No, it does not. There’s no law, no resolution, no recommendation towards doing this from the EU.
The European Parliamentary Research Service is a think-tank that’s supposed to inform the MEPs. So, the actual title should be: “a think-tank in Europe calls VPNs ‘a loophole that needs closing’”.
The fact that anyone with any power (and they do have the power to influence politicians, which is more than what your average citizen has) is even suggesting this should absolutely be alarming. It is “only a suggestion” now, and then next time when the politicians vote on it it might be late.
A think-tank is supposed to inform, but an informed decision can only be made if the person making the decision is fully informed.
First of all - we don’t know if the think-tank said ONLY that. Maybe it was one ten different things they reported.
Second of all - what was the context of the report? Was it “what do we need to do to ensure that age verification is fool proof?” Or was it “IF we introduce age verification, what are some of the pitfalls we can encounter?”
Stop panicking. The EU operates on democratic principles, and everybody knows well in advance about any votes happening.
EDIT: just read the abstract of the report - yeah, it’s a nothingburger. “VPN can be used to bypass age verification” is what it says. Which is a statement of fact. Sure, the language of their tweet is shifty (with a strong push to introducing AV), but who cares? The idea was shot down a couple of times already, and it will be shot down again unless a solution is found that guarantees privacy of users.
Someone from my country created a browser extension that translated clickbait article titles to descriptive titles using LLM. He got sued for copyright infringement by the most clickbaity “news” outlet in Denmark, forcing him to shut down the extension.
I hate when people do this. “The EU does X”.
No, it does not. There’s no law, no resolution, no recommendation towards doing this from the EU.
The European Parliamentary Research Service is a think-tank that’s supposed to inform the MEPs. So, the actual title should be: “a think-tank in Europe calls VPNs ‘a loophole that needs closing’”.
The fact that anyone with any power (and they do have the power to influence politicians, which is more than what your average citizen has) is even suggesting this should absolutely be alarming. It is “only a suggestion” now, and then next time when the politicians vote on it it might be late.
This is an extremely ignorant take.
A think-tank is supposed to inform, but an informed decision can only be made if the person making the decision is fully informed.
First of all - we don’t know if the think-tank said ONLY that. Maybe it was one ten different things they reported.
Second of all - what was the context of the report? Was it “what do we need to do to ensure that age verification is fool proof?” Or was it “IF we introduce age verification, what are some of the pitfalls we can encounter?”
Stop panicking. The EU operates on democratic principles, and everybody knows well in advance about any votes happening.
EDIT: just read the abstract of the report - yeah, it’s a nothingburger. “VPN can be used to bypass age verification” is what it says. Which is a statement of fact. Sure, the language of their tweet is shifty (with a strong push to introducing AV), but who cares? The idea was shot down a couple of times already, and it will be shot down again unless a solution is found that guarantees privacy of users.
Look up the Heritage Foundation and Project 2025 in the USA. They are “just a think tank.”
Yet*
The EU is not the US.
It’d be nice if there was a way to de-clickbait article titles automatically.
Someone from my country created a browser extension that translated clickbait article titles to descriptive titles using LLM. He got sued for copyright infringement by the most clickbaity “news” outlet in Denmark, forcing him to shut down the extension.
I wonder how a lawsuit like that would have any merit.
It likely wouldn’t have any but when a large company sues you as an individual it is more about the cost of engagement and the risks it involves.
Even better if the think tanks had to state their funding sources by human name in the title.