argument if the person does not bring anything to the table?

Porn/adult content IN PERSON has for a long time required someone to show an ID to show their age.
What about the internet should exempt it from the same requirement?

Who the fuck cares if it is "to protect kids"? Not me. That's not been my argument - nor has it been anne O'nymous or morphnet or several others. It's about that it is content/product only meant for adults - therefore you have to prove you're an adult to consume it.

Again - just like you have had to do for decades when you walked into a store to buy alcohol, nicotine, firearms, and porn and other adult-intended products.

You want separate rules for the internet - but you have not shown any viable reason why the internet should have separate rules. And bringing forth a slippery slope argument about what you think might happen has no grounding if you have provided no foundation for such an argument. Which, you have not.

Where you have to show ID for products/services that are intended for adults:

In-Person	Internet
Alcohol ** Nicotine ** Firearms ** Porn ** Adult-Only games (rated "M" or "AO") * NC17 and X rated movies *** Strip joints ** Music with Parent-advisory labels *	Alcohol ** Nicotine ** Firearms ** Porn ** Adult-Only games (rated "M" or "AO") *** Porn sites, Web Stripper sites, etc ** NC17 and X rated movies *** Music with Parent-advisory labels *

* corporate policies, usually
** laws, depending upon jurisdiction
*** combination of laws and/or corporate policies

All those in-person things have NOT slippery-sloped. So before you move to slippery-slope...

What is your reasoning why consuming on the internet should be different than consuming via in-person purchases with regard to proving your age?

 

[anne O'nymous]

itch was forced to de-list their games globally until they had something in place

A "censorship" that lasted for less than 7 days...
I've been deprived of some of my favorite products for longer than this last time the supermarket nearby decided to progressively completely rebuild itself.

and Steam blocks NSFW games in certain countries now because of it.

It's amazing how Gen Z tend to understand that not everything they see on internet is true, and in the same time deeply believe that everything that happen on internet is legal...

Since it's creation, Steam never really cared about the Law. And for a long time, when they were confronted to their illegal actions in regard of a specific country Law, instead of changing their model to adapts to local particularities, Steam reaction was to simply blindly ban all those games for users in this given country. It was the case, and still is so far, for many games in Germany.
And they did it again, on a different scale, at

You must be registered to see the links

. When Germany reminded them that having an age rating is mandatory to sell games, Steam answer was not to enforce the age rating.
It's something they could easily do, especially since they have their own rating automated service.
It's something that they should have done, because Germany is in fact not the only country where an age rating is mandatory.
But no, instead of doing this, and therefore assuming their responsibility as shop owner, they decided that games without rating will not anymore be sold in Germany.

The ones at fault here aren't the government enforcing compliance to their, for most of them century old, Law, but Steam that still nowadays refuse to assume its responsibility as shop owner. Because, yes, it is their responsibility. As shop owner operating at world wide scale, they have to ensure that the person they represent as intermediary (the creators) do not unknowingly break the Law by selling games where it's illegal to sell them.
In the end of the day, it's the creator that face the risk to be sued, then sentenced, for something that he didn't even knew he was doing. And this purely because Steam do not care as long as they get their share of each sales.

And it's not just at country level that they didn't care. What happened this summer was payment processors ordering Steam to actually follow the rules that figures in their Terms of Service since years. Something that, once again, have always been Steam's responsibility. But, here too, something that they didn't cared to do, this while they had all the means to do it, since they already allow/forbid games on their platform.
They should have, since the starts, said that, "no, this game can not be on our platform, because it breaks our partners rules". But they wouldn't have had the sweet money that come with their share of the sales... Steam, voluntarily, put some creators at legal risk, for pure greedy reasons.

So, yeah, they now block adult content in some countries... Not because a government asked them too, but because they still don't want to assume their responsibility as shop owner.
There's some adult content that are illegal in this country? Well, why would we bother to filter more precisely the games we sell there when we can just stop selling them all? What we will loose in income do not worth that we change our model...
As said above, it's what they did with Germany less than one year ago, and they'll continue to do it as long as the lose in income do not worth that they change their model.
Governments have no responsibility in this, the sole responsibility lie on Steam's shoulders.

So to say that payment processors and politicians aren't pushing censorship laws on a global scale is factually incorrect.

And yet it's the reality.
Payment processors enforce their years old rules, while government enforce their century old laws. This while Steam should have followed both since its very first day.

Be noted that itch.io case is something else. The issue they face is the scale of the platform, that is too small to actually works with the granularity that Steam could, and should, apply.

 

[MLocke]

What the US government have to do with a six years long "Beijing-backed spying campaign"?

You must be registered to see the links

The government pretty much stopped trying to do defense. Their own backdoors were compromised, and it's an ongoing breach.

 

[anne O'nymous]

Their own backdoors were compromised, and it's an ongoing breach.

It's not exactly what the CALEA system is. It isn't a backdoor, it's a front door. The difference is important, because front door are totally transparent and can be controlled at all step of the process.

To roughly summarize: For copper/fiber infrastructure, it was taping the cable inside the secured interconnection rooms. For network communication, it's the same kind of practice. On legal request, an operator can duplicate the communication, and the duplicated feed will be sent to the IP address used for the surveillance. Absolutely all countries have this kind of front doors.
But ultimately, the responsibility to operate them, and to secure their use, lie on the operator's hands, not on the government. It's those operators who failed to fulfill their duty, as well as to monitor correctly their outgoing traffic. Because at the end of the day, it's TB of traffic that was leaving their network, they should have noticed it... The numbers weren't correct, X messages shouldn't generate twice their traffic.
And, in before, it's not about few messages, we are talking here about millions of messages each days, so as I said, TB of traffic that shouldn't have existed.


Therefore:

Operators shouldn't have let none authorized persons in position to duplicate and redirect the communications directly from the operators infrastructures; and even less remotely. The activation of the surveillance over a given number should have past through a verification process, starting by the legal department validating that the request is conform, and then issuing a surveillance order to the guy in charge. All this to IP addresses previously validated by the security service asking for the surveillance.

Operators should have monitored the number of surveillance operation in progress, and noticed that they weren't matching the number of actually monitored communications. They also should have noticed that some of the monitoring weren't directed to approved IP addresses.

Operators should have been warned by the outgoing traffic way above what it should have been.

In short, operators are the one at fault here.

 

[BETiLose34]

You have shown no viable information about this being a slippery slope.

None.

How can one have a discussion or argument if the person does not bring anything to the table?

Porn/adult content IN PERSON has for a long time required someone to show an ID to show their age.
What about the internet should exempt it from the same requirement?

Who the fuck cares if it is "to protect kids"? Not me. That's not been my argument - nor has it been anne O'nymous or morphnet or several others. It's about that it is content/product only meant for adults - therefore you have to prove you're an adult to consume it.

