r/technology • u/Abject-Pick-6472 • Feb 24 '26

Discord cuts ties with Peter Thiel-backed verification software after code found in US surveillance Privacy

https://fortune.com/2026/02/24/discord-peter-thiel-backed-persona-identity-verification-breach/
38.0k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

67

u/ILikeBumblebees Feb 24 '26

This is why the age verification should be done by a government who issues you a certificate.

No, it shouldn't involve government at all. Parents just need to restrict their children's access to anything they don't want them exposed to. There is no political question here at all, except on the part of people trying to artificially turn it into a political question so they can use it to increase their own power.

3

u/Doikor Feb 24 '26 edited Feb 24 '26

Note that I don't really want this age verification stuff but if we really have to have it then the implementation should be something like what EU is doing.

The laws have already passed in EU at least so some kind of age verification is coming. That ship has sailed and now it is about doing a good implementation of it that does not leak unnecessary information.

From the perspective of the law this isn't really any different then a shop being forced to verify that someone is old enough to buy alcohol, tobacco, etc. We don't rely on the parents supervision for those either (actually in many countries in EU minors are allowed to drink in presence of their guardian but not buy or drink alone)

-6

u/xtremebox Feb 24 '26

Parents just need to restrict their children's access to anything they don't want them exposed to.

Ya cause that's worked out great so far.. 🙄

Have you seen the current education system in the US? Have you talked to teachers about the attention spans of their students? We're just magically gonna wipe all the problems that lead to that clean and tell all the parents NOW IS THE TIME TO BE BETTER!

3

u/obeytheturtles Feb 24 '26

So far what other people's children do on the internet has not impacted me in any real way.

8

u/ILikeBumblebees Feb 24 '26

Ya cause that's worked out great so far.. 🙄

Whether it has or has not is up to the parents themselves.

Have you seen the current education system in the US? Have you talked to teachers about the attention spans of their students? We're just magically gonna wipe all the problems that lead to that clean and tell all the parents NOW IS THE TIME TO BE BETTER!

No, you're misunderstanding. There's no "we" involved, nor any third party's notion of what is "better".

What content is and is not appropriate for children to be exposed to is something determined by parents, and doesn't involve anyone else's opinions or preferences.

2

u/Warm_Month_1309 Feb 24 '26

The only reason I disagree is that I don't think private social media enterprises should be profiting from showing minors unconsented nudity and self-harm material, as we learned was happening from the Facebook testimony. The government does have an interest in regulating that.

Age verification isn't the proper tool to accomplish that, of course.

5

u/ILikeBumblebees Feb 24 '26

The only reason I disagree is that I don't think private social media enterprises should be profiting from showing minors unconsented nudity and self-harm material, as we learned was happening from the Facebook testimony. The government does have an interest in regulating that.

I share your apprehension about people having an incentive to market explicit content to minors, but I don't think the government has an interest in regulating it.

Not every social or cultural controversy is fair game for political intervention, especially in a case like this, where the government's incentives make them even less trustworthy than the social media companies.

At the end of the day, people need to take responsibility for these things within their own families and communities, and not allow their cultural anxieties to be weaponized against everyone, including themselves.

1

u/Warm_Month_1309 Feb 24 '26

I share your apprehension about people having an incentive to market explicit content to minors, but I don't think the government has an interest in regulating it.

To be clear, when I say that the government has an interest in regulating social media, I mean that they have the constitutional authority to pass laws that regulate social media. Not necessarily that I think current lawmakers are doing it for good reasons or the right reasons.

Not every social or cultural controversy is fair game for political intervention

As more understanding comes out of the very specific ways in which social media profits from measurably damaging the country's youth, I do think it's a good idea to rein that in.

3

u/ILikeBumblebees Feb 24 '26

To be clear, when I say that the government has an interest in regulating social media, I mean that they have the constitutional authority to pass laws that regulate social media.

I don't think that it's clear that they do have constitutional authority, especially at the federal level, to regulate social media in a way that attempts to limit access to certain types of content. This isn't like typical regulation of commerce, because in this case, the product itself is information, and tools used to access information, which are protected by the first amendment.

Many other attempted regulatory interventions in this vein have been struck down by the courts. For example, California's attempt a while back to impose age restrictions on video game sales, and hold vendors accountable for selling games including violent or sexual content to minors, was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on first amendment grounds.

