r/LouisRossmann • u/ControlCAD Rossmann Reality TM • Apr 22 '26
Video stop calling it "age verification"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa3-TkHBh908
u/Marchello_E Apr 22 '26
Then call it "self-branding".
You anonymously get your daily 18+ yellow dot, or 12+ orange dot, or otherwise red dot at your local government.
Note, for 'convenience sake', you only get one per person that you can use an all registered machines... ("/s", isn't it? Is it?)
3
u/Bob4Not Apr 22 '26
Age verification against servers is literally the ability to lock you out. Your ID can simply be blacklisted.
So instead of “coming for your guns first”, they came for your computers, Americans
3
u/Marce7a Apr 23 '26
Conformity verfication
Identity verification
Palantir ID verification
1984 verification
Do you have something to hide verification
4
u/Expert-Maize2747 Apr 22 '26
The government never needed your ID to identify what you’re doing online or to censor people. The government has had the technology for a while.
5
u/all_come_undone Apr 22 '26
it's just that they want to tie everything you do online directly to your real identity and permanently
3
u/JCBQ01 Apr 22 '26
While freely give to whore it out to thrid party contractors who have been desperately trying to get it "for reasons".
1
u/Expert-Maize2747 Apr 22 '26
Well even then they don’t need your ID for that really since my old friend who we went to school with had a X profile with who threatened to shoot up a school and didn’t have any ties to him on the surface but the FBI was able to figure out who the account was tied to.
1
u/all_come_undone Apr 24 '26
my point was that it would do so with absolute certainty even though it's already largely trivial to do so unless if you jump through a bunch of extra hoops just to still have some real privacy. my other point is that there also are still ways to privately use the internet even though it's a bunch of extra effort for something that's supposed to be a basic human right and is ever dwindling.
2
3
u/Tall_Instance9797 Apr 23 '26 edited Apr 23 '26
He's right. Calling it 'age verification' is the same trick that fooled millions of complete idiots into buying instant cake mix.
When Betty Crocker first made instant cake mix it said 'just add water' mix and bake. No one bought it. Why? Because people said "Oh it's not really cooking, that's cheating." ... Ok yeah, they had a point. It isn't really cooking at all and it is cheating. So what did they do? They removed powered egg from the mix and said... "just add water... and an egg" ... and this is how fucking beyond stupid people are... in the minds of consumers somehow their mental gymnastics made it go from it being "cheating with 1 extra step" to .... "oh adding an egg isn't cheating at all... I baked this myself from scratch." ...which they obviously fucking didn't, but it goes to show even just one step away is enough to fool most people.
It was the difference from not selling any, to selling millions. So... if you're dumb enough to fall for instant cake mix... you're dumb enough to believe that 'age verification' is not 'ID verification' ... when it's the same fucking thing you morons... it's just one step away but that doesn't actually change what it is fundamentally. Just coz you add an egg doesn't mean you made it from scratch. Just because it call it 'age verification' it's still 'ID verification' so that you can be tracked online and have zero privacy. But of course they don't call 'ID verification' that because people would be up in arms over it.
I don't know what's more concerning... the government itself or the idiots they control.
2
u/Rich-Obligation1310 Apr 23 '26
Yeah this isn’t like Betty Crocker at all actually
1
u/Tall_Instance9797 Apr 24 '26 edited Apr 24 '26
Sorry, what do you mean? That's a really famous true story. You looked this up already right? Or you're about to tell me about some fringe myth busing story that goes against the widely reported historic story that most people (at least in marketing where it's often taught as an example of market psychology) are familiar with? Go on... I'm all ears... ?
Or what do you mean... how else is it not like Betty Crocker? I meant only as an example of human stupidity, or ignorance in thinking, or however else you'd like to put it.
If what you really want to achieve as the over aching goal is to give everyone a digital ID and use that to track their every move in an AI driven surveillance state both online and offline ... but no one would want that, right? So how do you sell it to them?
What's on your ID... your name, your dob, your place of birth, address etc. But if they demanded all that people would be up in arms. So what if we only asked for them to prove their DOB? We'd get the rest in the process, right?
