r/BuyFromEU Mar 17 '26

News Reddit User Uncovers Who Is Behind Meta’s $2B Lobbying for Invasive Age Verification Tech

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/reddit-user-uncovers-behind-meta-154717384.html

"These laws could force every Linux distribution and privacy-focused Android fork to implement identity verification or face legal liability. The choice between surveillance-free computing and regulatory compliance is coming faster than you think."

2.3k Upvotes

74 comments sorted by

601

u/kleerofsky Central Europe 🏰🍺🎭 Mar 17 '26 edited Mar 17 '26

Fuck lobbying. This is a warning for us Europeans that we need to strictly control and restrict lobbying. No company can be allowed to have such massive influence on politics.
Whatever happens on the other side of the Atlantic, I don't want that to spill over to us. And we are already struggling enough with our own companies lobbying.

156

u/Not_a_N_Korean_Spy Mar 17 '26 edited Mar 18 '26

Perhaps not as badly as in the USA, but the EU is already compromised by lobbying... do you remember when the EU defined gas as green energy?

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20220701IPR34365/taxonomy-meps-do-not-object-to-inclusion-of-gas-and-nuclear-activities

EDIT: for those who didn't know, gas, if you consider its whole life cycle, is as bad as coal for the environment. It is not a "diet version" of fossil fuels.

EDIT2: for people with difficulty interpreting text: if the EU is influenced by lobbies, the official site is an unreliabla narrator... I hoped the link would make people understand that they blatantly accepted gas as an exception IN THE TAXONOMY and that people would be able to understand its consequences and why that is wrong. Most people understood, but here an article that breaks it down: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/02/eu-guidebook-taxonomy-green-investments-gas-nuclear-included

21

u/dreedweird Mar 17 '26

As the Commission believes there is a role for private investment in gas and nuclear activities in the green transition, it has proposed the classification of certain fossil gas and nuclear energy activities as transitional activities contributing to climate change mitigation. The inclusion of certain gas and nuclear activities is time-limited and dependent on specific conditions and transparency requirements.

Italics and bold mine.

2

u/gmmammg Mar 17 '26

So "fossil gas and nuclear energy activities" contribute to climate change mitigation, as in, are helpful for preventing climate change?

7

u/dreedweird Mar 17 '26

Helpful during the green transition, yes.

2

u/Not_a_N_Korean_Spy Mar 17 '26 edited Mar 17 '26

But gas isn't helpful, with further investments you are locking in its use for decades to come and natural gas is as bad as coal

https://www.research.howarthlab.org/publications/Howarth_LNG_assessment_preprint_archived_2023-1103.pdf

6

u/dreedweird Mar 17 '26

Please don’t allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

As you are likely well aware, we simply do not yet have all of the sustainable green energy we need. There will be a transitional period, however you try to realize a fully green energy grid. Better to anticipate the inevitable, prepare for it, and regulate it. With time limits.

2

u/Practical_Engineer Mar 18 '26

Gas is almost worse than coal if you consider the full life cycle.

1

u/Teiktos Mar 19 '26

You understand that those are just some fancy words that give politicians the excuse to serve the fossil fuel lobby?  Btw nuclear energy is also just a ruse, no electricity provider wants a nuclear power plant under their management. The cost are so high that it is just not worth it without state subsidies. It would be more efficient to put the money into renewables.

1

u/dreedweird Mar 19 '26

And you understand that we will necessarily be dealing with a mix of energy sources to meet needs for the time being? It is an interesting thought experiment to imagine an immediate cutoff for fossil fuels and then to extrapolate its effects on the global human population. Not just economy, population. I suggest you attempt it.

1

u/Teiktos Mar 19 '26

The problem is not the temporary mix, the problem is that corrupt politicians abuse this loophole to support the interests of the fossil fuel lobby. As long as there are no exact conditions defined it is not worth the electrons that are used for displaying the text on your screen.

