{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreigwh6eqtwtpsxyynil63fswrtlyiyixs36byg2wbmaj7qjbbeukg4",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:hqad6xwuzg7oqfmwylfkvqfm/app.bsky.feed.post/3mgwpji5liox2"
  },
  "path": "/viewtopic.php?t=33235&p=271072#p271072",
  "publishedAt": "2026-03-13T05:53:52.000Z",
  "site": "http://forum.palemoon.org",
  "textContent": "I looked through the EU documentation and it simply does not provide applicable information. It's presented as a \"stop-gap measure\" until EUID is rolled out end of this year (?) and the \"reference implementation\" presented makes a lot of assumptions, is opaque, and is React/Typescript based (i.e. typical front-end work assuming Blink), as well as everything specifically geared to \"over 18\" age limits for adult content. None of that applies here. It goes into detail about \"how to provide attestation\" and is therefore a guidebook on creating age verification apps or services, but it barely skims over the part where site operators (i.e. \"relying parties\") should request and verify an age signal, even in the \"technical specification\" which reads like a half-assed RFC in initial structure, but ultimately is a management document, not a tech spec. Everything it way too high level other than some examples at the end where it just shows the generic json structures of a specific API implementation, and some vague reference that a relying party needs to make sure the response comes from a vetted list of trusted sources published by the european commission.\nEven so, none of that is relevant here. Our scope and this forum's nature neither makes us a digital service provider nor social media. If it would come to a point, I'd sooner drop the arbitrary age limit I set to clearly indicate this forum is not \"designed for young kids\" than enforcing any sort of ID or age verification sledgehammer.\n\n* * *",
  "title": "Forum and website • Re: The site and an idiotic bill",
  "updatedAt": "2026-03-13T05:53:52.000Z"
}