> and those 5.6 million probably aren't accessing sites that require age verification.
Why would you presume that?
> Not every solution needs to work for 100% of people.
A solution that censors large amounts of speech and culture from millions of people is clearly either insufficient or, if it is deemed sufficient, authoritarian.
I did not read anywhere that this solution can only be used if it's the ONLY solution. Did you?
How is the statement "not every solution needs to work for 100% of the people" controversial? People are different, with different circumstances and ideally there are a variety of solutions to cover all of them
Any incremental advance is better than nothing where our rights are getting eroded faster than we can contact the ACLU to start investigating whether or not we have a case. The American Right have figured out that they can DDOS the legal system with all kinds of bullshit laws that they know won't stick, but it will take everyone 10x the time and effort that they spent spewing it out.
We can't back and wait for the perfect solution that covers all corner cases and makes everyone happy and has the perfect UX. We have to fight now while we still have something to fight for.
If the system is that I have to prove my id or age for averag network connections, then the system has already failed me. The only system I am behind is a flag that some devices can send if enabled that lets the receiving party know the user is underage. Completely optional (controllable by device owner/guardian) but if received, that party must behave in a way that acknowledges that fact. It is not a perfect system, but it retains the freedoms and anonymity of the user.
Why would you presume that?
> Not every solution needs to work for 100% of people.
A solution that censors large amounts of speech and culture from millions of people is clearly either insufficient or, if it is deemed sufficient, authoritarian.