Yet another clunky/flawed rollout, when will they learn. I don't care if I loose forum access (it's value has diminished immensely since wozbro took over) if I lose content access and tool access war will be declared.
It doesn't matter that most 13 year olds know how to spoof k-ID and that it's extremely easy to do so... (it is)
On principle, I have no interest in passing out veritable information about my RL self. It's my responsibility to curate my own experiences online, and if I end up seeing something I don't wish to, that's *my* problem. If I were a parent, it would be my responsibility and duty to educate my kids and curate their experience safely - it would be my responsibility as a parent to teach them how to be safe online.
Part of that education would include, shockingly, *Never Giving Out Your Real Life Age And Location* and *Never Posting RL Selfies To Strangers Who Ask For Them*
Funny that.
DDB has no legal reason to be asking for this information - they are not affected by any of the recent laws being put into place, and they also have no need for it. Simply asking for a user declaration of age is *Enough* - the user does not NEED to verify that with a legal *ID card*, or a *Selfie Video* - as k-ID asks you to provide.
For now, just a basic declaration of age and region is all they're asking for. The key detail is that it's literally just us declaring it as a statement; we're not being asked to prove it with real and veritable information... that is to say, we're not being required to actually verify through k-ID... as long as that's all it remains, that's okay. If they start asking us to provide real and veritable personal information, however, that is where it becomes a problem.
I am an adult; I am responsible for curating my own online experience; that is ALL I am going to give anyone. It is not the place of sites like DDB to censor me 'for my own protection'. I have no interest in providing that degree of personal information to DDB, and if, come January, they decide to restrict my access and remove my ability to utilise content I've paid for personally, then I'm just going to cancel my sub (again) and never use the site again after this.
DDB has no legal reason to be asking for this information - they are not affected by any of the recent laws being put into place, and they also have no need for it.
DDB has a forum and tools like their campaign management system also have certain social media elements. Furthermore, they are a multinational corporation with a global presence. Contrary to your baseless assertion that they are “not affected”, they are, in all likelihood, directly implicated in a number of different global laws.
If you have an issue, that is with the laws, not with Beyond or Wizards. Your frustration seems to be a bit misdirected.
Hm, OK, after reading those links, it's about giving a child parental consent. As an adult who doesn't have a child who has a account here I shouldn't need to do that. Is this Wizards doing something dodgy again?!
There are both adults and children under 18 who use the site. If you're an adult, you have nothing to worry about; verifying your age and location is all you have to do. If a child wants to create an account, that's where the K-ID portion applies, and they have to get their parents to give consent through that platform.
Just to double-check I'm understanding correctly then, as an adult I would only be providing bday/region to DDB and no 3rd party site will be involved correct?
I literally live in the country that has placed the law to which this action is directly responding - it came into effect two days ago. This action by DDB is directly in response to this law. This law has specific definitions and, in particular, it denotes which platforms are, and are not, affected by it - for instance, Discord was thought to be affected by the law, but as it turns out, it actually isn't. DDB is NOT affected by this law.
(*And in fact, if it was affected by this law, then they would not legally be allowed to 'settle' for my simply declaring that I am an adult in a DoB field as soon as I nominated that I was located in Australia: they would be required to demand a verification check from me. They aren't and didn't because they are not subject to the new law.)
I literally live in the country that has placed the law to which this action is directly responding - it came into effect two days ago. This action by DDB is directly in response to this law. This law has specific definitions and, in particular, it denotes which platforms are, and are not, affected by it - for instance, Discord was thought to be affected by the law, but as it turns out, it actually isn't. DDB is NOT affected by this law.
Applying some basic reasoning, the deadline in D&D Beyond is in January - if they only cared about Australia’s law, then that would be far too late to bring them into compliance and they would have enacted this to come into effect before then, or would be scrambling to come up with a more rapid solution.
You are only looking through this from your own personal lens when facts clearly establish a different, larger pattern. Laws globally are changing - with the UK and many American states increasingly cracking down on underage internet usage. That is clearly the legal trend Wizards is responding to, not simply the one piece of the puzzle you are choosing to fixate on.
Oh, I'm sure you're not wrong. It's all about making a safe environment, while also having some legal CMA in place - while also trading technically anonymized data as hard and fast as they can.
I'll admit - that's mostly hard trained paranoia. I trust precisely no one to have any sort of moral standards. So anything we give to anyone anywhere, any shred of data is technically anonymous, in that it doesn't have our names or ID's or credit card histories. But it's sorted into neat piles with interests and purchaces, sites visited, interests expressed, and so on, and we're fed an endless stream of .... well. And no one is innocent. Literally. No one.
