Age verification is the new digital ID
Source: xcancel.com/vxunderground/stat…
Yeah, so basically the current prevailing schizo internet theory is that AI nerds have destroyed the internet and created infinite spam.
The advertisement goons are now incapable of determining who is a bot and who is an actual human. The advertisement goons no longer want to pay as much to social media networks.
Social media networks, in full blown panic of losing potential revenue, decided to lobby governments saying "we gotta protect the kids! ID everyone to protect the kids from pedophiles!".
The social media networks know this doesn't really protect kids. But, it does two things (and a third accidentally).
- They now can identify who is human and who is AI slop machine, or enough to appease the advertisement goons
- Advertising to children is a general no-no from politicians, or something, so with ID verification they can say with confidence they're not advertising to children because it's been ID verification. Basically, they can weed out the children and focus on advertising to adults
- The feds can now tell who is human and who is AI slop. This inadvertently helps them with tracking people and serving fresh daily dumps of propaganda, or whatever they want to do.
It's a win-win-win for advertisers, social media networks, the government, and any business which does data collections.
It fucks over everyone else.
Chat, I'm not going to lie to you. This is an extremely good conspiracy schizo theory and I unironically believe it.
Anarki_
in reply to LiamBox • • •like this
potatoguy likes this.
BeN9o
in reply to LiamBox • • •"Advertising to Children is a general no-no.."
Uhh what? Advertising to children is like no1 priority. That's why Kim K etc is in fortnite, happy meals are bad food aimed at kids and of course standard TV adverts can be heavily aimed at kids, even tho its the parents spending the money.
like this
potatoguy likes this.
d00ery
in reply to BeN9o • • •UK junk food ad ban so diluted it may be largely ineffective, experts say
Denis Campbell (The Guardian)damnthefilibuster
in reply to d00ery • • •jedibob5
in reply to damnthefilibuster • • •damnthefilibuster
in reply to jedibob5 • • •jedibob5
in reply to damnthefilibuster • • •damnthefilibuster
in reply to jedibob5 • • •jedibob5
in reply to damnthefilibuster • • •atomicbocks
in reply to damnthefilibuster • • •damnthefilibuster
in reply to atomicbocks • • •atomicbocks
in reply to damnthefilibuster • • •damnthefilibuster
in reply to atomicbocks • • •atomicbocks
in reply to damnthefilibuster • • •damnthefilibuster
in reply to atomicbocks • • •new_world_odor
in reply to damnthefilibuster • • •I think you make a fair point here, partially. However, Marlboro could also advertise on snapchat if they wanted. Now there's no doubt something like that would catch massive eyes, landing them in hot enough water to probably change the law around it. If Marlboro leadership saw Juul as a threat, that would make sense to do. They lose a pittance in advertising and court fees, and cut off a competitor from an advertising stream.
But they're not a threat, they're an asset. Altria, the parent company of Philip Morris and NJOY, has a 35% stake in Juul. Altria is incentivized to keep their piles of shit separate.
Vaping has the potential to be healthier than cigarettes, socially and physically. But not when it's almost entirely controlled by companies that have a history of marketing to children. It's physically healthier sure, but only 107 countries have laws regulating the age for vaping, vs 188 for cigarettes. The e-waste factor is also huge, something that a lot of people who vape choose to ignore and I wish they couldn't. I vape myself, have for years, and it's a shit s
... Show more...I think you make a fair point here, partially. However, Marlboro could also advertise on snapchat if they wanted. Now there's no doubt something like that would catch massive eyes, landing them in hot enough water to probably change the law around it. If Marlboro leadership saw Juul as a threat, that would make sense to do. They lose a pittance in advertising and court fees, and cut off a competitor from an advertising stream.
But they're not a threat, they're an asset. Altria, the parent company of Philip Morris and NJOY, has a 35% stake in Juul. Altria is incentivized to keep their piles of shit separate.
Vaping has the potential to be healthier than cigarettes, socially and physically. But not when it's almost entirely controlled by companies that have a history of marketing to children. It's physically healthier sure, but only 107 countries have laws regulating the age for vaping, vs 188 for cigarettes. The e-waste factor is also huge, something that a lot of people who vape choose to ignore and I wish they couldn't. I vape myself, have for years, and it's a shit state of affairs with how popular disposables are. But I don't know what the realistic solution is. People are going to use tobacco products in a dystopia.