Again - just like you have had to do for decades when you walked into a store to buy alcohol, nicotine, firearms, and porn and other adult-intended products.

You want separate rules for the internet - but you have not shown any viable reason why the internet should have separate rules. And bringing forth a slippery slope argument about what you think might happen has no grounding if you have provided no foundation for such an argument. Which, you have not.

Where you have to show ID for products/services that are intended for adults:

In-Person	Internet
Alcohol ** Nicotine ** Firearms ** Porn ** Adult-Only games (rated "M" or "AO") * NC17 and X rated movies *** Strip joints ** Music with Parent-advisory labels *	Alcohol ** Nicotine ** Firearms ** Porn ** Adult-Only games (rated "M" or "AO") *** Porn sites, Web Stripper sites, etc ** NC17 and X rated movies *** Music with Parent-advisory labels *

* corporate policies, usually
** laws, depending upon jurisdiction
*** combination of laws and/or corporate policies

All those in-person things have NOT slippery-sloped. So before you move to slippery-slope...

What is your reasoning why consuming on the internet should be different than consuming via in-person purchases with regard to proving your age?

Since you've never once responded to me I won't put much effort into this post since I don't want to waste my time. I do however want to make sure that others arn't fooled by your post into thinking you are actually coming from an intellectually honest place.

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

I would highly recommend for those curious to read both of these to get a better understanding of the situation.
but i'll highlight a few things for those short on time and also add my own views to strengthen the points.

1. providing identification online can be stored indefinitely, commercially exploited, or exposed in data breaches while in person identification doesn't have these problems in any significant way.

2. a slippery slope has already happened, the supreme court has changed it's stance on online identification rulings by going from a strict scrutiny standard to a intermediate scrutiny standard lowering the requirements for governments need to meet to make these laws. This means the government only needs to show a substantial interest in protecting minors, rather than proving the law is the least restrictive means of achieving that goal.

3. It is also possible that states will attempt to word every proposed age verification bill with broad definitions of what is “obscene,” “sexually explicit,” or “harmful to minors.” In doing so, states will try to force large social media sites that are not hosting pornography to nevertheless verify the ages of all its users. Im sure you'll also try to say this is a slippery slope, but texas's ( Texas Senate Bill 20 ) already uses broad definitions of what is "obscene" and florida used "obscene" charges to convict a comic book author Mike Diana. and starting in 2021, there have been thousands of books banned or challenged in parts of the United States. Most of the targeted books have to do with race, gender, and sexuality.

All the same people who say they don't agree with these changes and yet constantly are on here defending them while not once providing a reason why THEY don't agree with the changes. Acting like there isn't an argument against your stance because the person you're arguing with hasn't thought of it is why you're not being intellectually honest.

I can only guess you guys never learned how to write a persuasive paper.

 

[Count Morado]

Since you've never once responded to me I won't put much effort into this post since I don't want to waste my time. I do however want to make sure that others arn't fooled by your post into thinking you are actually coming from an intellectually honest place.

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

I would highly recommend for those curious to read both of these to get a better understanding of the situation.
but i'll highlight a few things for those short on time and also add my own views to strengthen the points.

1. providing identification online can be stored indefinitely, commercially exploited, or exposed in data breaches while in person identification doesn't have these problems in any significant way.

2. a slippery slope has already happened, the supreme court has changed it's stance on online identification rulings by going from a strict scrutiny standard to a intermediate scrutiny standard lowering the requirements for governments need to meet to make these laws. This means the government only needs to show a substantial interest in protecting minors, rather than proving the law is the least restrictive means of achieving that goal.

3. It is also possible that states will attempt to word every proposed age verification bill with broad definitions of what is “obscene,” “sexually explicit,” or “harmful to minors.” In doing so, states will try to force large social media sites that are not hosting pornography to nevertheless verify the ages of all its users. Im sure you'll also try to say this is a slippery slope, but texas's ( Texas Senate Bill 20 ) already uses broad definitions of what is "obscene" and florida used "obscene" charges to convict a comic book author Mike Diana. and starting in 2021, there have been thousands of books banned or challenged in parts of the United States. Most of the targeted books have to do with race, gender, and sexuality.

All the same people who say they don't agree with these changes and yet constantly are on here defending them while not once providing a reason why THEY don't agree with the changes. Acting like there isn't an argument against your stance because the person you're arguing with hasn't thought of it is why you're not being intellectually honest.

I can only guess you guys never learned how to write a persuasive paper.

You're telling a higher education English instructor about learning to write a "persuasive paper".... Nice. The first thing any good writer should know is their audience. As for "an intellectually honest place" -- I come from 20+ years of political campaign and governance experience, as well as work in liberal activism and legal support.

1. Yes, ID information CAN be stored indefinitely. But is it being stored and exploited in that way from age verification? Also, as morphnet brought forth earlier - "What exactly do you think they are going to do with your card info? None of you are important enough on a global scale for anyone to care what you pay to fap to..."
   
   
2. Yes, the conservative SCOTUS did allow the Texas law to be enforced - thus not following precedent firmly established previously. The 3 liberal justices were opposed to this ruling - the 6 conservative justices upheld Texas law. I've already brought this up in other threads. This isn't a slippery slope that is being presented by the people in this thread, however. They have presented their slippery slope as government and corporations censoring content they want to see. This is different.
   
   
3. You are correct in this -- as I have implied, stated, and pointed to previously in both the correlation and causation with conservative held states and the age verification laws on the books in the US. Also, in previous threads about certain efforts in the conservative community who support such things like Project 2025, including members of the current US Administration and SCOTUS, that wish to redefine what is "obscene" to mean anything that is against their perspective. I live in a US state that has banned many books from public schools using some of this vernacular.
   
   However, this has NOTHING to do with age verification. They don't want to redefine "obscene" to mean for "adults only"--- but to make it illegal. This DOES have to do with censorship.

Age verification to shop for, use, consume adult products/content has to deal with people being old enough for such content, and the proof of that. Censorship - defining what is obscene, and therefore ILLEGAL - has nothing to do with age verification.

Now, will censorship efforts possibly limit what adult content remains legal? Yup! You bet. But proving age and seeing something deemed illegal for everyone are not the same thing.

You must be 21 years old to purchase and smoke nicotine cigarettes in the USA. You must show ID to prove you are of age. It is a legal product - but only for those over 21.
Currently, it is against federal law to purchase and smoke marijuana in the USA, as it is classified as a Schedule 1 drug. It doesn't matter what age you are. It is an illegal product, under federal jurisdiction. Should, at some point, it become legal under federal law to smoke marijuana, there will likely be an age restriction similar to that of nicotine.