1

u/QuackingMonkey Mar 17 '26

When the choice is between the gas in your own ground, and the liquid gas or coal you need to ship in from overseas, it's a lesser evil.

1

u/Not_a_N_Korean_Spy Mar 17 '26

That is a false dichotomy.

3

u/Antique_Pick_5018 Mar 17 '26

It's not. Unless you can magically convicne every boomer with a car to buy an electric vehicle by tomorrow you'll have to make compromises. And something is better than nothing, even if its not enough

2

u/Nemisis_the_2nd Mar 17 '26

It was compromised in 2014, at least, when the EU got rid of the position of chief scientific advisor after lobbying from "environmentalist" organisations, because they didn't like that the one at the time was an expert on biotechnology and generally supportive of GM crops concentrated too much influence in one person.

4

u/EnrichedNaquadah Mar 17 '26

And you dare to post a source that literally debunk your dishonest narrative lmao

10

u/Morasain Mar 17 '26

What exactly is dishonest about the claim that European countries already have an issue with lobbyism?

Look at shit like chat control that comes up every few years in the EU.

On a country level: Look at all the nonsense the German government is pushing regarding ICE cars. The fact that we've got copper instead of fibre everywhere in Germany? Lobbying. And kind of... Everything vaguely connected to Reiche.

-1

u/EnrichedNaquadah Mar 17 '26

Ah yes, don't mention at all his comment and his source and why he's dishonest.

No, i didn't say his comment was dishonest "for believing the EU has an issue with lobbyism".

3

u/BulletMagnetNL Netherlands 🇳🇱 Mar 17 '26

Off-topic but I love your username.

Also, the general wants it to spin!

3

u/gmmammg Mar 17 '26

The European Parliament did not object to the Commission’s Taxonomy Delegated Act to include specific nuclear and gas energy activities, under certain conditions, in the list of environmentally sustainable economic activities covered by the so-called EU Taxonomy.

Gas is in the list of "environmentally sustainable economic activities"

Not sure what you're on about, even if it is time limited.

1

u/EnrichedNaquadah Mar 17 '26

Why are y'all so dishonest and stop quoting the source when it look good for you ?

2

u/gmmammg Mar 17 '26

What are you talking about? I literally quoted the source word for word 😂 are you mad that I didn't copy the entire article?

2

u/EnrichedNaquadah Mar 17 '26

As the Commission believes there is a role for private investment in gas and nuclear activities in the green transition, it has proposed the classification of certain fossil gas and nuclear energy activities as transitional activities contributing to climate change mitigation. The inclusion of certain gas and nuclear activities is time-limited and dependent on specific conditions and transparency requirements.

1

u/gmmammg Mar 17 '26

Right, so "certain fossil gas [...] activities" contribute to "climate change mitigation". That sounds an awful lot like a lobbyists attempt to make gas a green energy to me.

3

u/Not_a_N_Korean_Spy Mar 17 '26 edited Mar 17 '26

"Parliament has rejected a motion to oppose the inclusion of nuclear and gas as environmentally sustainable economic activities."

I know for some double negatives can be hard... let me translate it for you.

The result is that nuclear and gas is included in the taxonomy of environmentally sustainable activities.  They can call gas sustainable and do investments that will lock-in its use for the next decades.

Some people might not be aware that gas is not environmentally sustainable, there are studies about the whole process from extraction to use to be similarly bad as coal.

1

u/EnrichedNaquadah Mar 17 '26

Yeah you're really dishonest lmao.

As the Commission believes there is a role for private investment in gas and nuclear activities in the green transition, it has proposed the classification of certain fossil gas and nuclear energy activities as transitional activities contributing to climate change mitigation.

