>Any open source solution would be trivial to disable, by definition. Hence OP's point that pursuing this to its logical conclusion means banning F/OSS.

And you think that you can't "mod" some proprietary application? The only exception is locked down devices so not only FOSS would be affected but also non locked-down and DRM devices, if UK or Australia will demand only DRM devices to exist so all laws are followed then we are fucked anyway.

It's a step-by-step thing. First you pass the laws to ban X. Then it turns out that F/OSS makes working around them trivial, and so you ban F/OSS. Then it turns out that proprietary apps can also be hacked, and then you mandate DRM.

Again, "Rainbows End" describes the end result quite nicely.

I understand your point and I would prefer not to have to do this. But I was thinking that we already are going down hill better we chose our path then have others to do it. I would prefer to say prove my age to Canonical then have to send my proof to every website individually. As long as a majority of the users are protected I do not see some idiot religious politician complaining that children could root Android phones and watch porn or that children removed OSX to install Linux to get more freedom(probably a VM would work too).

Since the big companies don't gain lot of money from this like they gain with DRM media and anti-repair I do not see the insentives to push thos ossue to extremes.

> Is long as a majority of the users are protected I do not see some idiot religious politician complaining that children could root Android phones and watch porn

I totally do. All that would be needed for this to happen is one well-publicized case.

The fundamental problem here is that by aiding and abetting the censorship, you're implicitly legitimizing the purported reasons for it. Thus strengthened, that reasoning will inevitably be extended, if only by chance - and you won't have any arguments to push back by then. Consider: if we've already decided that cracking down on porn justifies routine violations of privacy (that would be necessary in any pervasive age-ID scheme), and the majority of the society agreed with it, how would you convince them that F/OSS is valuable enough to not sacrifice on the same altar?