You are conflating efforts by the conservative powers in the USA about 1) age verification with 2) defining obscenity to make it illegal. The two are not interconnected - they are separate policies with separate intents. Is there overlap with ideology? Sure. But the one does not lead to the other, or vice versa. No, they do not exist in a vacuum from each other - and one can be used alongside the other -- but neither is the causation of the other, nor a slippery slope between the two.

(EDIT: to add visual)

On the left is all legal content - some of which is for adults, where ID would be appropriate to prove being of age to participate.
On the right is all illegal content - some of which is legally defined as obscene.

You share article links - Hell, I could cite Justice Kagan's dissent regarding privacy, etc. from Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (2025) regarding privacy, protected speech, etc.

But you don't answer the fundamental question being raised in this thread: If you have to show you're an adult to shop for and make these purchases in-person - what is it about the Internet that makes it so special it shouldn't have the same requirements for age verification?

 

[MLocke]

It's not exactly what the CALEA system is. It isn't a backdoor, it's a front door. The difference is important, because front door are totally transparent and can be controlled at all step of the process.

To roughly summarize: For copper/fiber infrastructure, it was taping the cable inside the secured interconnection rooms. For network communication, it's the same kind of practice. On legal request, an operator can duplicate the communication, and the duplicated feed will be sent to the IP address used for the surveillance. Absolutely all countries have this kind of front doors.
But ultimately, the responsibility to operate them, and to secure their use, lie on the operator's hands, not on the government. It's those operators who failed to fulfill their duty, as well as to monitor correctly their outgoing traffic. Because at the end of the day, it's TB of traffic that was leaving their network, they should have noticed it... The numbers weren't correct, X messages shouldn't generate twice their traffic.
And, in before, it's not about few messages, we are talking here about millions of messages each days, so as I said, TB of traffic that shouldn't have existed.


Therefore:

Operators shouldn't have let none authorized persons in position to duplicate and redirect the communications directly from the operators infrastructures; and even less remotely. The activation of the surveillance over a given number should have past through a verification process, starting by the legal department validating that the request is conform, and then issuing a surveillance order to the guy in charge. All this to IP addresses previously validated by the security service asking for the surveillance.

Operators should have monitored the number of surveillance operation in progress, and noticed that they weren't matching the number of actually monitored communications. They also should have noticed that some of the monitoring weren't directed to approved IP addresses.

Operators should have been warned by the outgoing traffic way above what it should have been.

In short, operators are the one at fault here.

You must be registered to see the links

Who are you blaming for this? You seem reasonable, but, like a few regulars in these kinds of threads, you have to explain why you deviate from how almost everyone would talk about an issue. It's a backdoor, and there's not a way to absolve the government for failing to defend against a known threat, which they themselves have used (compromised equipment and practices) against small European nations, and for intentionally compromising national security. The backdoor was left unsecured through inaction the government. These backdoor and data left lying around could be exploited at many levels (MSPs) rather than at one major telecom, and it would remain insecure by its very nature even if it (and related software and protocols) were made to be "secure by design" by lawmaker's definitions.

 

[ZoneTan20]

it just feels we're being punished for not having a credit card, and yes I realise, it sounds stupid as I type it

if only they would also accept Debit Cards, but that's not an option,
from what I heard, it WAS accepted by steam, but that was an error, so once they fixed it, it became just credit cards were allowed, and I'm not sure, but I think for those that verified with a debit card, now have to reverify with a credit card

my theory is:

iirc Labour UK requires age verification to go through their approved third parties who handle that bureaucracy. I believe they charge for this service, Steam doesn't want to pay xxx for it's millions and millions of users (the fee probably goes up in scale, who knows). Steam doesn't want to be tied at the hip to shady third parties. Could be a trap where data is leaked or breached and Steam is on the hook for it lol. It's basically a shakedown on steam. So they decided to go the route which doesn't require paying anyone or involving anyone in handling data which could make them liable when it's hacked or something.

The bad news is this won't get resolved and the credit card requirement is here to stay. I don't have a credit card and I will get rejected if I try to apply (inconsistent icome). I can only download my games I already bought, I can't even view the store page or the games discussion forum.

Since debit cards don't work one 'solution' to get a credit card was this from reddit:

I've never heard of those but it looks like we have them in the UK known as "Secured credit cards"
If you're really desperate this might be your option. They seem pretty rare but CapitalOne offer them from what I can find.

^

Money saving expert has info on this

You must be registered to see the links

See the section for “bad credit”.

^

get a secured credit card. it will cost you a minimum opening deposit of about 74 GBP. the money wont be lost you can spend it when you get your card. it is a real credit card. i understand Steam will see it as a regular CC because it actually is.

^

Does the UK not have anything like a credit card based on a deposit you make? I’ve seen ones for people with no or bad credit where you can put in as little as like 100 usd as a deposit (or more of course), and they give you a credit card that has a spend limit matching the deposit. What I don’t know is if there’s a way to get that deposit back so you’re not just essentially paying 100 or whatever for a shitty version of ID just to get onto steam…

I find it ironic that credit card companies are the bad guys, but now their opponents have to cosy up to them as there's no other way. The_absolute_state.jpg I can see people just pirate even more instead of doing all that. Win win for the card companies as people won't buy adult games on Steam so porn devs might just stop making.

These card companies support porn coming out of California but they were going after adult content in Japan last year and earlier before Project 2025 was a thought. Now they have the opportunity to kill their competition with regulatory capture. Independent porn game devs, anything from Japan. Card companies are probably just a part of multi-faceted objectives (introduce digital ID as the solution to the 'problem', end-game of quelling any potential dissent, stifling speech, chat control) etc.

 

[BETiLose34]

You're telling a higher education English instructor about learning to write a "persuasive paper".... Nice. The first thing any good writer should know is their audience. As for "an intellectually honest place" -- I come from 20+ years of political campaign and governance experience, as well as work in liberal activism and legal support.

1. Yes, ID information CAN be stored indefinitely. But is it being stored and exploited in that way from age verification? Also, as morphnet brought forth earlier - "What exactly do you think they are going to do with your card info? None of you are important enough on a global scale for anyone to care what you pay to fap to..."
   
   
2. Yes, the conservative SCOTUS did allow the Texas law to be enforced - thus not following precedent firmly established previously. The 3 liberal justices were opposed to this ruling - the 6 conservative justices upheld Texas law. I've already brought this up in other threads. This isn't a slippery slope that is being presented by the people in this thread, however. They have presented their slippery slope as government and corporations censoring content they want to see. This is different.
   
   
3. You are correct in this -- as I have implied, stated, and pointed to previously in both the correlation and causation with conservative held states and the age verification laws on the books in the US. Also, in previous threads about certain efforts in the conservative community who support such things like Project 2025, including members of the current US Administration and SCOTUS, that wish to redefine what is "obscene" to mean anything that is against their perspective. I live in a US state that has banned many books from public schools using some of this vernacular.
   