ParlimentOfDoom
in reply to damnthefilibuster • • •WoodScientist
in reply to d00ery • • •When was the last time any company got prosecuted for violating that? And was the fine less than the profit they made by violating the law?
damnthefilibuster
in reply to BeN9o • • •Facebook has known since over a decade that under 13s are on their networks and instead of booting them, the CEO (whoever he is) decided to make the platforms more addictive to under 13s. Real quote from the LA court case going on right now.
Also, the new CEO of Xbox Gaming is ex-AI Head of Microsoft and the ex-Head of under-13 policy at Facebook. So she did everything the CEO (whoever he is) asked her to do, including making the platforms more addictive and pushing back on govt intervention.
new_world_odor
in reply to BeN9o • • •kieron115
in reply to new_world_odor • • •I grew up in the 90s and there were some absolutely unhinged ads during saturday morning cartoons. This spoof is only slightly crazier than an actual capri sun liquid cool commercial.
youtu.be/eyd51lvu3xw
- YouTube
youtu.bestarblursd
in reply to BeN9o • • •ParlimentOfDoom
in reply to BeN9o • • •YouTube Kids has no ads at all because of this.
Google isn't doing this because they're being nice.
64bithero
in reply to LiamBox • • •Don’t know if it’s so much an issue with detecting what’s what. I think this just wildely opens the door to knowing who people are and being able to easily take even more data. All the while opening new opportunities to sell the tech to institutions that pull the data they want.
It’s not longer capitalism it’s griftalism
AmbitiousProcess (they/them)
in reply to LiamBox • • •I think it's probably not being pushed because of those things (though they are certainly possible outcomes), and more about the fact that they can just... scrape up a bunch of data about you in general.
Now they know your name, age, race, birthday, and can correlate that all with data brokers if they want more. Ad targeting becomes easier, thus making them more money. Simple as that.
greencoil
in reply to AmbitiousProcess (they/them) • • •I don't like this theory because they have already had access to this information with social media. Individuals willingly volunteer this information about themselves and their friends, and data brokers would collect and centralize it from multiple sources. This is why some platforms were trying out AI age verification in countries that hadn't officially mandated ID verification yet. They were confident enough, with all the info they had already collected, to assume someone's age. They would hope that the people who fail the check would be few enough to not cause an immediate uproar("just verify with ID, what's the big deal?")
This is most certainly more of an authoritarian power grab to prevent any anonymous criticism what so ever. Id verification will allow them to target any application that does not comply and preserves user privacy. Anyone who does not comply will be implied to be a criminal or enemy of the state. They want to make a system where corporate surveillance cannot be avoided.
The corporations lobbying for this want to benefit from being a part of the f
... Show more...I don't like this theory because they have already had access to this information with social media. Individuals willingly volunteer this information about themselves and their friends, and data brokers would collect and centralize it from multiple sources. This is why some platforms were trying out AI age verification in countries that hadn't officially mandated ID verification yet. They were confident enough, with all the info they had already collected, to assume someone's age. They would hope that the people who fail the check would be few enough to not cause an immediate uproar("just verify with ID, what's the big deal?")
This is most certainly more of an authoritarian power grab to prevent any anonymous criticism what so ever. Id verification will allow them to target any application that does not comply and preserves user privacy. Anyone who does not comply will be implied to be a criminal or enemy of the state. They want to make a system where corporate surveillance cannot be avoided.
The corporations lobbying for this want to benefit from being a part of the fascist state, but don't want to handle any legal obligation or public scrutiny from the obvious damages that will come from collecting this information. That's why you have different companies lobbying for different "solutions"; whatever keeps them from facing repercussions but still makes them money for being a part of the surveillance state is what they will support.
Pricklesthemagicfish
in reply to LiamBox • • •0li0li
in reply to Pricklesthemagicfish • • •SendMePhotos
in reply to LiamBox • • •Earthman_Jim
in reply to SendMePhotos • • •Infernal_pizza
in reply to LiamBox • • •peacefulpixel
in reply to LiamBox • • •Kintarian
in reply to LiamBox • • •FreudianCafe
in reply to LiamBox • • •The main reason for all the censorship and end of privacy is because the world is heading to a major war and free flow of information goes against the interests of those behind the war. See the case with Gaza
Not that the other reasons don't exist, but advertisers are not the main one
Lojcs
in reply to LiamBox • • •MissesAutumnRains
in reply to Lojcs • • •Going with the post's idea for a moment, by making it law, the companies prevent any new social media from popping up and not requiring ID verification and stealing away all their users. "They can't say no, it's out of their hands because it's law".