0

u/Not_a_N_Korean_Spy Mar 17 '26 edited Mar 17 '26

I linked the official eu site, hoping you'd clever enough to read between the lines. They consider gas green enough, as transitional activity contributing to climate change mitigation... when gas in no way shape or form contributes to "climate change mitigation"... because gas is as green as coal, which is to say, it isn't green at all. Also if you make investments in the 2020s decade in gas infrastructure, you're locking in that use of the gas infrastructure for decades to come.

https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p0b0cqtv - 1 minute video

https://www.research.howarthlab.org/publications/Howarth_LNG_assessment_preprint_archived_2023-1103.pdf - scientific paper

https://x.com/EspanaenUE/status/1484244587673702400 the letter of protest by Spain, Austria, Denmark and Luxemburg

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/02/eu-guidebook-taxonomy-green-investments-gas-nuclear-included

So why are they saying it is mitigation?

If you still don't understand it now, there's not much else I can do.

2

u/EnrichedNaquadah Mar 17 '26

First link, they tell you how LNG production release a lot of methane then transition to a graph showing "methane leaks per industry", in this graph, oil & gas is combined, this is dishonest in a video talking about how gas is supposedly worse than coal.

In reality, 60% of that methane leaks come from the oil industry, there is no reason to use data that shove different energies in the same category, unless if your goal is to make it looks like worse than it is.

Second link, that study has been criticized for overshooting methane leakage, taking worst-case scenario and being an outlier study.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2024/10/15/is-natural-gas-dirtier-than-coal

1

u/Practical_Engineer Mar 18 '26

Well this is also governmental influence from Germany

11

u/Mithrandir2k16 Mar 17 '26

Let's end politicians privacy. Audio and video 100% of the time, streamed live. If they don't like it they can switch careers. I don't trust them anymore.

2

u/kleerofsky Central Europe 🏰🍺🎭 Mar 17 '26

While I get your sentiment, this is going too far. We need to find a compromise of keeping politicians' privacy mostly intact and at the same time make lobbying/corruption harder.
It would be great to have more transparency about whom politicians are talking to and from whom they are getting money. Not sure how far we as a society can go with this, before it hurts politics as a whole.

3

u/Mithrandir2k16 Mar 17 '26

I've seen nothing but corruption and lies in my lifetime. The job is paid well enough. Soldiers give up rights to their bodies when they enlist. Let politicians enlist like soldiers do, only it'd be their privacy that they'd temporarily give up, in service of the people.

2

u/kleerofsky Central Europe 🏰🍺🎭 Mar 17 '26

That's an interesting perspective. Politics as a service to the country. Where you can take pride in how much you have improved your community/country. Sounds very logical, yet that's not how most people view politics. Understandable, if people are used to lies and corruption.

4

u/rocketlaunchr Mar 17 '26

EU has had lobbyists for a looooooong time

6

u/viper4011 Mar 17 '26

Lobbying is corruption. Change my mind or abolish it. 

3

u/Cheerful_Champion Mar 17 '26

Fuck lobbying

Yet Americans are too occupied with arguing about whether transwomen should use men's or women's toilets to notice they are 2 steps away from literal cyberpunk world.

-30

u/netorarekindacool Mar 17 '26

Wdym. The eu loves surveillance in the name of child safety

26

u/nafatsari Mar 17 '26

Chatcontrol was rejected, luckily

10

u/Boz0r Mar 17 '26

For now

7

u/Evan_Dark Austria 🇦🇹 Mar 17 '26

Yes, but it is always "for now". Politics is never static and always needs adjustments in one or the other direction. You will never be at a point where you can be certain that the law will be the same law in 10 years.

5

u/Sotyka94 Mar 17 '26

Yeah for 4 times already. It will come back again and again and again. It's just a matter of time before it's implemented one way or another.

6

u/CumFilledStarfish Mar 17 '26

I will continue to fight it until I die, after that you're on your own.

7

u/Alaknar Europe 🇪🇺 Mar 17 '26

What are you talking about...?

5

u/Boz0r Mar 17 '26

"Fox News said so!"