I've worked long and hard to purge myself of any remaining false views, considering corporate entities as having any semblance of humanity left to them. They are Cthulic monsters with their tentacles in absolutely everything, and nothing even remotely like morals. incomprehensible terrors from beyond the void.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
It doesn't matter that most 13 year olds know how to spoof k-ID and that it's extremely easy to do so... (it is)
On principle, I have no interest in passing out veritable information about my RL self. It's my responsibility to curate my own experiences online, and if I end up seeing something I don't wish to, that's *my* problem. If I were a parent, it would be my responsibility and duty to educate my kids and curate their experience safely - it would be my responsibility as a parent to teach them how to be safe online.
Part of that education would include, shockingly, *Never Giving Out Your Real Life Age And Location* and *Never Posting RL Selfies To Strangers Who Ask For Them*
Funny that.
DDB has no legal reason to be asking for this information - they are not affected by any of the recent laws being put into place, and they also have no need for it. Simply asking for a user declaration of age is *Enough* - the user does not NEED to verify that with a legal *ID card*, or a *Selfie Video* - as k-ID asks you to provide.
For now, just a basic declaration of age and region is all they're asking for. The key detail is that it's literally just us declaring it as a statement; we're not being asked to prove it with real and veritable information... that is to say, we're not being required to actually verify through k-ID... as long as that's all it remains, that's okay. If they start asking us to provide real and veritable personal information, however, that is where it becomes a problem.
I am an adult; I am responsible for curating my own online experience; that is ALL I am going to give anyone. It is not the place of sites like DDB to censor me 'for my own protection'. I have no interest in providing that degree of personal information to DDB, and if, come January, they decide to restrict my access and remove my ability to utilise content I've paid for personally, then I'm just going to cancel my sub (again) and never use the site again after this.
If websites actually moderated their "forums" instead of censoring and parents actually parented the Internet would be a much better place. I am right there with you on dumping this site if it becomes the dumpster fire it is headed for.
So with Australia's social media ban for children, this forum would be considered social media. And an account on DDB grants access to it. So anyone 16 or younger would be barred from having an account here and would have to rely on a parent's account. DOB and country location would be relevant in relation to that now.
So with Australia's social media ban for children, this forum would be considered social media. And an account on DDB grants access to it. So anyone 16 or younger would be barred from having an account here and would have to rely on a parent's account. DOB and country location would be relevant in relation to that now.
I was about to say 'No! That's not how it works ...' But then I thought, well, maybe that's exactly how it works?
And ... it's not. Not exactly. The law doesn't carpet ban everything with a personal profile and social interaction. But the law can ban access to something like DNDB. Which I consider, maybe, something of an overreach.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
So with Australia's social media ban for children, this forum would be considered social media. And an account on DDB grants access to it. So anyone 16 or younger would be barred from having an account here and would have to rely on a parent's account. DOB and country location would be relevant in relation to that now.
I was about to say 'No! That's not how it works ...' But then I thought, well, maybe that's exactly how it works?
And ... it's not. Not exactly. The law doesn't carpet ban everything with a personal profile and social interaction. But the law can ban access to something like DNDB. Which I consider, maybe, something of an overreach.
Yeah but the response to it being overreach is, fight it in court, which costs a lot of money. Or put in measures like this. Hasbro is a big enough company that 'could' fight it, but is too greedy to fight it.
Yeah but the response to it being overreach is, fight it in court, which costs a lot of money. Or put in measures like this. Hasbro is a big enough company that 'could' fight it, but is too greedy to fight it.
My understanding is that it's not a law that bans everything that fits a given description - but rather that anything that fits may be banned by court order or some such.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Yeah but the response to it being overreach is, fight it in court, which costs a lot of money. Or put in measures like this. Hasbro is a big enough company that 'could' fight it, but is too greedy to fight it.
Hasbro absolutely has no reason to fight these laws, and it is kind of unfair to expect them to. As a company, Hasbro is smaller than you likely think - it does not break into the Fortune 500 and consistently produces far lower profits than its revenues due to their heavy up-front costs in materials and manufacturing (last year, they only made some $300 million on $4.14 billion revenue). Their business is consistently strapped for cash due to these materials costs and having to constantly invest in future growth, and their business is incredibly prone to common problems like inflation in materials costs, manufacturing disruptions in China and other countries, tariffs, and the fact entertainment products are the first thing cut when individual consumers start feeling financial pinches.