Not to mention, if everyone has to do it in one country because of the law, it makes it easier to push it in other places because now it's a collective movement.
1984
in reply to LiamBox • • •No1
in reply to LiamBox • • •This is just the beginning.
You think it's just about ID?
Politicians in both the UK and Australia have spoken about banning VPNs, because VPNs have been used to avoid age verification in those countries.
daannii
in reply to No1 • • •Which is stupid. Kids aren't using vpns. Most good ones cost money. And kids aren't very tech savvy these days.
Most grow up with phones and tablets only. They don't even know how to use a keyboard or a PC.
eleitl
in reply to daannii • • •daannii
in reply to eleitl • • •eleitl
in reply to daannii • • •eleitl
in reply to No1 • • •If you want to see where we're going, look no farther than Russia's Internet. Which is currently much worse than China's.
So be prepared for your service to be degraded to unusability.
null
in reply to LiamBox • • •It makes more sense than it doesn't.
Maybe not as shadow cabal type of collusion, but as the path of least resistance that all these entities would find themselves going down independently... at the same time.
gray
in reply to LiamBox • • •rnercle
in reply to gray • • •redhorsejacket
in reply to rnercle • • •Hazarding a guess that they feel OP is using schizo as a shorthand reference for crazy/delusional, given the context is Internet conspiracy theories. They possibly feel that it is being used as a perjorative which disrespects folks who struggle with schizophrenia. In essence, calling something you find crazy "schizo" is the same as calling something you find dumb "retarded".
I don't have a dog in the fight one way or the other, but, in the absence of their reply, that's my assumption.
MDCCCLV
in reply to redhorsejacket • • •gray
in reply to MDCCCLV • • •ayyy
in reply to redhorsejacket • • •This is a great answer. It is worth noting that the word “dumb” used to literally mean what we now say is “non-verbal”. Funny how language changes.
See also: “lame”.
ayyy
in reply to rnercle • • •LemmyKnowsBest
in reply to gray • • •Agree because it's a real mental illness that some people are tornented with, and that word should not be thrown around playfully.
The word I didn't love from OOP was "unironically." I truly don't love that word.
rnercle
in reply to LemmyKnowsBest • • •Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In
in reply to rnercle • • •FauxLiving
in reply to LiamBox • • •This is good r/conspiracy (I mean on OG reddit, where people would ironically make up conspiracies (like birds aren't real (which they aren't, but it was first discovered on r/conspiracy unironically [wake up sheeple]))) material.
Like any good conspiracy, mixing factual statements into the conspiracy makes the bullshit taste better... so to speak.
ki9
in reply to FauxLiving • • •Just fyi the word "conspiracy" does not by definition mean it's bullshit.
Like for example
reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1r…
FauxLiving
in reply to ki9 • • •Avicenna
in reply to LiamBox • • •Gates9
in reply to LiamBox • • •eli
in reply to LiamBox • • •Want a real schizo theory?
People are going to use the ID verification thing to see which accounts are child accounts, pull all details for those accounts and make a database of children's accounts, and then sell that information to bad actors who plan to traffic children.
freedickpics
in reply to eli • • •murmelade
in reply to eli • • •kahoodd
in reply to LiamBox • • •FukOui
in reply to LiamBox • • •maplesaga
in reply to LiamBox • • •collapse_already
in reply to LiamBox • • •imjustmsk
in reply to LiamBox • • •What a beautiful world we live in.
(my first ever post in the fediverse lol)
ayyy
in reply to imjustmsk • • •DJ Putler
in reply to ayyy • • •DJ Putler
in reply to imjustmsk • • •UnimportantHuman
in reply to DJ Putler • • •MyVeryRealName
in reply to UnimportantHuman • • •DJ Putler
in reply to UnimportantHuman • • •IratePirate
in reply to LiamBox • • •Bullshit. Social networks track the living shit out of everyone and know exactly what's human traffic and what isn't. Device identifiers (user agent, IP ranges, browser fingerprint, (lack of) ad id, etc.) and behavioral patterns (including purchase history) differ wildly.