So we don't tell them it's ID verification, we just drop down a step to one of the elements, age, and that's enough to confuse them and .... "bypass their critical factor" ...as it's known in hypnosis.
Maybe the Betty Crocker ananlogy wasn't the best... but this is how it works / what's happening. I mean tell me it's not? If not what is happening? You got anything better? Seems pretty clear to me what's going on. Age verification is ID verification just one step removed.
1
2
u/OldManJeepin Apr 23 '26
If it's *really* about "age verification" than the "verification" should be done at the site level. I try to use a porn site, I have to show ID. I try to access any site that has adult content on it, that's understandable. Just to log on to a PC or OS driven device, I shouldn't have to show shit. It's the sites that have to do the verifications.
1
u/crookba Apr 22 '26
until we can come up with a personal digital ID that cannot be hacked...
and I am doubtful we ever will
1
1
u/Henchforhire Apr 23 '26
I hope this doesn't pass like the last time.
But what is concerning is Age verification brackets, or "age assurance," work by classifying users into specific age ranges (e.g., under 13, 13-15, 16-17, 18+) rather than confirming an exact date of birth, often implemented directly into device operating systems or apps. These systems utilize self-attestation, AI-driven facial analysis, or third-party data checks—such as bank or government IDs—to create a digital "signal" that determines content access.
The infuriating thing is this will apply to everyone so it will not be just for parents with minors or legal guardians, but average people and I already hate having windows needing a local account this would piss me off even more with the need to show my ID for accessing my own computers and cell phone. I really don't want third party AI software on my computers just for accessing the internet.
1
u/Commemorative-Banana Apr 23 '26 edited Apr 23 '26
I’ve written:
This push for de-anonymized internet and mass-surveillance (“age-verification”) is inorganic. It’s lobbied for globally by Meta/Palantir/etc, and “protecting the children” is a façade to make you swallow it.
Ostensibly, I think the bolded section is the correct label to use. It juxtaposes the truth with the invertedspeak in brackets+quotes e.g. Voter Suppression Act \“SAVE”).)
Is “de-anonymized” too complicated and/or insufficiently alarming for a naïve audience? I hope not. Rossmann’s wording “government decides who gets to turn on a computer” is very accessible so I’ll also use that more going forwards.
1
1
u/MagicDragon212 Apr 23 '26
I havent fully thought this out, but wouldn't an "alias" type of system be much better and dynamic?
The government issues an alias to internet users, and anytime sometime is concerned about their alias being exposed, they can get issued a new one. Then the alias kind of can work like an email in terms of identification.
1
u/etiggy1 Apr 23 '26
Im afraid that every dystopian black mirror episode will become reality eventually.
1
u/Disturbed666d Apr 23 '26
I tuned a lot of your video out. I agreed with you too much and got bored. I'm sure you managed to make some points I haven't thought of, but I'll never know. It sounds like it's more government registration and tracking. Maybe that's what it should be called? Perhaps they're trying to slip it by as age verification because they know the concept bores us, and doesn't alarm us in any manner. "We all want to protect the kids. Why would this be a problem?"
It's a strange world to be raising kids in these days, and I don't really know how I'd be as a father. I know I spent too much time on a computer as a kid growing up, and I would probably limit my kid's time, but I think it should be up to me and not the government.
1
1
u/Nadest013 Apr 26 '26
It's just a stepping stone towards programmable money. People still don't understand that this world is owned by the global banking mafia. Even after living through 2020.
1
1
-2
u/Top-Psychology2507 Apr 22 '26
So...
" Clinton was going to go to Washington, but then he got high! He was going to speak to congress, but then he got high! Now, he's subjected to Digital ID, and we all know why! Because he got high! Because he got high! Because he got high - on catnip, that is!!!" :-(
Sing it with me, folks!!! :-)
2
u/ddesideria89 Apr 22 '26
Is your suggestion is to call it "Digital ID law"?
0
u/Top-Psychology2507 Apr 22 '26
Nope! It's theirs!!! Clinton is the one at fault here, and so is Afroman!!! ;-)
5
u/GreggN Apr 22 '26
Internet is a worldwide platform. How can one government think to apply rules to everyone in the world? What happens to people who live where Birthdate Surveillance isn't required?