   However, this has NOTHING to do with age verification. They don't want to redefine "obscene" to mean for "adults only"--- but to make it illegal. This DOES have to do with censorship.

Age verification to shop for, use, consume adult products/content has to deal with people being old enough for such content, and the proof of that. Censorship - defining what is obscene, and therefore ILLEGAL - has nothing to do with age verification.

Now, will censorship efforts possibly limit what adult content remains legal? Yup! You bet. But proving age and seeing something deemed illegal for everyone are not the same thing.

You must be 21 years old to purchase and smoke nicotine cigarettes in the USA. You must show ID to prove you are of age. It is a legal product - but only for those over 21.
Currently, it is against federal law to purchase and smoke marijuana in the USA, as it is classified as a Schedule 1 drug. It doesn't matter what age you are. It is an illegal product, under federal jurisdiction. Should, at some point, it become legal under federal law to smoke marijuana, there will likely be an age restriction similar to that of nicotine.

You are conflating efforts by the conservative powers in the USA about 1) age verification with 2) defining obscenity to make it illegal. The two are not interconnected - they are separate policies with separate intents. Is there overlap? Sure. But the one does not lead to the other, or vice versa. No, they do not exist in a vacuum from each other - and one can be used alongside the other -- but neither is the causation of the other, nor a slippery slope between the two.

You share article links - Hell, I could cite Justice Kagan's dissent regarding privacy, etc. from Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (2025) regarding privacy, protected speech, etc.

But you don't answer the fundamental question being raised in this thread: If you have to show you're an adult to shop for and make these purchases in-person - what is it about the Internet that makes it so special it shouldn't have the same requirements for age verification?

Well surprised you actually responded. here's my response to each point

Also apologies for this being formatted horribly and long.

1. When you say Yes id information can be stored indefinitely im not sure if you're arguing that physical id is somehow stored or agreeing that online id can be stored? but yes id's have been leaked in data breaches...as well as passports and social security numbers. As for if it's being stored that way it will depend on state law and company policy but considering the united states record with online privacy laws and how certain companies already handle sensitive information yeah it is being stored that way. The argument that morphnet made is while not surprising very disappointing. You'd think we'd be past people saying " nothing to hide argument " a common logical fallacy. So first "important" people also use adult services and it could be used to blackmail them, also "important" can mean anything from political activist to journalist to just people the government doesn't like. As for whoever fall on the outside of that is still in danger, in the united states you are hired as "at-will" so any hacker who got your information can blackmail you aswell since it's not far-fetched to believe an employer would let you go after your porn history got leaked. Hackers steal mass amount of personal data and then sell that data online which many scammers/data brokers can use against you.

2. Idk if others brought up the same point I did but "And bringing forth a slippery slope argument about what you think might happen has no grounding if you have provided no foundation for such an argument." I was addressing this with my second point, a slippery slope has happened and it has lead to more restrictions of freedoms.

3."However, this has NOTHING to do with age verification. They don't want to redefine "obscene" to mean for "adults only"--- but to make it illegal." Yep it actually does, I can't argue that their overall goal is to make anything they deem obscene illegal but I can easily argue that what they are currently doing is exactly making it for adults only "Idaho HB710, signed into law in April 2024, requires school and public libraries to move materials deemed harmful to minors to an adults-only section, allowing community members who object to a book to sue for $250 in damages. The law uses Idaho's existing definition of obscene materials, which includes “any act of … homosexuality.” " There are many more cases similar to this one if you don't believe me feel free to look it up.

"Age verification to shop for, use, consume adult products/content has to deal with people being old enough for such content, and the proof of that. Censorship - defining what is obscene, and therefore ILLEGAL - has nothing to do with age verification."

"Financial censorship is when financial institutions and payment intermediaries de-bank accounts or inhibit transactions and influence what kind of speech can exist online"
"Book censorship can be enacted at the national or sub-national level, and can carry legal penalties for their infraction. Books may also be challenged at a local, community level. As a result, books can be removed from schools or libraries, although these bans do not typically extend outside of that area."

Censorship doesn't have to be limited to obscene material nor does it have make something illegal and like I said above they are using the term "obscene" not to make things illegal for adults but to restrict access to children.

"You must be 21 years old to purchase and smoke nicotine cigarettes in the USA. You must show ID to prove you are of age. It is a legal product - but only for those over 21.
Currently, it is against federal law to purchase and smoke marijuana in the USA, as it is classified as a Schedule 1 drug. It doesn't matter what age you are. It is an illegal product, under federal jurisdiction. Should, at some point, it become legal under federal law to smoke marijuana, there will likely be an age restriction similar to that of nicotine."

I didn't want to skip this one even though im not quite sure how it's related, but yes united states has some silly and contradicting laws and yea it's possible that if it becomes federal law it will also have a age restriction. Im going to take a guess though and assume you're trying to compare marijuana purchases vs adult porn access. It's not really a one to one though, but when buying marijuana online you don't need to upload your id you present it at the dispensary as for marijuana delivery you show it to the delivery driver. It's possible im way off though since I don't really get what you're trying to say here.

"You are conflating efforts by the conservative powers in the USA about 1) age verification with 2) defining obscenity to make it illegal. The two are not interconnected - they are separate policies with separate intents. Is there overlap? Sure. But the one does not lead to the other, or vice versa. No, they do not exist in a vacuum from each other - and one can be used alongside the other -- but neither is the causation of the other, nor a slippery slope between the two."

again while they may want to expand obscenity to make everything illegal that's not solely what they are doing. They are separate policies that empower each other with the same intents(atleast according to what they claim) to restrict access they deem inappropraite from children.

"You share article links - Hell, I could cite Justice Kagan's dissent regarding privacy, etc. from Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (2025) regarding privacy, protected speech, etc"

That was mostly so people could get a good idea of why people are upset about this and how the supreme court's decision has hurt protections to our privacy in this new situation we've found ourselves in where we will have to give more and more sites increasingly private information. We've already had many states require social media age verification, with the new ruling it's certainly going to get alot worst.

You must be registered to see the links

"But you don't answer the fundamental question being raised in this thread: If you have to show you're an adult to shop for and make these purchases in-person - what is it about the Internet that makes it so special it shouldn't have the same requirements for age verification?"

I think I did answer the question. I will restate them again though,

1. providing identification online can be stored indefinitely, commercially exploited, or exposed in data breaches while in person identification doesn't have these problems in any significant way.

