1. A private company, let's call it AgeVerify, issues scratch-off cards with unique tokens on them. They are basically like gift cards.

2. AgeVerify's scratch-off cards are sold exclusively in IRL stores. Preferably liquor stores, adult stores, and/or tobacco/vape shops. Places that are licensed and check ID.

3. Anyone who wants to verify their age online can purchase a token at a store. The store must only demand ID if the buyer appears to be a minor (similar to alcohol or tobacco purchases). The store must never store the ID in any form whatsoever.

4. Giving or selling these tokens to a minor is a criminal offense. If a store does it, they lose their liquor or tobacco license. Treat it just like giving a minor alcohol or tobacco.

4a. Run public service announcement campaigns to communicate that giving an AgeVerify token to a child is like handing them a cigarette. There should be a clear social taboo associated with the legal ban.

5. The buyer of the AgeVerify token enters it into their account on whatever social media or adult website they want to use. The website validates the code with AgeVerify.

6. Once validated, the code is good for 1 year (or 6 months or 3 months, adjust based on how stringent you want to make it) - then it expires and a new one must be purchased.

7. A separate token is required for each website/each account.

8. The website is responsible for enforcing no account sharing.

No identifying information is stored anywhere. Kids find it very hard to access age-restricted materials online, just like the vast majority of kids don't easily have access to alcohol or cigarettes.

There’s so much that falls out of the social media definition. And regardless, kids are not stupid… VPNs, proxies, etc are easy to circumvent with.

Too much of a coordinated efforts between western countries, thus it cannot fail. The decisions have been made and your voice pretty much doesn't matter.

Plus, we saw that in Australia that the lobby behind the ban was in fact an ad agency that makes ads for gambling apps.

Here is France, the ban is probably just a way to avoid legislation against companies selling crap that isn't for kids like vape pens and sports gambling apps.

It's usual to say that MPs are old people that don't understand current technologies, but in law preparation committees they appear to be well aware; in particular, they mentioned a "double-anonymity" system where the site requesting your age wouldn't know your name, and the entity serving age requests wouldn't know which site it is for. They are also aware that people walk-around age verification checks with e.g. fake ID cards, possibly AI generated.

I'm not sure if it is actually doable reliabily, and I'm not sure either that the MPs that will have to vote the law will know the topic as well as the MPs participating in these committees.

I would personally consider other options like a one-button admin config for computers/smartphones/tablets that restricts access according to age (6-14, 15-18) and requiring online service providers to announce their "rating" in HTTP headers. Hackers will certainly object that young hackers could bypass this, but like copy-protection, the mission can be considered complete when the vast majority of people are prevented from doing what they should not do.

Alternatively one could consider the creation of a top-level domain with a "code of content" (which could include things like "chat control") enforced by controlling entity. Then again, an OS-level account config button could restrict all Internet accesses to this domain.

Perhaps an national agency could simply grant a "child safe" label to operating systems that comply to this.

This type of solutions would I think also be useful in schools (e.g. school-provided devices), although they are also talking about severely limiting screen-time at school.

For the french speakers, see:

[1] https://videos.assemblee-nationale.fr/video.17950525_6942684...

[2] https://videos.assemblee-nationale.fr/video.17952051_6942761...

They are implicitly the same thing.

You can't exclude children without first verifying _everyone_ and from there excluding people who match age < approved. This is basic logic.

If you were a cynical person you could imagine this is actually politicians wanting to bring in an ID law and using "think of the children" as the social justification for it.

If you're a conspiracy theorist you'd wonder why Apple and Google have now added the ability to upload and link your passport and other real id into their respective app wallets. How long before your phones browser is digitally signing all your social media posts with your ID...

Yet computer education in France has been severely lacking for so long. From middle school to even universities (except the courses computer focused obviously) people aren't taught correctly. Teachers themselves are lost to computers and lectures are bad.

The goal is obviously to have tech illiterate people knowing just enough to use computers for the job but not worrying about the digital autoristarism currently being deployed.

Unless they want to remove all of technology from 10pm to 8am, this bill is going to be ridiculous. Teenager and kid will always find better things to do than sleep.

Block the sites at the country level - good luck with that - or stfu.

This is never going to work, and in 20 years we'll all be laughing at this omg get the genie back in the bottle legislation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1RpYGJsp-A

Many of their citizens chose American social media because they prefer American values. This offended the nationalists so they are simply going to ban American sites and try to make their own inferior ones.

Traditional media (Murdoch) and traditional gambling lobbied the hardest for these laws (of course these are anything but traditional). This is a billion dollar gimme to newscorp, but they will probably still fail to pick up the younger audience because they can't compete.

In America we have freedom of religion and freedom of association, we used to have the freedom to put whatever we please in our own bodies and minds.

Besides, like many point out, this is just a way to deanonymize the web for everyone.

Why is the state always meddling with the citizens lives and personal responsibilities, and why do we let them? Do we really appreciate so much this nanny state?

[1] At best with a "trust us we won't tattle" "privacy" architecture.

I wish my country (USA) would adapt similar laws.

(We will still need the internet for communication, but hopefully far less for entertainment etc).