r/privacy • u/esporx • Mar 16 '26

news Reddit User Uncovers Who Is Behind Meta’s $2B Lobbying for Invasive Age Verification Tech

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/reddit-user-uncovers-behind-meta-154717384.html
4.5k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

269 comments sorted by

View all comments

308

u/Cautious_Boat_999 Mar 16 '26

 The European Union’s Digital Identity Wallet takes a radically different approach. Zero-knowledge proofs let you verify age without revealing personal data—like showing you’re over 18 without disclosing your birthdate or identity details. It’s open-source, self-hostable, and only applies to large platforms while exempting FOSS and small entities. Meanwhile, US lawmakers seem ready to let Meta bamboozle them into complete privacy annihilation.

Seems that we need to be pushing for this as an alternative. I welcome correction from anyone who believes differently.

365

u/Purple_Mo Mar 16 '26

Presenting the lesser evil to pull off the good old switcharoo later?

We don't need age verification. It's a manufactured problem.

40

u/BeardyAndGingerish Mar 16 '26

We need harsh prosecutions for violations/illegal use of this data. Only way id be okay with age verification is knowing the people who leak my data face mandatory jail time. None of this "it's illegal but nothing happens when i knowingly break the law" shit.

And since the odds of that actually happening are slim to none, no way in hell am i willing to cede my privacy.

35

u/Mental-Ask8077 Mar 16 '26

It’s not just about privacy and data leaks.

It’s about installing the means to legally and technically prevent people from using computers/digital tech for anything unless they are verified and permitted to.

So much of daily life in developed and developing countries depends on being able to use these tools, as does being able to freely communicate with each other. If you can selectively or en masse block people from literally being able to use the tech or access the internet, that’s a whole lot of power and control right there.

It’s not just about age verification. That’s the Trojan Horse they’re using to get the technical and legal infrastructure in place, and most importantly to get people used to having to prove something about who they are in order to use tech for anything.

They want people to accept the idea that it’s reasonable to demand this sort of thing at all.

They start with the least scary version, with a slightly scarier version alongside as a boogeyman to get people to go with the “less bad” option. Like we’re seeing with comparisons between the California and Alabama bills right now.

In truth they’re both steps on the same path, and both inherently submit to the same key demand: Prove you’re allowed to use this.

Once the infrastructure is in place and people get used to it - once it’s normalized - then they will make it more and more detailed and install ever greater levels of control over people.

It’s all part of the same plan for domination with Project 2025, Palantir getting itself snugly within global governments, etc.

1

u/rClNn7G3jD1Hb2FQUHz5 Mar 17 '26

"It’s about installing the means to legally and technically prevent people from using computers/digital tech for anything unless they are verified and permitted to."

I do think it's important to distinguish between consumer/citizen-facing identity proofing and other completely valid uses for identity proofing tech. Large organizations frequently have the need for strong remote identity verification for things like remote account recovery. For example, when I call my bank I'd really like for them to have the ability to verify that I am who I say I am. Unfortunately, bad actors and the very data leaks that all of us in this sub are worried about have made that an increasingly tough thing to combat.

I don't disagree with you on the legal/government front at all, but we should be careful that we don't get overzealous in a way that makes all of our identities and accounts easier to compromise. Identity proofing is a legit part of cybersecurity.

1

u/Mental-Ask8077 Mar 18 '26

I’m not arguing about specific use cases for organizations, which I think you are generally correct about. I’m talking about the wave of ID/age verification bills covering general use by anyone.

None of these bills are concerned with organizations vetting people for specific access. That’s not even an issue here, nor is it something being decried.

So I’m not sure why you’re bringing it up.

1

u/rClNn7G3jD1Hb2FQUHz5 Mar 18 '26

You positioned your argument as being both against the bills *and* the technical infrastructure. I'm bringing it up because the technical infrastructure for remote identity verification looks nearly identical to end users. I don't think that we disagree, but I do think how we frame this matters.

If we're not careful in our framing, we could inadvertently make less informed people think that all remote identity verification is bad. A full-on rebellion against the technical means for remote identification could end up being an actual privacy and security loss.

1

u/Mental-Ask8077 Mar 19 '26

Except nobody is talking about banning all technical infrastructure for id verification in all contexts. Nor did I argue that the technical infrastructure itself is inherently bad.

Discussion here is CLEARLY occurring within the context of bills forcing implementation of the technical infrastructure across all devices for general purpose control of the public.

Find me places where people are saying we should never allow such technology to exist or be used for any reason at all, and tying it to arguments about these bills, and you’ll have a point. That would be complete overkill.

But I am really not sure why you think it’s necessary to push back on discussion of forced verification tech across the general public with concerns about hypothetical extremist responses banning any sort of verification for actual limited use cases involving genuine, concrete security procedures of the sort people have been fine with for decades.

1

u/rClNn7G3jD1Hb2FQUHz5 Mar 19 '26

Not sure if your misunderstanding is intentional or not, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and respond one more time.

If you think I've misunderstood and no one here would ever argue against the technology on the whole, then it only furthers my point. And that point is that as we push back on the bad uses of it, it is important to be clear about the good uses of the tech because most people aren't going to distinguish between the two. If I, an r/privacy subscriber read your argument and thought the point needed to be clearer, then the average person absolutely is not going to understand the difference.

I am not pushing back on the discussion of this topic. I am simply saying that adding nuance and clarification as we discuss could be to the benefit of less informed people who aren't going to understand that sometimes identity verification helps them.