2. the supreme court has changed it's stance on online identification rulings by using a different standard.
Physical id's work when it comes to in store purchases, fake id's exist but they arn't easily made. You could easily argue that physicals id's meet the old Strict standard because they could argue it's effectiveness against the privacy risk when no other solution could have the same effect with more privacy. Since they changed the standard they no longer need to prove that id verification is the most effective while trying to be the least invasive. Comparing in person purchases to the internet is a false equivalence they arn't the same, they do not share the same benefits nor the same risks...the damage this could do to the porn industry is significant according to pornhub they lost 90% traffic from areas they enforced id verification. Making people show id in person did not have this same effect because they already were physically there often being recorded on security cameras aswell.

 

[morphnet]

Maybe try to engage with it on a deeper level than "We'll just take what is being told to use by politicians at face value because why wouldn't they be genuine" ?

This is the problem you guys have, you follow what is happening in the world as well as you follow discussions in threads. You guys change the details in your heads and then whip yourselves into a frenzy.

No one is taking anything at face value, no one has stated that they are. You as an adult SHOULD be able to separate the motivation (why do it), concept (what must be done) and method (how to do it).

technically that's what happened. itch was forced to de-list their games globally until they had something in place

...and now that they have something in place people can go back to the games.

Steam blocks NSFW games in certain countries now because of it.

This is a misunderstanding on your part here, steam doesn't block NSFW games in certain countries, certain countries block steam from selling NSFW games there. The difference matters.

So to say that payment processors and politicians aren't pushing censorship laws on a global scale is factually incorrect.

No it's NOT factually incorrect. The global push is to ban CONTENT that has ALWAYS been banned, Incest, bestiality, rape etc.
The localized bans are per country and those countries are NOT trying to enforce their bans around the world.

And when the things I view or purchase become illegal what do I do then?

Follow the steps in place to address it.

Because I am not the one going back and forth on what's permitted or not, it's the retards in D.C.

What back and forth? You guys are acting like ANY of this is new.

And still you act like this is not gonna go any farther, and the whole "give us your ID and/or face scan" shit is only there to protect kids from accessing adult content.

It hasn't in ANY of the other areas it was introduced. SHOW why you think it will go further because in reality it hasn't in the past.

Because you refuse to engage with any argument that doesn't make you sound like you're right, but you're very much happy to accuse others to be conspiracy nutjobs and immature if they don't agree with you.

Because he IS right, he is sharing facts, data, you are sharing theories and none of them are backed by facts, history or data, they are just fueled by paranoia.

I'd have a more fun time trying to teach a dog to do taxes than arguing with someone who's only two arguments are "you're talkign conspiracy!" and "you're too immature to accept that this is good actually!".

Going by your lack of data, facts or any apparent knowledge of the situation I'm sure that poor dog will be arrested for tax fraud before the tax season even starts....

The government pretty much stopped trying to do defense. Their own backdoors were compromised, and it's an ongoing breach.

Still didn't bother reading the article....

 

[anne O'nymous]

You must be registered to see the links

Who are you blaming for this?

Well, mostly CISCO since three of the four vulnerabilities were on their OS:

• You must be registered to see the links
  
  A vulnerability impacting the Smart Install feature of CISCO switches, offering the possibility to rely on a buffer overflow to compromise the equipment. Be noted that, while being by design a weak point, the said Smart Install feature is (was at this time?) enable by default.
  The last none vulnerable version is IOS 12.2(52)SE, released the
  You must be registered to see the links
  , 8 years before the vulnerability have been discovered...
  Only gods know during how many years the vulnerability have been exploited before being noticed.
• You must be registered to see the links
  
  A vulnerability that permit to gain authorized access in the web UI of the equipment.
  The advisory regarding the vulnerability have been published the 16 October 2023, after it have been noticed, through its active exploitation. And it's only the 23 October 2023 that CISCO published an
  You must be registered to see the links
  , one day after the release of the fixing patch.
  Only gods know how long the vulnerability have been exploited before being noticed.
• You must be registered to see the links
  
  The vulnerability permit to any authenticated user to execute commands at root level. This being due to a lack of rights validation in the web UI code. Strictly speaking, since it need an authenticated user to be exploited, this vulnerability would have been relatively inoffensive without the CVE-2023-20198 ones.
  I don't remember CISCO having actually communicated a lot on this vulnerability, it is to assume that it have been present at least as long as the CVE-2023-20198 one. Therefore, here again only gods know how long the vulnerability have been exploited before being noticed.

Those three vulnerabilities are key points in the whole attack since they give control over the switches; switches being the equipment that route all network traffics, and therefore permit to sniff them.

If it's the responsibility of the user to regularly control that his equipment aren't compromised, such detection isn't always easy. Especially when the said equipment are switches, since at this level of network, each user operate thousands of them, and they are spread all over its network. The ones in border of the network possibly handling a traffic shared with other users, especially at this level of state organizations.
But in the same time, it's the responsibility of the manufacturer to provide equipment as secured as possible, and the CVE-2023-20273 vulnerability clearly show a failure... A fucking lack of rights validation on highly sensible equipment

And, of course, it's not the responsibility of the user to fully review their software, especially when, like it's the case for CISCO IOS, it's a closed source one. Each government have its own cybersecurity agency, that perform penetration test, search for vulnerabilities, and all, but none can expect them to catch all the vulnerabilities in all the software and equipment used by the governmental agencies.
Especially something as stupid as a lack of rights validation on CISCO's equipment. CISCO releasing an update with such flaw is like a car manufacturer selling a car with a steering wheel that wouldn't actually be linked to the wheels. But, yeah, here there's a weakness, too much confidence isn't an option when it come to cybersecurity.

Be also noted that one vulnerability was present for 8 years, and possibly exploited at small scale during all those years, will the two other have been noticed only because they were actually, and probably highly, exploited. What mean that the issue here isn't a lack of reaction from the governmental agencies; one can not close a door he don't know about.

You seem reasonable, but, like a few regulars in these kinds of threads, you have to explain why you deviate from how almost everyone would talk about an issue.

Well, it's the advantage when you know enough regarding what you talk about... You then say what is true, not what your fear tell you.

It's a backdoor, and there's not a way to absolve the government for failing to defend against a known threat, which they themselves have used (compromised equipment and practices) against small European nations, and for intentionally compromising national security. The backdoor was left unsecured through inaction the government.

See what I said above?

I've read the link you provided, I understood what it said, and then my conclusion aren't yours just because of this small difference that understanding is.
The only thing that actually fall on the "government" shoulders is the collection of the network configuration files. But this is not a cybersecurity flaw, this is a human one. Chinese didn't compromised a computer, and even less a network, to stole those data, they just had a human spy inside. How do I know this for sure? Because some of the associated credential have also be stolen, and at this level the only way to have them is through a human.