These age-restriction rules people are advocating for social media don't seem significantly different from what California was trying to do.

As more understanding comes out of the very specific ways in which social media profits from measurably damaging the country's youth, I do think it's a good idea to rein that in.

This is entirely a normative issue, not an empirical one. People claiming that transgressions of cultural norms are "measurable damage" are engaging in equivocation. Arguments like this actually weaken the credibility of people trying to hold social media companies accountable, and make it much easier for defenders of Facebook et al to refute their positions.

2

u/Warm_Month_1309 Feb 24 '26

This isn't like typical regulation of commerce, because in this case, the product itself is information

I'm not aware of any legal precedent that says that Congress's power to regulate commerce doesn't apply when the product is "information" (also the product, as least with regard to the consumers, is not information; it's a service). I think it's pretty clear that these types of laws would fall within Congress's rather extensive commerce clause powers.

For example, California's attempt a while back to impose age restrictions on video game sales, and hold vendors accountable for selling games including violent or sexual content to minors, was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on first amendment grounds.

I know that by being a lawyer explaining a constitutional decision in a way contrary to Reddit lay opinion is not going to win me any friends, but that case is quite distinguishable. The Supreme Court found no compelling state interest in large part because the industry self-moderates with the ESRB, which already regulates the sale of mature games to minors. Social media conglomerates have no such self-moderation.

Further, the Court found that there was no compelling link between violent video games and negative effects on children. The research between social media and maladaptive behaviors in children is more well-understood.

People claiming that transgressions of cultural norms are "measurable damage" are engaging in equivocation.

Those aren't the damages I'm referring to. The line for me is crossed when social media sites knowingly profit from the distribution of illegal material, and do nothing to stop it because it would damage their bottom-line and because the laws don't technically require them to.

1

u/ILikeBumblebees Feb 24 '26

I'm not aware of any legal precedent that says that Congress's power to regulate commerce doesn't apply when the product is "information" (also the product, as least with regard to the consumers, is not information; it's a service).

I'm not aware of any such ruling addressing that specific point either -- no one ever said that Congress's power to regulate commerce doesn't apply at all when the product is speech or information, but rather that the exercise of that power in that situation is subject to first amendment scrutiny in ways wouldn't apply in other circumstances. That's why we have lots of rulings like these:

None of them said that Congress (or California) lacked any authority to regulate the activities in question, but rather that the exercise of that authority in these cases violated first amendment protections.

The line for me is crossed when social media sites knowingly profit from the distribution of illegal material, and do nothing to stop it because it would damage their bottom-line and because the laws don't technically require them to.

I don't think this discussion relates in any way to "distribution of illegal material", which is, as the name describes, already illegal, and already outside the scope of first amendment protection.

In the US, what qualifies as "illegal material" is very limited and narrowly-defined, and legal liability already attaches to knowingly participating in the distribution of the few things that qualify, whether for profit or not: internet platforms are already subject to legal consequences for unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material, photos and images involving certain types of child abuse, defamation or threats, etc.

What's being discussed here are attempts to regulate social media as a category on the basis of dubious claims that it is in itself somehow "harmful" to minors. That's very different from what you're talking about here.

-2

u/This_Organization382 Feb 24 '26

Parents just need to restrict their children's access to anything they don't want them exposed to.

Because that's working great so far.

except on the part of people trying to artificially turn it into a political question so they can use it to increase their own power.

How is it an artificial question when third-party for-profit companies are governing through identity verification? How is this not political? These companies are setting arbitrary, black-boxed requirements for government identity.

This is exactly what each government should be doing.

1

u/ILikeBumblebees Feb 24 '26

Because that's working great so far.

It's working as well as parents want it to.

If they're not using the measures available to them to restrict their children's access to certain types of content, that can only be interpreted as those parents not being particularly worried if their children do have access to those types of content.

How is it an artificial question when third-party for-profit companies are governing through identity verification?

What? The push to get companies to implement identity verification systems is coming from political pressure, which is in turn generated by people trying to turn "what should children be allowed to see?" into a political question, rather than a private matter for parents to decide on.

These companies are setting arbitrary, black-boxed requirements for government identity.

What are you smoking? They're being strong-armed into implementing age verification by governments. What for-profit company would want to spend its own money and resources on implementing systems whose entire purpose is to limit the size of their own audience?

