Online age-verification laws are reasonable, effective and long overdue
Laws such as Texas's age verification law, which the Supreme Court determined last week to be constitutional, simply require websites with a substantial amount of pornographic content to verify that users are adults before granting them access. Eighteen other states have passed similar laws and more are considering them.
This isn't radical or unprecedented. We already ask for ID to buy alcohol, enter a casino or watch an R-rated film in a theater. Why would watching sex online be treated differently from watching it in person?
Critics argue that these laws are ineffective because tech-savvy teenagers will find workarounds using VPNs. But no state law creates an exemption that says children can access porn if they just disguise their locations. The legal obligation remains on the website to prevent access when it cannot confirm that a user is outside of a state that requires age verification. Just as online gambling platforms restrict access based on state laws, porn sites can and should use the same geolocation tools.
Others suggest that age verification poses an unacceptable risk to user privacy. That may have been a legitimate concern in the past, but the technology has evolved. Today's methods — whether scanning a government ID, using facial age estimation or checking reusable credentials — can be performed entirely on the user's device, with no need to transmit or store any personal information. Even if private data is used, it is not kept. As many cybersecurity experts will tell you, the only truly un-hackable database is no database at all.
It's also worth noting that age verification need not be a repeated task. Interoperable, reusable systems already exist (e.g. AgeAware). In many cases, a user can complete a check once and then reuse the result across multiple websites. And these checks take just seconds — comparable to unlocking a phone with Face ID or scanning a boarding pass. Framing this as an 'undue burden' is out of step with how people already interact with technology every day.
Some critics point to education as a better solution. But this is not an either-or choice. Of course we should educate teens about healthy relationships, consent and digital safety. But education alone isn't enough. No public health strategy relies solely on education. We combine it with reasonable safeguards — seat belts, warning labels, firewalls, vaccinations.
Porn literacy might help a teenager interpret what they're seeing, but it doesn't stop a 10-year-old from stumbling into violent or degrading content before he or she is ready to process it. Admittedly, the goal of age verification is not perfection. It is to stop most children from seeing most pornography most of the time. That is a reasonable benchmark. And it works, especially when combined with enforcement.
Parents also have a role to play. Age verification is one layer of protection but not the only one. Families should still take advantage of parental controls provided by internet service providers, home routers, device operating systems and app stores. But these tools have limits and many parents either don't know how to use them or find them difficult to set up. That's why we need a consistent enforceable standard at the website level where the content originates.
There is strong bipartisan support for these measures. A national poll by RMG Research found that 83 percent of Americans support a federal requirement for age verification on pornographic websites. That's not culture war politics. That's a mainstream consensus that children deserve basic protections online. Age verification laws aren't about banning speech. They're about updating our digital infrastructure to reflect values we already hold — that some content is for adults only and that children should be protected from harm, especially when it's preventable.
Done well, age verification laws can protect children, preserve privacy and uphold adult freedoms. The real threat is not age verification — the real threat is pretending that the status quo is good enough.