Bullshit. Even advertising to kids were outlawed (it isn't), politicians could be just bought off by advertisers to turn a blind eye. This is particularly true for the land of their formerly free and home of the formerly brave where corruption is now an above-the-counter item, practiced out in the open by the president himself.
silasmariner
in reply to IratePirate • • •Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In
in reply to IratePirate • • •Over 80% of Twitter’s accounts are actually bots
The difference now is that paying advertisers are demanding proof that their adverts are reaching humans, not bots.
Why are you given adverts for products you've just bought? So that paying advertisers can be tricked by the data into thinking their advert resulted in a sale.
Over 80% of Twitter accounts are likely bots: Former FBI security specialist
Simon Alvarez (TESLARATI)plyth
in reply to Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In • • •You could return it. They have to make sure that you stick to your choice.
bitwolf
in reply to LiamBox • • •If of wasn't Metas involvement, I was thinking it would be the first stab at a social credit system.
Is definitely a ploy to identify us all and certainly not to protect children.
GaMEChld
in reply to LiamBox • • •🧩 Hyper Rationalizing Autistic person here. My condition makes me view reality as systems within systems within systems with infinite recursion.
I have read this post.
I have not detected logical inconsistency in this theory... And all the facts that I know seem to support the hypothesis.
And yes I know I sound like AI. Ironically, AI tools tell me that too. 😅
If anyone wants to introduce a new premise or fact into the hypothetical scenario, I'll let you know if it makes sense or not (to me).
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In
in reply to GaMEChld • • •New premise.
New datacenters are not for AGI and never have been. The are to support the hyper personalisation of advertising that requires a massive surveillance apparatus and data mining operation.
GaMEChld
in reply to Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In • • •Correct. But not wholly correct. There are legitimate advancements being made by the serious ppl. But 99% yeah, it's a smokescreen and everyone sees it coming a mile away, and they think we're fucking stupid. They have no respect for us, the common people.
They are too busy robbing their own children of a future metaphorically, and then finishing up by raping and eating said children on the island.
Why?
Because:
Darkseid
Edit: Which is why I opted out of the system. I play games for fun. Unfair games are inherently not fun, so I stopped playing. Made a straight 🐝 Line to the exit.
Bought a house when the historic market low hit after 2008 recession during 2013.
Paid it down aggressively in 10 years with a cherry 2.3% interest rate.
Solar panels and efficiency upgrades to decrease lifetime cost of living.
Rent 50% of property for supplemental rental income (charging UNDER market rate intentionally because I am
... Show more...Correct. But not wholly correct. There are legitimate advancements being made by the serious ppl. But 99% yeah, it's a smokescreen and everyone sees it coming a mile away, and they think we're fucking stupid. They have no respect for us, the common people.
They are too busy robbing their own children of a future metaphorically, and then finishing up by raping and eating said children on the island.
Why?
Because:
Darkseid
Edit: Which is why I opted out of the system. I play games for fun. Unfair games are inherently not fun, so I stopped playing. Made a straight 🐝 Line to the exit.
Bought a house when the historic market low hit after 2008 recession during 2013.
Paid it down aggressively in 10 years with a cherry 2.3% interest rate.
Solar panels and efficiency upgrades to decrease lifetime cost of living.
Rent 50% of property for supplemental rental income (charging UNDER market rate intentionally because I am not trying to be greedy).
Filled property tax grievance to drive property tax down as much as possible.
In 2024 I retired at age 38 by allowing my unethical employer to walk into a wrongful termination lawsuit because they are morons who think they know more than me.
Litigation in progress but I can confidently predict the outcome.
They will either settle for 1 million, or take my custom package. If they value their pride they will settle. If they value money, they will take my custom package. If they litigate it will likely destroy their company. 1.6 million in fees and defense costs, a humiliating public loss, and then I will go tell local news just to finish them off for fun.
Oh and I did all that with a few emails and a couple forms for $0. Just answering the complaint alone has cost them $60k so far.
FATALITY.
thedeadwalking4242
in reply to GaMEChld • • •GaMEChld
in reply to thedeadwalking4242 • • •obey
in reply to LiamBox • • •BarneyPiccolo
in reply to obey • • •Eventually every USER will have to be identified on the Internet, to prove their age, so that we know they aren't children, because we want to protect children.
So I have to allow everything I say or do on the Internet to be exposed to the entire world, because parents can't be bothered to supervise their children's Internet use.
kablez
in reply to LiamBox • • •Advertising doesn't seem like a large enough lever to drive something this globally coordinated.