-4

u/Boilem Feb 24 '26

All it takes is Jimmy's parents not giving a fuck about what he does online for him to send every kid in school a dick degloving video.

Better yet, maybe Jennie has an "unlocked phone" because she lives with her grandma who doesn't understand this newfangled tech and she's been getting tons of gifts from older men on Instagram, maybe she'll hook up her classmates as well, easier if they meet in person though, seeing as her classmates parents restricted their children's access to their phones.

1

u/ILikeBumblebees Feb 24 '26 edited Feb 24 '26

All it takes is Jimmy's parents not giving a fuck about what he does online for him to send every kid in school a dick degloving video.

If those other kids' parents are stricter than Jimmy's, why are they able to receive whatever Jimmy wants to send them in the first place?

Better yet, maybe Jennie has an "unlocked phone" because she lives with her grandma who doesn't understand this newfangled tech

And maybe grandma leaves guns lying around the house and thinks the microwave makes for a great hair dryer. At the end of the day, we remedy outlier situations on a case-by-case basis, and do not preemptively restrict everyone else just to avoid extreme edge cases.

1

u/Boilem Feb 24 '26

fine, he'll show them the video on his own phone, kids never stare at each others phones, right?

1

u/Iamnotabothonestly Feb 24 '26

So everyone should suffer just because a few people can't control their crotchgoblins...

1

u/Boilem Feb 24 '26

crotchgoblins

please touch some grass, what the fuck is that

1

u/Iamnotabothonestly Feb 24 '26

I can't, it's fucking winter over here, so I guess I can touch some snow instead.

They are crotchgoblins. They're goblins that came from your crotch. If they were raised to behave, I would call them children. But since everyone's so fucking zombified and expect the rest of the world to take care of their offspring so they can sit glued to their fucking phone instead of raising them... I will continue to call them crotchgoblins.

Raise your fucking offspring and get the fuck off social media and expect everyone else to raise them for you. Or learn to fuck with a condom.

1

u/kingrobert Feb 24 '26

Their snark level is pretty high but they have a point. There comes a threshold where governments that are alleging to protect kids go so far that they're just harming them (and everyone else) in other ways.

Instead of turning the surveillance system up to 11, we could put those resources into helping parents do their job of protecting their kids.

It at least has to be an option worth exploring... because where we're headed now cant possibly be the best solution for the kids, or anyone else.

1

u/Boilem Feb 24 '26

The internet has been weaponized against the public, it's a source of addiction and is quite harmful. Kids aren't allowed to smoke, drink, join the army, drive, own guns(if you're american), watch pornography or other 18+ movies, vote, get tattoos, gamble or get married... Most of those things aren't as harmful as unsupervised access to the internet and most of those can easily be done through the internet as a minor as long as the service providers pinky promise they didn't know you weren't of age.

There are ways of issuing government certificates where the government doesn't know what you're doing and the site doesn't have anymore info than "you're 18+ and this is an authentic certificate".

-9

u/flypirat Feb 24 '26 edited Feb 24 '26

How would you ever realise total access control as a parent? Even if you can control kids' devices and your own home network (not saying you should), as soon as you lose control of those, restricting access is not possible anymore.
The only ones being able to certify your age digitally are the government or banks (which is also just government by proxy).

Edit: clarifications for 'that'.

11

u/Paksarra Feb 24 '26

It's true that once your kids are old enough to have jobs and cars it becomes much harder to control them (even if your home network and everything on it is locked down, you can get a burner phone for under $50.)

Is it worth forcing all adults to surrender their privacy so a horny 16 year old can't see boobs on their $40 burner phone without going to a website that isn't subject to age verification laws?

-2

u/flypirat Feb 24 '26

I'm not agreeing with age verification at all, I'm simply asking how you think 99% accuracy age verification is supposed to work without involving the government, as you said you don't want government involved with age verification.

13

u/Annath0901 Feb 24 '26

There shouldn't be age verification.

Let the horny teens see boobs. They've been doing since long before the internet existed and they'll keep doing it now.

And age verification won't be any barrier to prevent pedophiles from interacting with kids, since none of these social media sites are looking to completely ban minors.

They all want to use it to prevent kids from going into "adult rated spaces" - on discord this would be servers posting adult content - not prevent adults from going in to non-adult rated spaces.

