The age verification proposal of the EU tries to do that, the government knows you used age verification (and I think the rough number of times you used it), but they don't know when or where you used it.
I can't imagine countries with such strict speech laws, for example, would be willing to build a system that is technically incapable of linking the person visiting a sire and the site requesting verification.
This proposal may have been updated since I read it previously, so I could be wrong now, but it didn't read as a true zero-knowledge proof as key steps in the flow still required a level of trusting the government as the central authority to do the right thing and not track requests, both today and in the future.
It's a proposal, so you can check out how it would work.
Anonymous age verification is technically possible, but it is as pointless as any other age verification system, it could easily be circumvented if someone older willing to help.
Seems like anywhere in the EU, something draconian only needs to be popular for like 5 years for it to get implemented, for better or for worse. They don't have robust constitutions like the US.
I wish the US constitution was robust, or at least could be held to such robustness today. As it stands congress has ceded much of their power to the executive branch and the public is barely represented when rules/regulations/laws are passed.
Though not quite the EU anymore, the UK arrests people based only on speech in a social media post. Why should I expect they would be interested in building a truly private, zero knowledge age verification system?
Maybe for a more direct example I could point to the discussions related to the EU wanting direct access to all private messages, pushing Signal to leave the EU if that were to pass?
I think they arrested (or just fined?) someone for calling to burn down a hotel with migrants. For you this is an oppressive dictatorship, but it doesn’t match reality.
It also has no bearing on willingness to implement proof of age without additional disclosure.
But yeah not EU, one country in Europe is unlike another, etc.
They are arguably over policing because of vague laws and proactive enforcement. Most cases don’t lead to convictions. But all cases I’ve ever seen were for something bad like calling for violence, making fun of someone’s death. For free speech absolutists this is unacceptable, but it’s not arbitrary tyranny.
The EU has more freedom of speech than the US, the US has just a different way of punishment.
It’s much easier in the US to lose your job for what you say as in the EU and in the US the consequences of losing your job are more severe if you don’t have enough money so you can afford to lose it.
US freedom of speech comes with a price tag that puts the censor inside your brain.
This is really an example of "formal rights and material conditions."
You make a case that EU has better social safety nets and employee protection not that the US has weaker free speech laws. While you can't ignore the effect having wealth can insulate you from consequences, it still doesn't support your statement as written.
Is it true that someone who is retired on a pension in US can say more hateful things without government action vs a similar retiree in EU?
See eg. BBS+[1]. Proofs that preserve anonymity are generated locally and neither the verifier nor issuer can determine the user based on these (in scenarios of non PII signals like age thresholds), while still allowing the verifier to validate it's issuer approved.
I'd be curious how that might work as I haven't yet seen a zero-trust age verification system.