But by themselves those data do not compromise the network. They weakens it, by showing the key point of the network architecture, and by identifying the equipment that act as bridges, and therefore are not visible from the outside, but they don't compromise it.
What lead to the other none cybersecurity related issue here. The vulnerability list tell us that most of the compromised equipment were switches, and switches are bridges. At this level they obviously also have an IP address; one will not move in the middle of nowhere each time it need to intervene. But those IP address are said "non-routable" (hear "non reachable through the wild Internet"). They can only be addressed from inside the network that host them, what mean, once again, a human spy.

Anyway, there's absolutely nothing in all the link you provided that point to your "hey, there's a governmental backdoor and Chinese exploited it".
As I said, the previous one implicitly point to a front door, a perfectly and openly known feature that is implemented by the operators themselves. This while this one explicitly point to CISCO's repeated failure and the corruption of some people by the Chinese.

 

[Count Morado]

Well surprised you actually responded. here's my response to each point

Also apologies for this being formatted horribly and long.

1. When you say Yes id information can be stored indefinitely im not sure if you're arguing that physical id is somehow stored or agreeing that online id can be stored? but yes id's have been leaked in data breaches...as well as passports and social security numbers. As for if it's being stored that way it will depend on state law and company policy but considering the united states record with online privacy laws and how certain companies already handle sensitive information yeah it is being stored that way. The argument that morphnet made is while not surprising very disappointing. You'd think we'd be past people saying " nothing to hide argument " a common logical fallacy. So first "important" people also use adult services and it could be used to blackmail them, also "important" can mean anything from political activist to journalist to just people the government doesn't like. As for whoever fall on the outside of that is still in danger, in the united states you are hired as "at-will" so any hacker who got your information can blackmail you aswell since it's not far-fetched to believe an employer would let you go after your porn history got leaked. Hackers steal mass amount of personal data and then sell that data online which many scammers/data brokers can use against you.

2. Idk if others brought up the same point I did but "And bringing forth a slippery slope argument about what you think might happen has no grounding if you have provided no foundation for such an argument." I was addressing this with my second point, a slippery slope has happened and it has lead to more restrictions of freedoms.

3."However, this has NOTHING to do with age verification. They don't want to redefine "obscene" to mean for "adults only"--- but to make it illegal." Yep it actually does, I can't argue that their overall goal is to make anything they deem obscene illegal but I can easily argue that what they are currently doing is exactly making it for adults only "Idaho HB710, signed into law in April 2024, requires school and public libraries to move materials deemed harmful to minors to an adults-only section, allowing community members who object to a book to sue for $250 in damages. The law uses Idaho's existing definition of obscene materials, which includes “any act of … homosexuality.” " There are many more cases similar to this one if you don't believe me feel free to look it up.

"Age verification to shop for, use, consume adult products/content has to deal with people being old enough for such content, and the proof of that. Censorship - defining what is obscene, and therefore ILLEGAL - has nothing to do with age verification."

"Financial censorship is when financial institutions and payment intermediaries de-bank accounts or inhibit transactions and influence what kind of speech can exist online"
"Book censorship can be enacted at the national or sub-national level, and can carry legal penalties for their infraction. Books may also be challenged at a local, community level. As a result, books can be removed from schools or libraries, although these bans do not typically extend outside of that area."

Censorship doesn't have to be limited to obscene material nor does it have make something illegal and like I said above they are using the term "obscene" not to make things illegal for adults but to restrict access to children.

"You must be 21 years old to purchase and smoke nicotine cigarettes in the USA. You must show ID to prove you are of age. It is a legal product - but only for those over 21.
Currently, it is against federal law to purchase and smoke marijuana in the USA, as it is classified as a Schedule 1 drug. It doesn't matter what age you are. It is an illegal product, under federal jurisdiction. Should, at some point, it become legal under federal law to smoke marijuana, there will likely be an age restriction similar to that of nicotine."

I didn't want to skip this one even though im not quite sure how it's related, but yes united states has some silly and contradicting laws and yea it's possible that if it becomes federal law it will also have a age restriction. Im going to take a guess though and assume you're trying to compare marijuana purchases vs adult porn access. It's not really a one to one though, but when buying marijuana online you don't need to upload your id you present it at the dispensary as for marijuana delivery you show it to the delivery driver. It's possible im way off though since I don't really get what you're trying to say here.

"You are conflating efforts by the conservative powers in the USA about 1) age verification with 2) defining obscenity to make it illegal. The two are not interconnected - they are separate policies with separate intents. Is there overlap? Sure. But the one does not lead to the other, or vice versa. No, they do not exist in a vacuum from each other - and one can be used alongside the other -- but neither is the causation of the other, nor a slippery slope between the two."

again while they may want to expand obscenity to make everything illegal that's not solely what they are doing. They are separate policies that empower each other with the same intents(atleast according to what they claim) to restrict access they deem inappropraite from children.

"You share article links - Hell, I could cite Justice Kagan's dissent regarding privacy, etc. from Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (2025) regarding privacy, protected speech, etc"

That was mostly so people could get a good idea of why people are upset about this and how the supreme court's decision has hurt protections to our privacy in this new situation we've found ourselves in where we will have to give more and more sites increasingly private information. We've already had many states require social media age verification, with the new ruling it's certainly going to get alot worst.

You must be registered to see the links

"But you don't answer the fundamental question being raised in this thread: If you have to show you're an adult to shop for and make these purchases in-person - what is it about the Internet that makes it so special it shouldn't have the same requirements for age verification?"

I think I did answer the question. I will restate them again though,

1. providing identification online can be stored indefinitely, commercially exploited, or exposed in data breaches while in person identification doesn't have these problems in any significant way.

2. the supreme court has changed it's stance on online identification rulings by using a different standard.
Physical id's work when it comes to in store purchases, fake id's exist but they arn't easily made. You could easily argue that physicals id's meet the old Strict standard because they could argue it's effectiveness against the privacy risk when no other solution could have the same effect with more privacy. Since they changed the standard they no longer need to prove that id verification is the most effective while trying to be the least invasive. Comparing in person purchases to the internet is a false equivalence they arn't the same, they do not share the same benefits nor the same risks...the damage this could do to the porn industry is significant according to pornhub they lost 90% traffic from areas they enforced id verification. Making people show id in person did not have this same effect because they already were physically there often being recorded on security cameras aswell.

I'm not paid to read your lengthy response. I'm not going to read this to then respond with lengthy counterpoints.

If you answered the fundamental question, please restate it in a reply:
If you have to show you're an adult to shop for and make these purchases in-person - what is it about the Internet that makes it so special it shouldn't have the same requirements for age verification to prove you're an adult?

This should not take more than one paragraph.

If you didn't answer that question, that is the START of the conversation. Everything else is a diversion.