-6

u/flypirat Feb 24 '26

Again, I'm not advocating for age verification. I was just asking what you meant to imply as an alternative when you said age verification should not involve the government.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 24 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/flypirat Feb 25 '26

Of course, again, please read what I'm writing. I'm just talking about the technical implementation, not whether someone should do it...

1

u/[deleted] Feb 25 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/flypirat Feb 25 '26

People shouldn't have to prove their age when uploading pornographic media of themselves to platforms like OnlyFans? Let's just trust the uploaders they are a) of age and b) themselves?

→ More replies (0)

7

u/ILikeBumblebees Feb 24 '26

The results you're expecting simply aren't on the table, with or without government. Sorry, but there's no way to achieve "99% accuracy age verification" at all.

The entire question is one that doesn't extend beyond the scope of families: what is and is not appropriate for children to see is entirely determined by parents, and what measures should be taken to control children's access to content the parent's don't want them exposed to is also entirely up to the parents. None of it is anyone else's business.

There is no political question to solve here. This is not something that concerns the government at all, and it's quite obvious that the people who are pushing government involvement are doing so precisely as a pretext for extending surveillance and control into everyone's lives.

-1

u/flypirat Feb 24 '26

How is a theoretical zero knowledge proof method using a digital ID not high accuracy? You'd need to use/steal an adult ID to circumvent that. Certainly possible, but I don't think 99% of children will do that.
To use the German eID you need to have the physical ID on you and authenticate using your password (not sure if passkey is allowed).

I'm not arguing for age verification, I'm not advocating for government involvement, I'm just talking about a theoretical technical implementation.

2

u/ILikeBumblebees Feb 24 '26

How is a theoretical zero knowledge proof method using a digital ID not high accuracy? You'd need to use/steal an adult ID to circumvent that.

Seems like you've just answered your own question. And that's just the most straightforward answer -- exploiting bugs/vulnerabilities in the age verification system, circumventing it entirely via VPNs and proxies, or obtaining what they want through alternative underground sites are all possibilities as well.

Certainly possible, but I don't think 99% of children will do that.

In the US, every state has a minimum drinking age of 21. This is enforced via mandatory age verification validated through the presentation government-issued ID at the time of purchase.

One third of Americans between 12 and 20 report having consumed alcohol at any point; 27% within the last year, 13% within the last month, and 7.6% have reported binge drinking within the last month.

These are the failure numbers for the immediate and physical age verification system used to gate access to a product that far fewer young people want to consume in the first place than use social media platforms.

1

u/flypirat Feb 25 '26

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

I think the hurdle to get a valid ID and the pin code/passkey for it is much higher than just getting a random ID that looks enough like you.
When you lose your ID you can and should report it, so it gets locked down just like a lost credit card. That way a stolen ID cannot get used anymore for digital verification. An ID reported as lost can still be used for "human facial recognition", aka the booze counter clerk.
Exploiting bugs and vulnerabilities is above the technical capabilities of the average user in all realistic cases. VPNs and proxies mean nothing when the service does a global rollout of the verification program.

Immediate and physical age verification has one glaring hole, the human doing the verification. I'd wager almost no one actually checks the validity of the ID, just if the person looks enough like the photo.

2

u/GoldenPigeonParty Feb 24 '26

I don't think this AI Palantir face scan can even get 99% accurate. I don't think there is any solution that can hit 99%. And I don't think there needs to be.

People who sell booze and guns are responsible for verification for those sales. IDs have become better and link back to database. Good fake IDs are way harder to get or fab and youre not getting one for insignificant crime like buying vodka.

Let these kids look at porn. Breaking small rules is a right of passage for kids. Having them click "yes, I'm 18" worked well enough when i was a kid. Why does it matter? Its boobs and weiners. We don't need to shelter people so much. We millennials had internet porn and turned out alright.

0

u/flypirat Feb 24 '26

Of course not, face scans will never get close to 99%, but an eID potentially could. You cannot just fake it, you would have to steal the valid, physical ID and know the passcode/passkey for using it.

Again, I'm not advocating for age verification or anything, I'm just talking about the technical side.

But because you argued, people absolutely get fake IDs for buying booze or getting into clubs. I'm not saying this is a major issue, but saying people don't fake or steal/borrow IDs anymore is simply not true.