Then you look at their portfolio and it becomes pretty clear that this is not a fight Hasbro wants to take - outside of D&D Beyond, I am not sure they have any real stake in the current changes to social medial laws globally. Why on earth would a company with longstanding cash-flow issues, facing an absolutely uncertain future that is very much at the whims of numerous global issues right now, want to go up against multipole national governments across the entire world in lengthy and expensive litigation? Speaking as an attorney with a pretty good grasp on how much litigations like this can cost, we are talking easily a couple hundred thousand dollars in each of many different national and state jurisdictions - without any guarantee that they will win.
I do not see "hey, maybe we should not fight back against entire governments globally, just for a small handful of people in a small corner of our struggling business," as greedy - that is just common sense for basic survival.
If this is a winnable fight, someone like Reddit, whose business is actually significantly hurt by the laws and thus stands to gain from fighting back (and who has already filed a lawsuit) will win that fight. A company like that is the proxy who will fight back on Hasbro's and others' behalf - it simply does not make sense for Hasbro to also throw their name in the ring when they have little to gain and lots to lose.
So with Australia's social media ban for children, this forum would be considered social media. And an account on DDB grants access to it. So anyone 16 or younger would be barred from having an account here and would have to rely on a parent's account. DOB and country location would be relevant in relation to that now.
I was about to say 'No! That's not how it works ...' But then I thought, well, maybe that's exactly how it works?
And ... it's not. Not exactly. The law doesn't carpet ban everything with a personal profile and social interaction. But the law can ban access to something like DNDB. Which I consider, maybe, something of an overreach.
Yeah but the response to it being overreach is, fight it in court, which costs a lot of money. Or put in measures like this. Hasbro is a big enough company that 'could' fight it, but is too greedy to fight it.
Greed? It’s up to an American company to fight for the free speech rights of Australian teenagers? Seems like that issue should be up to the people of Australia.
And if they did try and take them on, how’s that look? Meddling in another nation’s affairs so they can squeeze money from those same Australian teenagers. Where’s the win condition for WotC?
Hm, OK, after reading those links, it's about giving a child parental consent. As an adult who doesn't have a child who has a account here I shouldn't need to do that. Is this Wizards doing something dodgy again?!
There are both adults and children under 18 who use the site. If you're an adult, you have nothing to worry about; verifying your age and location is all you have to do. If a child wants to create an account, that's where the K-ID portion applies, and they have to get their parents to give consent through that platform.
Yes, it isn't much, but as privacy advocates know, the more information provided to a third-party service, the more susceptible you are to breaches and the possibility for a hostile actor to correlate this information with your PII available elsewhere. You can try to argue that it is an acceptable risk for most users, but the key is that users must make that choice for themselves and ought to be aware of the risks.
I wouldn't say I'm paranoid about this particular case, but there is a pernicious trend among policymakers who are trying to lock entire sectors of the internet behind gates that require PII. It always starts with age and location.
So with Australia's social media ban for children, this forum would be considered social media. And an account on DDB grants access to it. So anyone 16 or younger would be barred from having an account here and would have to rely on a parent's account. DOB and country location would be relevant in relation to that now.
I was about to say 'No! That's not how it works ...' But then I thought, well, maybe that's exactly how it works?
And ... it's not. Not exactly. The law doesn't carpet ban everything with a personal profile and social interaction. But the law can ban access to something like DNDB. Which I consider, maybe, something of an overreach.
Yeah but the response to it being overreach is, fight it in court, which costs a lot of money. Or put in measures like this. Hasbro is a big enough company that 'could' fight it, but is too greedy to fight it.
Greed? It’s up to an American company to fight for the free speech rights of Australian teenagers? Seems like that issue should be up to the people of Australia.
And if they did try and take them on, how’s that look? Meddling in another nation’s affairs so they can squeeze money from those same Australian teenagers. Where’s the win condition for WotC?
In theory:To spend money less on executives & investors/shareholders/venture capitalism firms/Blackrock-type money blobs that are inaccessible to younger people on the business, employees, owed taxes in full forever & in perpetuity & ESPECIALLY the end-users while doing the best ideal thing always to make more money than they are now, then releasing their entire IP stock into the public domain.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
So with Australia's social media ban for children, this forum would be considered social media. And an account on DDB grants access to it. So anyone 16 or younger would be barred from having an account here and would have to rely on a parent's account. DOB and country location would be relevant in relation to that now.
I was about to say 'No! That's not how it works ...' But then I thought, well, maybe that's exactly how it works?
And ... it's not. Not exactly. The law doesn't carpet ban everything with a personal profile and social interaction. But the law can ban access to something like DNDB. Which I consider, maybe, something of an overreach.