Iain Corby is executive director of the Age Verification Providers Association, the global trade body representing providers of privacy-preserving age assurance technologies. He is regularly called as an expert witness to advise legislators around the world on how the latest online age checks operate.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How Elon Musk's Third Party Gamble Could Succeed
Elon Musk is reentering national politics after a brief hiatus, vowing to disrupt the midterm elections with a new 'America Party' that will contest a narrow set of federal offices and aim to control the balance of power in Congress. It's a daring scheme if Musk commits to it, which is by no means certain. His alliance with President Trump lasted less than a year, his role at DOGE just a few months and his recent vow of abstinence from national politics only days. So what would a serious attempt at this plan look like? The usual third-party fantasy in Washington involves finding unicorn candidates who can claim the ideological center and rally temperate problem-solvers on all sides (see: Unity08, No Labels, Americans Elect, Bloomberg 2016.) This is a recipe for failure in a divided country where most Americans have chosen a side. Musk's plan can only work if he learns from the most successful political disruptors, including Trump on the right and Bernie Sanders on the left, and identifies places where both political parties are neglecting the real preferences of voters. This means not finding a midpoint on a left-right spectrum but rather seizing issues beyond the standard D-versus-R menu. Trump built his political rise on three areas of policy where much of the electorate felt unrepresented: immigration, trade and global security. He rejected Clinton- and Bush-era consensus on all three. For Musk's new party to have a purpose, it must find similar ideological targets of opportunity. Here are three that might make sense: — Championing free trade. Trump shattered U.S. trade policy and reorganized national politics around protectionism. In a way, he was too successful. Now, there is no longer a major party that consistently backs lowering trade restrictions and defends free trade as a force for good. The Republican Party is so deferential to Trump's worldview that even former free-trade conservatives now mouth support for the most aggressive tariff policy in generations. Among Democrats, there are plenty of officials eager to trash Trump's version of protectionism — and far fewer making an affirmative case for free trade. Even the Biden administration tried to coopt rather than roll back MAGA trade policies. This protectionist consensus excludes most has found since 2015 that at least 60 percent of independent voters consistently see foreign trade as an opportunity rather than a threat; this spring, that number stood at 81 percent and even higher among Democrats. This is a fat opportunity for a political disruptor willing to defy regional voting blocs and special interests. — Radical fiscal rebalancing. Most Americans say they worry about government overspending and debt. Neither major party is credible on this issue. The Biden administration grew the size of government, failed to enact promised tax hikes on the wealthy and only proposed raising taxes in the first place to pay for more spending. Republicans, meanwhile, have put tax cuts ahead of fiscal responsibility at every opportunity for a quarter century; Trump's Big Beautiful Bill put America on track to assume trillions in new debt,obscuring that reality with a brazen congressional accounting trick. It is unclear how many Americans would vote for a take-your-medicine party that advocates fiscal austerity, even if that means asking conservatives to raise taxes and left-leaning voters to give up on resurrecting the New Deal era. Perhaps someone should find out. Musk — whose sneering, chainsaw-swinging DOGE theatrics alienated much of the public — is not the ideal figure to test this proposition. Other wild-card outsiders, running for office backed by Musk's money, might connect on this issue. — Securing American technological and scientific supremacy. Both parties say they want the United States to outcompete China and dominate this century. When it comes to scientific research and technological competition, Republicans and Democrats tend to subordinate that goal to factional and cultural politics. The Trump administration's onslaught against elite universities, its crackdown on foreign students and academics and the grant-slashing spree carried out by DOGE have upended some of America's core strategic assets in a global intellectual arms race. In his post-DOGE persona, Musk also blistered Trump's sprawling tax law for 'severely damaging industries of the future' — a reference to the legislation's attempt to throttle growing parts of the clean-energy sector where the United States is already lagging behind China. Democrats have not gone on the attack like this against incubators of innovation. But they have treated investment in technology as a vehicle for other social change, rather than as an end unto itself. Exhibit A is the Biden administration's implementation of the CHIPS Act, when a law aimed at upgrading U.S. semiconductor manufacturing became an instrument for advancing progressive workplace equity policies. And Biden kept tech tycoons like Musk himself at a distance, viewing them as malignant oligarchs despite some obvious overlapping interests. Despite his DOGE record, Musk could be a magnet for this strain of politics: one that says the United States must win the future by amassing all the intellectual and industrial might it can muster, using every available lever of policy — including the tax code, trade deals, immigration policy, energy regulation and more. High-tech research policy is not typical soapbox fare. But American leaders have a history of inspiring voters with scientific goals, separated from other cultural and interest-group politics. John F. Kennedy did not say the United States would put a man on the moon, so long as rockets were built in compliance with Davis-Bacon. Ronald Reagan did not call for scientists to help make nuclear weapons obsolete, provided that no woke postdocs were working in the lab. Is all this an agenda for Musk's America Party? Probably not. It's unclear that the party will exist in any organized form or that Musk is even capable of executing a disciplined political strategy. Still, in an age of churning disorder in U.S. politics, these ideological gaps and blind spots are opportunities for any political entrepreneur — especially one who can freely spend billions of dollars on an electoral experiment.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Economic analyst blasts Trump's ‘unprecedented' megabill: Americans will be ‘worse off'
