Increasingly frantic attempts by the #AgeVerification & #OnlineSafetyBill community to dissuade people of the obvious logic that: in order to exclude a community from a website, just as much as to include one, in both cases you MUST process their data:

If a site says it is intended only for adults is there any way it can lawfully process children's data? I don't think so. The fact that the site's owners know there are tools available to keep kids out but refuses to use them only aggravates the data processing offence.

— John Carr (@johnc1912) February 23, 2022

I believe that the rationale is this: that the #ChildProtection and #OnlineSafety advocates DO NOT WANT people to understand that in order to identify (& treat specially) children, it is necessary TO IDENTIFY EVERYONE.

i.e. Worse than "cookie popups…"

> is there any way it can lawfully process children's data? I don't think so.

That is disproved by the process of age-verification; in order to establish age it is necessary to process data of all prospective users. Age verification necessitates processing identity of everyone.

— Alec Muffett (@AlecMuffett) February 23, 2022

i.e. Worse than "cookie popups…", the mechanisms of #AgeVerification and "protecting people from anonymous trolls" would demand a hodge-podge of logging-in, selfies, fingerprints, "email confirmations" and other hassle, just to watch cat videos.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/17737170/twitter-facebook-block-anonymous-accounts/

What they do not want people to realise is that the burdens will be upon THEM — to prove that you are not a child, to prove that you are not anonymous — and thereby, will render the Web considerably more unfriendly than it is already today.

The #OnlineSafetyBill is a disaster.

Originally tweeted by Alec Muffett (@AlecMuffett) on 2022/02/23.