<![CDATA[So this is worrisome @Gargron and #Mastodon have no way to comply with these draconian age-verification laws.]]>So this is worrisome @Gargron and have no way to comply with these draconian age-verification laws. This leaves it up to the instance providers. Jeezus.

Thoughts?

]]>https://discussions.thenexus.today/topic/c1d4b991-9a48-43ad-9efe-78d4aff96c14/so-this-is-worrisome-@gargron-and-mastodon-have-no-way-to-comply-with-these-draconian-age-verification-laws.RSS for NodeMon, 09 Mar 2026 05:19:38 GMTSun, 31 Aug 2025 00:32:11 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to So this is worrisome @Gargron and #Mastodon have no way to comply with these draconian age-verification laws. on Sun, 31 Aug 2025 00:37:56 GMT]]>The article makes it seem like it was a badly worded statement! Instances can do registration by approval, so they can use whatever mechanism they want to do age verification if they choose to; and, admin notes let them store the info on profiles if they want to. So, it's still up to each instance to choose whether to comply, but their framing as reported was unfortunate. I asked Andy Piper if they could release the statement (or some public sttaement), he said they're working on it.

@phillycodehound

]]>https://discussions.thenexus.today/post/https://infosec.exchange/users/thenexusofprivacy/statuses/115120581950927493https://discussions.thenexus.today/post/https://infosec.exchange/users/thenexusofprivacy/statuses/115120581950927493Sun, 31 Aug 2025 00:37:56 GMT