My read is that governments and large institutions are preparing for the kind of systemic instability climate change is going to produce.
Across the world we're already seeing laws and policies that quietly restrict the ability to organise, protest, or remain anonymous online, while surveillance capabilities expand at the same time. None of this is particularly popular, yet it keeps happening.
Why?
Because the next few decades are likely to involve continuous pressure from climate-driven problems: migration, water shortages, falling crop yields, energy instability, and the political conflict that follows when resources get tighter.
From that perspective, universal ID verification online isn't mainly about ads or "protecting the kids". It's about mapping who is who, who talks to who, and how information spreads.
If you expect future mass unrest, protest movements, or large-scale political instability, that kind of data becomes extremely valuable.
... Show more...Advertising doesn't seem like a large enough lever to drive something this globally coordinated.
My read is that governments and large institutions are preparing for the kind of systemic instability climate change is going to produce.
Across the world we're already seeing laws and policies that quietly restrict the ability to organise, protest, or remain anonymous online, while surveillance capabilities expand at the same time. None of this is particularly popular, yet it keeps happening.
Why?
Because the next few decades are likely to involve continuous pressure from climate-driven problems: migration, water shortages, falling crop yields, energy instability, and the political conflict that follows when resources get tighter.
From that perspective, universal ID verification online isn't mainly about ads or "protecting the kids". It's about mapping who is who, who talks to who, and how information spreads.
If you expect future mass unrest, protest movements, or large-scale political instability, that kind of data becomes extremely valuable.
And historically, elites often choose to invest more effort in managing the consequences of systemic problems than in solving the underlying causes.
So instead of "AI spam broke advertising", the bigger story might be that institutions are building the infrastructure to monitor and manage populations during a much messier future.
ArmchairAce1944
in reply to LiamBox • • •Resonosity
in reply to LiamBox • • •ipkpjersi
in reply to LiamBox • • •How is this a theory? This is literally what's happening lol
Even if it's not advertising itself pushing it, the rest of what was said is true.
metermatic26
in reply to LiamBox • • •Conspiracy theory? It’s not, it’s absolutely true. But they left out the bit about the quasi-alliance between big tech and right-wing extremists.
Tech bro’s want to keep their revenue streams, techno-fascists want to remove privacy barriers that stop them from training AI with your personal data and actual fascists want to crack down on public speech and dissidents.
The political right in both the US and EU are continuously working to remove privacy and surveillance restrictions under the auspices of free markets and innovation.
cøre
in reply to LiamBox • • •Ageless Linux — Software for Humans of Indeterminate Age
agelesslinux.orgfarfalla
in reply to LiamBox • • •quinnart
in reply to LiamBox • • •This is not a conspiracy. Look at who funded the bill, who wrote it, and who funded the opposition to the bill in each state. Every time one of these passes, each legislating body already has the votes the need to pass before the actual bill material surfaces.
Meta has reportedly funneled over $65 million into a network of four primary super PACs to manage this state-by-state strategy. While they appear distinct on paper to "scatter filings" and avoid centralized FEC scrutiny, they are managed by the same leadership: Brian Baker (a veteran GOP strategist) and the Democratic consulting firm Hilltop Public Solutions.
- American Technology Excellence Project (ATEP): The national "umbrella" super PAC that serves as the primary funding hub.
- Forge the Future Project: The GOP-focused arm, active in states like Texas, Florida, and Utah. It frames the legislation as a "parental rights" and "pro-family" issue.
- Making O
... Show more...This is not a conspiracy. Look at who funded the bill, who wrote it, and who funded the opposition to the bill in each state. Every time one of these passes, each legislating body already has the votes the need to pass before the actual bill material surfaces.
Meta has reportedly funneled over $65 million into a network of four primary super PACs to manage this state-by-state strategy. While they appear distinct on paper to "scatter filings" and avoid centralized FEC scrutiny, they are managed by the same leadership: Brian Baker (a veteran GOP strategist) and the Democratic consulting firm Hilltop Public Solutions.
The "Shadow" Advocate: Digital Childhood Alliance (DCA)
The group providing the "boots on the ground" testimony for these bills is the Digital Childhood Alliance. Investigations have found that:
How will this data be used? I’ll let you speculate, but let me reassure you that privacy is dead and a bunch of know-nothing geriatric pigs come up with a new way to destroy democracy every day.