Safe or not - it is up to individual to decide if it is worth the risk.

Because it focuses on technical aspects and accepts the premise of 'age verification must be solved'. It doesn’t, and discretion what content and and what age children and teenagers can consume should be up to parents.

Not government, nor corporations.

it's the fact that fines are part of agency's income and it is their best interest(as a bureaucratic agency) to keep them at highest level where companies will still pay them.

Effectively this makes this a tax, enshittifying everything even worse.

if fines were decoupled from agencies, and had exponentially rising curve for repeat offenses, i think that would work better than ban, as much i would prefer for them to get banned.

why would we need to fund and make Europen Alternative to Surveilance (tm) when we could just you know - not have it at all?

then you’re using different definition that everyone else, and bring nothing into discussion other than confusion.

>Or, put another way, you cannot "just change culture"

it isn't shaped just by technology. There are economic factors and cultural exchanges between different cultures.

This is purely tautological line of thinking, that brings nothing to discussion.

unless you want to argue semantics and go 'actually they're all part of technology', but that makes your argument even less meaningful.

Also fundamentally speaking - this does just take away your right to privacy. do you just let your rights be taken away?

I don't want 'minimization' of intrusion of privacy, i want no intrusion of privacy.

It's pointless, does not increase security, does increase complexity of every interaction, and introduces a lot of weird edge cases.

What i want is full anonymity enshrined in law, while at the same time giving parents, not governments, but parents, options to limit what their children can do on the internet.

It is also a matter of respect towards professionals. If civil engineer says that something is illegal/dangerous/unfeasible their word is taken into the account and not dismissed - unlike in, broadly speaking, IT.

but you can help this by banning all forms of active tracking.

Static ads only, no click tracking, and complete ban on profiling clients and especially on adjusting prices based on client/possible client behavior patterns.

"Conflict is essential to human life, whether between different aspects of oneself, between oneself and the environment, between different individuals or between different groups."

Not only this is extremely patronizing towards all people on spectrum, but at the same time extremely hurtful statement for people who are treating employment as a job(ie - most of population).

And what are you going to say to people who are stuck in low-end jobs?

More like made it dysfunctional - i live in EU btw

Laws are system made by people who live within that system - it is a part of resource distribution system. Lawmakers do work in their own interest, and so far the only way we found to make a system work for benefit of everyone is by putting those vested interests at odds - hence non-bipartisan democracy.

This is basically a game theory problem, and when faced with prisoner dilemma you're saying 'it would all work if everyone chose to cooperate' If your solution to political problem is 'if only everyone did X' you don't have a solution but wishful thinking. Sure this can happen, but it is not a stable system, not one that can be moved from place A to B.

You keep saying i have set mind about those issues - yet you refuse to address underlying logical assumption by saying that (non-distinct) X made it work, without even providing an example of working solution - i don't think it's me who's arguing in bad faith here.

Only way you could have any form of public financing of such endeavor without conflict of interest is to have multinational organization funded by every country.

Or you end up with BBC.

EDIT: to elaborate even further - you didn't even address the problem that ones designing this system would have to work against their own best interest. just wishy-washed that part away.

Surely laws are immutable system and cannot be changed ever. It is always perfectly designed without loopholes, and especially so when ones who design the system could benefit from them.

how will you investigate corruption if your funding can be cut?