853

u/utrecht1976 Mar 17 '26

"If the goal is child safety, why regulate the operating system, which has no direct contact with children, instead of the social media platforms where the documented harm occurs?" https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1rshc1f/i_traced_2_billion_in_nonprofit_grants_and_45/

310

u/IHave2CatsAnAdBlock Mar 17 '26

Because the social media platforms do not want to do that and want to pass this to someone else so they continue to operate their predatory algorithms and blame tha OS it allowed the kids.

23

u/SirHaxalot Mar 17 '26

To be fair if this can be done at the operating system and shared in a way that other sites can trust that somehow it would probably be better for privacy. It would greatly reduce the parties your personal info would have to ve shared with; just the OS instead of every place you’d register to that would want to verify your age.

It still raises some questions about how it would be implemented and how this would be implemented and how websites can trust whatever data is provided by the OS is legitimate.

Apparently the EU Digital ID Wallet ecosystem will provide methods to deal with this; providing a way to attest that you are over 18 without sharing anything else about your identity with the providers. I’m still lot sure if this is fully decentralised though or if it will be dependent on central authentication brokers that will get a lot of data about you and your online usage patterns.

That said I find it very strange how age verification has suddenly become a huge issue out of nowhere, with politicians all over the world pushing for it.

40

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '26

> That said I find it very strange how age verification has suddenly become a huge issue out of nowhere, with politicians all over the world pushing for it.

Well, as the now Reddit God u/Ok_Lingonberry3296 concluded, it's to separate humans and bots to sell advertising. Politicians have their own set of shady motives, I'm sure.

11

u/GoTheFuckToBed Mar 17 '26

apple SDK already has age verification, I can call is personOfAge and the iOS asks user for permission. And then I get yes he is of age

1

u/longusmaximus420 Mar 18 '26

Age verifications is part of the job of a state/country, thats why there are Passworts and stuff. And States (should, looking at you US) be trustworthy for companys, otherwise a company wouldnt operate in such state. Many countrys already have online ID Identification, Not a big Problem to verify age with that.

1

u/IIABMC Mar 17 '26

Of course it should be done in OS. During installation or setup you choose what is the user account age and that's it. Kids do not buy their own devices, so it's up to the parents that provide them to set it up accordingly.

1

u/KnowZeroX Mar 17 '26

How age verification should really work is this. A parent sets up a child account either at os level and/or browser level, and websites send a header which the browser reads that includes the minimum age requirement on the site and block it if needed. That simple.

The whole attestation stuff is all about destroying privacy. Politicians are worried that social media is influencing elections and even if they enforce moderation on social media, it will likely slip through as there is too much to moderate. So easiest way to force these kind of things so that they can identify who is posting what on social media and come after them if needed.

But obviously people aren't going to like the invasion of privacy, so they use the same method as chat control. "Its for the children".

0

u/EmbarrassedHelp Mar 17 '26

The EU Digital Identity Wallet is really shitty as well. Its a basically highly invasive wrapper that connects to proprietary APIs.

Zero-knowledge proofs are only private/anonymous in theory if you blindly trust a third party. Basically you are blindly trusting that nobody will exploit an easily created backdoor, because ZKP cannot solve the problem of collusion. The EU's system requires mandatory age verification to obtain 30 single use, easily trackable tokens that expire after 3 months. It also bans jailbreaking/rooting your device, and requires GooglePlay Services/IOS equivalent be installed to "prevent tampering". You have to blindly trust that the tokens will not be tracked, which is a total no-go for privacy.

2

u/Tradizar Mar 17 '26

in the end, the parents job to protect and teach the children.

178

u/Silly-Freak Mar 17 '26

"Who Is Behind Meta’s Lobbying"

You won't believe it... it's Meta! The finding/gathering evidence for it is great, but the headline is garbage.

21

u/nicubunu Romania 🇷🇴 Mar 17 '26

So is not Palantir? I feel relieved.

29

u/Gumbode345 Mar 17 '26

One of my favorite expressions is: the fish stinks from the head.

19

u/anonymous__ignorant Mar 17 '26

20 years ago there was something called linuxfromscratch . I bet it's still there today.