I'm actually going to make this simpler with questions that require only yes/no responses:

1. When shopping in a brick-and mortar store, should you have to be ready to prove you're of legal age to shop, purchase, and use:
   1. Alcohol?
   2. Tobacco?
   3. Firearms?
   4. Pornography?
   5. Strip joints?
   6. Movies restricted to those who are of a certain age or older (R, NC17, X, etc)?
   7. Games restricted to those who are of a certain age or older (M, AO, etc)?
2. When shopping online, should you have to be ready to prove you're of legal age to shop, purchase, and use:
   1. Alcohol?
   2. Tobacco?
   3. Firearms?
   4. Pornography?
   5. Strip joints?
   6. Movies restricted to those who are of a certain age or older (R, NC17, X, etc)?
   7. Games restricted to those who are of a certain age or older (M, AO, etc)?

Only need 14 words. From there the conversation has a basis that if both parties which to continue, they can.

 

[MLocke]

highly sensible equipment

If you are a highly-intelligent individual or just a reasonable one, the sensible thing for you to do now is to stop yapping and start reading a book or something. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of cybersecurity.

Chinese didn't compromised a computer, and even less a network, to stole those data, they just had a human spy inside. How do I know this for sure?

You don't. There would be sources for this, even if it involved experts (not you) speculating or trying to reverse engineer the attack or highlight some of China's known methods. They infiltrated the network but not necessarily or likely through a physical breach, even if social engineering (also remote) is always a major concern. The critical network configuration files and related administrator credentials are data that was hacked. Why even run with this idea?

I've read the link you provided, I understood what it said

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You should understand that your front door analogy is only an analogy, and it wasn't very useful nor intelligible. You should be scaring yourself that you are somehow trying to use language from a biased legislative or ignorant law enforcement perspective, when it's essentially just a misnomer.

there's absolutely nothing in all the link you provided that point to your "hey, there's a governmental backdoor and Chinese exploited it"

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

There's really not much to say if you still think I have to point out something that is painfully obvious. "One of the hackers’ targets appears to have been exploiting existing backdoors used by law enforcement in executing wire-tapping requests, which the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (“CALEA”) has mandated for the last 30 years." There's something wrong with your thinking rather than how this is widely-reported. There may be a contention around terminology or the complexities of cybersecurity, but the term backdoor is relevant because even if encryption was used, the government would want it to be weak or have their own way to listen in even though they are not the intended recipient.

A nation-state actor like China will always have new vulnerabilities, custom malware, and what is often referred to as backdoor access to networks they attack. They should be as successful as they are with supply chain attacks, but that can't really be pinned on one company, even if you wanted to bring up Cisco with adequate context. The US government allows these vulnerabilities to persist even if they discover them first. They also prefer and allow compromised networking hardware and software to be exported as if it's normal. I guess you didn't read that the government compromised Greek politicians, then waited for our politicians to be compromised in the same manner. It was a known attack vector that they left open. I am not here to prove what shouldn't even be in contention, but I don't like the misinformation used to willfully upend the conversation about Steam. In any case, you seem to have a double standard for two network operators, even though the DOD has more responsibility at their level and for their own sensitive networks. National defense is largely the purpose of federal government, and they are failing harder than anyone in the tech world. There's only so much time in the day, but I hope you don't just rely on my links but really start reading into the issue if you want to talk about it seriously.

 

[anne O'nymous]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of cybersecurity.

Well, then it's a chance that it's not anymore part of my job...

You don't. There would be sources for this, even if it involved experts (not you) speculating or trying to reverse engineer the attack or highlight some of China's known methods. They infiltrated the network but not necessarily or likely through a physical breach, even if social engineering (also remote) is always a major concern.

I have some questions for you:

Let's say that they actually achieved to remotely infiltrate several networks, to the point that, for each one of them, they reached one of its deepest, yet central, point, a, if not "the", computer where the network configuration files where stored.

1. Were they really dumb to the point that, during the days they passed searching that computer in a network with more than 60,000 potential IP addresses, they didn't draw a map of the network architecture?
2. By what magic the credentials were stored in plain text?
3. Why, after having been able to go so deep into the network, probing its hosts one after the other without being detected, did they dropped their attack to switch to other vulnerabilities, that achieved the same result, but didn't offered them the stealth guaranty that they already validated by staying undetected during all their hunt for the right computer?

You should understand that your front door analogy is only an analogy, and it wasn't very useful nor intelligible.

Yes it's an analogy, and so? I never said that it wasn't, and by the way "backdoor" too is an analogy, you know it, right?

This being said, please, can you explain why you posted two links regarding government lobbying for backdoors in encrypted messaging applications, while what have been compromised, accordingly to your own links, is the

You must be registered to see the links

, that apply to "telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment"; said otherwise copper/cable/fiber operators, ISP and manufacturer like CISCO.
Note that I haven't named "encrypted messaging providers", nor even "messaging providers", there's a reason for this...

CALEA system that, yes, ask them to "have the necessary surveillance capabilities to comply with legal requests for information". What is a backdoor with more layers and supposed to not be remotely available, therefore a front door.
But in fact how it's called is irrelevant here because, as your previous link explicitly say, the attackers needed to exploit CISCO IOS vulnerabilities to access their switches...
Why do this, and face the high risk to be notice, as well as the high probability that the vulnerability will be patched soon, if you have already compromised the alleged backdoor that would permit you to do the same, indefinitely, with near to no risk to be noticed?

CALEA system that is the full responsibility of the operator/manufacturer, and do not fall under the control of the US Government, nor the control of one of its agencies:
"Industry is generally responsible for setting CALEA standards and solutions. Unless a party files a special petition (see Petitions Section below), the Commission does not get formally involved with the compliance standards development process. CALEA also does not provide for Commission review of manufacturer-developed solutions. Entities subject to CALEA are responsible for reviewing the Commission's regulations and analyzing how this regulation applies per their specific network architecture."
What imply that, no, the fact that some implementation of the CALEA system have been compromised is not a failure of the government. A no time where it involved in the implementation, securing, and monitoring, of the system. Anyway, as I demonstrated above, it wasn't always the CALEA system that was in fault.

You should be scaring yourself that you are somehow trying to use language from a biased legislative or ignorant law enforcement perspective, when it's essentially just a misnomer.

I didn't even knew that this guy existed and said this... But I do know that the term is used, admittedly rarely, by cybersecurity experts. [

You must be registered to see the links

,

You must be registered to see the links

, among many others]
Must also be reminded that English isn't my native language, and that jargon isn't always international.

You must be registered to see the links

"One of the hackers’ targets appears to have been exploiting existing backdoors used by law enforcement in executing wire-tapping requests, which the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (“CALEA”) has mandated for the last 30 years."
As I said above, the CALEA system is not backdoors to encrypted messaging applications. And if you don't believe me, believe what your own link say:
"Salt Typhoon accessed call logs, unencrypted texts, and audio communications of targeted individuals—including government officials and politicians." emphasis is mine
See, no "and encrypted texts"...