'Morning Joe' economic analyst Steve Rattner warns that Donald Trump's 'unprecedented' spending package will take the United States in the 'wrong direction.' On Monday morning, the former Obama-era Treasury official pulled out a set of new charts to break down the president's 'big, beautiful' bill and the devastating effects he said it will have on everyday Americans. Initially, according to Rattner, people might not feel the true cost of Trump's legislation: 'All the good stuff takes effect now. People are going to get these increases in their standard deduction and their Child Tax Credit. The Social Security Administration has already sent out a letter to Social Security recipients saying, 'you're going to get a big tax windfall from this bill.' So they're already out there marketing this.' 'The bad stuff doesn't take effect, for the most part, until after the '26 midterm elections,' Rattner continued. '[Republicans] staggered this stuff in a way that could work to their political advantage, or at least less political harm.' Part of the 'bad stuff' packed into the megabill, according to the analyst, is how Republicans' drastic Medicaid cuts could kick 11 million people off their insurance over the coming decade. 'This is unprecedented in our history. We've always moved forward, not backwards,' Rattner said. Rattner then moved on to what he said was the most important chart of his presentation, which showed how Trump's bill would deliver tax cuts to the rich at the expense of low-income Americans. 'If you're in the top 20% of the country, you're going to get an average $6,000 benefit,' Rattner explained, as he pointed at a large green arrow. 'If you go down here to the bottom 20%, what do you see? These people are actually going to be worse off.' 'They get a very small tax cut, but it is completely, wildly offset by what they lose from Medicaid cuts, from food stamp cuts, from other cuts, and so they end up actually $560 worse off,' he explained. Rattner said the projections are unlike anything he had seen before. 'In 50 years of watching economic policy, I have never seen a package that was so regressive, that did so much to take money from the poor, give it to the rich. This is unprecedented in our history. It is the most amazing piece of social legislation — in the wrong direction — that we have ever seen.' You can watch Rattner's full analysis in the clip at the top. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
EPA scrambles to punish staffers who signed onto anti-Trump ‘dissent' statement
Imagine you work for the Environmental Protection Agency. You're a career employee, not a political appointee, and your sole focus is protecting the environment in order to help the public. Then imagine the dread you feel when you see what's become of the EPA during Donald Trump's second term. You can hardly believe your eyes, for example, as the agency reconsiders a ban on cancer-causing asbestos. And cancels grants aimed at protecting children from toxic chemicals. And scraps limits on greenhouse gas emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants. And endorsed weaker standards on coal waste that threatens groundwater. You shake your head in amazement as these and related right-wing developments unfold under EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin — a former Republican congressman who had no meaningful background in environmental policy, but who has evolved into a 'full MAGA warrior,' as The New York Times put it in March. What do you do under such circumstances? How do you make it clear to Americans that the Trump-era EPA is serving the interests of polluters, and not the public? How do you make it clear that the EPA has lost its way — and, for everyone's sake, needs to rediscover its intended noble purpose? The answer for several dozen EPA employees was to sign their names to a 'declaration of dissent' early last week, alerting the public to the fact that the Trump administration's policies 'undermine the EPA mission of protecting human health and the environment.' As an NBC News report noted, the joint statement represented a rare public criticism from agency employees 'who could face blowback for speaking out against a weakening of funding and federal support for climate, environmental and health science.' A few days later, the blowback arrived. The New York Times reported: The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday placed 144 employees on administrative leave and opened an investigation into their decision to sign a letter accusing the Trump administration of politicizing the agency. Current and former E.P.A. employees, lawyers and advocates expressed alarm at the development, saying the agency appeared to be ignoring the employees' First Amendment rights. The politically appointed press office at the agency issued a statement saying it had a 'zero-tolerance policy for career bureaucrats unlawfully undermining, sabotaging and undercutting the administration's agenda as voted for by the great people of this country last November.' To the extent that reality has any bearing on the developments, there is no evidence that the EPA employees did anything 'unlawful' or 'sabotaged' anything. Nevertheless, according to The Washington Post, those who signed the 'declaration of dissent' were 'physically escorted out of their workplaces Thursday.' I don't imagine we've heard the last of this one. Watch this space. This article was originally published on