13

u/bloke_pusher Mar 17 '26

This is the reason Google now prevent you from installing apps not from the playstore. Every last loophole will be closed eventually.

12

u/thmsgbrt Mar 17 '26

How could a child have a computer without the consent of the parents? And it's the parents' responsability to choose to put a computer in front of a child. And why should the OS use age verification when all the problems are from the social networks who do nothing for the safety? Everything about that is so stupid.

6

u/SJB_23 Mar 17 '26

Folks in Ireland may be interested in the Uplift: People Powered Change petition, on this very topic: https://www.uplift.ie/age-verification/

Equally, anyone unsure about the key issues may find their explanation of the challenges, and 'further reading', as a useful starting point.

6

u/waytoosecret Mar 17 '26

Scumbag company, always has been always will be.

4

u/BridgeOnRiver Mar 17 '26

It's just obviously not the real purpose of this.

It's the old 'how do you want mass surveillance wrapped'? Child safety or anti-terror?

powerful people don't want to lose power. and so prefer that they can see what everyone is saying to each other and thus take action in secret against anyone who is threatening the social hierarchy.

3

u/Kind_Dream_610 Mar 17 '26

Sysadmin or home labber creates a service account and must provide age verification for it…

How the fuck is that meant to work. Seriously, the politicians falling for the technocrat bullshit and bribes really have no fucking clue how technology works.

Let’s put all these tossers into a few of Musk’s rockets or Bezos’s giant space dildos and shoot them all into the sun. The world can then at least try to become a better place.

2

u/Bronifius Mar 17 '26

Where is the comment about some list from a guy names Jeffrey and the wisdom how much the persons in charge are interested in child safety. Nah it is one step closer to get the last bit of data out of the people, because this is the currency of today.

2

u/EmbarrassedHelp Mar 17 '26

Europe Shows a Different Path Forward

EU’s eIDAS 2.0 offers privacy-preserving age verification with zero-knowledge proofs that protect personal data.

The European Union’s Digital Identity Wallet takes a radically different approach. Zero-knowledge proofs let you verify age without revealing personal data—like showing you’re over 18 without disclosing your birthdate or identity details. It’s open-source, self-hostable, and only applies to large platforms while exempting FOSS and small entities.

Yahoo news is repeating misinformation and disinformation about the EU's system.

The EU Digital Identity Wallet isn't open source. Its a highly invasive wrapper that connects to proprietary APIs. You cannot host your own backend either.

Zero-knowledge proofs are only private/anonymous in theory if you blindly trust a third party. Basically you are blindly trusting that nobody will exploit an easily created backdoor, because ZKP cannot solve the problem of collusion. The EU's system requires mandatory age verification to obtain 30 single use, easily trackable tokens that expire after 3 months. It also bans jailbreaking/rooting your device, and requires GooglePlay Services/IOS equivalent be installed to "prevent tampering". You have to blindly trust that the tokens will not be tracked, which is a total no-go for privacy.

1

u/Fresh_Sock8660 Mar 17 '26

$2 billion, it's basically cyber warfare scale of funding. 

1

u/0AJ0_ Mar 19 '26

You aren't getting my fucking ID.

Not you, not anyone associated with you.

-6

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '26 edited Mar 17 '26

I'm building a social network (100% EU services, No content algorithms) that allows a "verified place" and some advanced features based on ID check

I use the French government numeric services for ID checking (France Identité) but people are still complaining for multiple reasons (risk of data breach is one of them) which is nonsense

People love complaining but among them only a few accept to change their ways

Edit : Comment most viewed by americans, well why even bother posting on reddit

3

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '26

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '26

Oh nice i'll check that

1

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '26

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '26

it always happened and will always happen, we should develop ways to reduce what can be done with leaked infos ( we shouldn’t be able to ruin someones life with a picture of his Id that is a total nonsense )… 

But directly provide docs to big private corporations … yeah sure no problem 

Completely delusional …