Should I also review the other links for you, or will you read them correctly by yourself?

There's really not much to say if you still think I have to point out something that is painfully obvious.

At this point, it's pretty funny that you write this.
Your own links, starting by the very first that you posted, all say, implicitly for some, explicitly for others, that only unencrypted texts and calls have been spied. Yet it's the third post where I have to explain it to you...

"One of the hackers’ [...]" There's something wrong with your thinking [...]

And I guess that it's pure coincidence if, unlike me, you stopped right before the sentence that have "unencrypted messages" in it...

 

[MLocke]

And I guess that it's pure coincidence if, unlike me, you stopped right before the sentence that have "unencrypted messages" in it...

I hope you appreciated my last post because I am thinking before I type. Do you understand that there is so much wrong with your last few posts? I just can't address it all at once. You must be trying to twist things because you didn't bring up a point about encryption in the last few posts. I did though. And, really, my very first link says that Salt Typhoon was monitoring ordinary people's Internet traffic. It's not just about this one breach or an old law that they want to expand despite its failures either. Are you sure you read? It's just that encryption in flight and topics like intentionally compromising SSL/TLS are more complicated, and do you think you are ready to get even more into the weeds? You probably forgot what the original point of even talking about this breach regarding defeated arguments and regular people was because you are living in your own world. Do you understand that you linked a video that didn't say the word front at all? If it had, it would probably reflect what my links about law enforcement already say. Are you sure you read or watch things? You also linked a 38 second clip from LinkedIn of all places. You can't just waste people's time with nonsense.

Just gather your thoughts and come back with links, so I can have a better chance of understanding what you are even trying to say. And, no, I don't blame your English skills. This is about not making leaps of logics and not trying to hyperfocus on a point from a source that you can pick apart. Instead, maybe try speaking with a general understanding and forming a solid argument.

 

[BETiLose34]

I'm not paid to read your lengthy response. I'm not going to read this to then respond with lengthy counterpoints.

If you answered the fundamental question, please restate it in a reply:
If you have to show you're an adult to shop for and make these purchases in-person - what is it about the Internet that makes it so special it shouldn't have the same requirements for age verification to prove you're an adult?

This should not take more than one paragraph.

If you didn't answer that question, that is the START of the conversation. Everything else is a diversion.

I'm actually going to make this simpler with questions that require only yes/no responses:

1. When shopping in a brick-and mortar store, should you have to be ready to prove you're of legal age to shop, purchase, and use:
   1. Alcohol?
   2. Tobacco?
   3. Firearms?
   4. Pornography?
   5. Strip joints?
   6. Movies restricted to those who are of a certain age or older (R, NC17, X, etc)?
   7. Games restricted to those who are of a certain age or older (M, AO, etc)?
2. When shopping online, should you have to be ready to prove you're of legal age to shop, purchase, and use:
   1. Alcohol?
   2. Tobacco?
   3. Firearms?
   4. Pornography?
   5. Strip joints?
   6. Movies restricted to those who are of a certain age or older (R, NC17, X, etc)?
   7. Games restricted to those who are of a certain age or older (M, AO, etc)?

Only need 14 words. From there the conversation has a basis that if both parties which to continue, they can.

I'm back to being disappointed again oh well i'll answer though again i'll point out this is a false equivalence.
Also like to point out for consideration is you saying prove instead of proof.

1. When shopping in a brick-and mortar store, should you have to be ready to prove you're of legal age to shop, purchase, and use:
   1. Alcohol? Yes
   2. Tobacco? Yes
   3. Firearms? Yes
   4. Pornography? Yes
   5. Strip joints? Yes
   6. Movies restricted to those who are of a certain age or older (R, NC17, X, etc)? Yes
   7. Games restricted to those who are of a certain age or older (M, AO, etc)? Yes
2. When shopping online, should you have to be ready to prove you're of legal age to shop, purchase, and use:
   1. Alcohol? Yes
   2. Tobacco? Yes
   3. Firearms? Yes
   4. Pornography? Yes
   5. Strip joints? Yes
   6. Movies restricted to those who are of a certain age or older (R, NC17, X, etc)? Yes
   7. Games restricted to those who are of a certain age or older (M, AO, etc)? Yes

 

[Count Morado]

I'm back to being disappointed again oh well i'll answer though again i'll point out this is a false equivalence.
Also like to point out for consideration is you saying prove instead of proof.

1. When shopping in a brick-and mortar store, should you have to be ready to prove you're of legal age to shop, purchase, and use:
   1. Alcohol? Yes
   2. Tobacco? Yes
   3. Firearms? Yes
   4. Pornography? Yes
   5. Strip joints? Yes
   6. Movies restricted to those who are of a certain age or older (R, NC17, X, etc)? Yes
   7. Games restricted to those who are of a certain age or older (M, AO, etc)? Yes
2. When shopping online, should you have to be ready to prove you're of legal age to shop, purchase, and use:
   1. Alcohol? Yes
   2. Tobacco? Yes
   3. Firearms? Yes
   4. Pornography? Yes
   5. Strip joints? Yes
   6. Movies restricted to those who are of a certain age or older (R, NC17, X, etc)? Yes
   7. Games restricted to those who are of a certain age or older (M, AO, etc)? Yes

Prove is the verb; proof is the noun. In order to prove you are of age, you must supply proof such as a government issued id.

No, it's not a false equivalence. It's setting a foundation for the argument. If one does not know where the other stands on the issue, then meaningful argument cannot ensue

So, in the end - we are in agreement that people should provide proof of their age to prove they are old enough to access adult-only products, content, services.

I don't give a flying fuck about your feelings of disappointment. I'm not here to impress you nor to even engage in a conversation with you.

 

[F4C430]

Porn/adult content IN PERSON has for a long time required someone to show an ID to show their age.
What about the internet should exempt it from the same requirement?

The problem isn't that the internet should be exempt, the problem is getting ID'd in person doesn't result in all your personal private information being permanently stored in a database begging to be leaked or maybe even sold.

Who the fuck cares if it is "to protect kids"? Not me. That's not been my argument - nor has it been anne O'nymous or morphnet or several others. It's about that it is content/product only meant for adults - therefore you have to prove you're an adult to consume it.

Then what exactly is the point of age verification? "Content/product only meant for adults" is just another way of saying content not meant for non-adults; i.e. protecting the kids. That won't even stop underage people anyway the same way that your repeated examples of getting ID'd in person didn't stop underage people from seeing porn or getting alcohol etc...

By adding these age checks from ID or even credit card, you're now restricting access from people who have a legal right to it. Not everyone has a credit card and you should never be saving your payment information anyway; and not everyone will agree to share their ID online because they don't trust it. That's not a problem in person because sales clerks aren't snapping a photo of your ID or credit card and saving it.