• Fjdybank@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    I do understand that, but I think you are applying a post hoc rationalisation to the change.

    For example, examining the change through the lens of intended use -> you can’t as there is no such use of the field today - it’s tomorrow’s use that is potentially problematic.

    I don’t want to wait until a bad actor applies the field, I want to stop the field from existing.

    This change is not happening in isolation. There is currently a general trend towards de-anonymising users, and this DOB field is a step in that direction.

    The only real question is, do I want my computer storing more, or less, personally identifying information. Given that I don’t trust ANY use which may be later enabled by this change, my answer is ‘less’.

    • cmhe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Maybe this is the issue. I have no problems with parents setting the age of the children in their account in order limit their access to certain content.

      And there clearly exists a use-case for that.

      My main issue is when it comes to third-party age/identity verification services. Age or identity verification in the hands of private for-profit companies is bad.

      I’d rather give parents the tools to set individual restrictions locally on their devices, then pushing for a global internet based age filter.