Yeah but the response to it being overreach is, fight it in court, which costs a lot of money. Or put in measures like this. Hasbro is a big enough company that 'could' fight it, but is too greedy to fight it.
Greed? It’s up to an American company to fight for the free speech rights of Australian teenagers? Seems like that issue should be up to the people of Australia.
And if they did try and take them on, how’s that look? Meddling in another nation’s affairs so they can squeeze money from those same Australian teenagers. Where’s the win condition for WotC?
In theory:To spend money less on executives & investors/shareholders/venture capitalism firms/Blackrock-type money blobs that are inaccessible to younger people on the business, employees, owed taxes in full forever & in perpetuity & ESPECIALLY the end-users while doing the best ideal thing always to make more money than they are now, then releasing their entire IP stock into the public domain.
How is giving away everything they own a win condition for WotC?!
So with Australia's social media ban for children, this forum would be considered social media. And an account on DDB grants access to it. So anyone 16 or younger would be barred from having an account here and would have to rely on a parent's account. DOB and country location would be relevant in relation to that now.
I was about to say 'No! That's not how it works ...' But then I thought, well, maybe that's exactly how it works?
And ... it's not. Not exactly. The law doesn't carpet ban everything with a personal profile and social interaction. But the law can ban access to something like DNDB. Which I consider, maybe, something of an overreach.
Yeah but the response to it being overreach is, fight it in court, which costs a lot of money. Or put in measures like this. Hasbro is a big enough company that 'could' fight it, but is too greedy to fight it.
Greed? It’s up to an American company to fight for the free speech rights of Australian teenagers? Seems like that issue should be up to the people of Australia.
And if they did try and take them on, how’s that look? Meddling in another nation’s affairs so they can squeeze money from those same Australian teenagers. Where’s the win condition for WotC?
In theory:To spend money less on executives & investors/shareholders/venture capitalism firms/Blackrock-type money blobs that are inaccessible to younger people on the business, employees, owed taxes in full forever & in perpetuity & ESPECIALLY the end-users while doing the best ideal thing always to make more money than they are now, then releasing their entire IP stock into the public domain.
How is giving away everything they own a win condition for WotC?!
This is why I said "in theory"
Because that's what a very loud group of people think EVERY business MUST do to stop consequences.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yet another clunky/flawed rollout, when will they learn. I don't care if I loose forum access (it's value has diminished immensely since wozbro took over) if I lose content access and tool access war will be declared.
It doesn't matter that most 13 year olds know how to spoof k-ID and that it's extremely easy to do so... (it is)
On principle, I have no interest in passing out veritable information about my RL self. It's my responsibility to curate my own experiences online, and if I end up seeing something I don't wish to, that's *my* problem. If I were a parent, it would be my responsibility and duty to educate my kids and curate their experience safely - it would be my responsibility as a parent to teach them how to be safe online.
Part of that education would include, shockingly, *Never Giving Out Your Real Life Age And Location* and *Never Posting RL Selfies To Strangers Who Ask For Them*
Funny that.
DDB has no legal reason to be asking for this information - they are not affected by any of the recent laws being put into place, and they also have no need for it.
Simply asking for a user declaration of age is *Enough* - the user does not NEED to verify that with a legal *ID card*, or a *Selfie Video* - as k-ID asks you to provide.
For now, just a basic declaration of age and region is all they're asking for. The key detail is that it's literally just us declaring it as a statement; we're not being asked to prove it with real and veritable information... that is to say, we're not being required to actually verify through k-ID... as long as that's all it remains, that's okay. If they start asking us to provide real and veritable personal information, however, that is where it becomes a problem.
I am an adult; I am responsible for curating my own online experience; that is ALL I am going to give anyone. It is not the place of sites like DDB to censor me 'for my own protection'. I have no interest in providing that degree of personal information to DDB, and if, come January, they decide to restrict my access and remove my ability to utilise content I've paid for personally, then I'm just going to cancel my sub (again) and never use the site again after this.
DDB has a forum and tools like their campaign management system also have certain social media elements. Furthermore, they are a multinational corporation with a global presence. Contrary to your baseless assertion that they are “not affected”, they are, in all likelihood, directly implicated in a number of different global laws.
If you have an issue, that is with the laws, not with Beyond or Wizards. Your frustration seems to be a bit misdirected.
Just to double-check I'm understanding correctly then, as an adult I would only be providing bday/region to DDB and no 3rd party site will be involved correct?
This is a signature. It was a simple signature. But it has been upgraded.
Belolonandalogalo, Sunny
Eggo Lass, Bone and Oblivion | Tendilius Mondhaven Paxaramus, Drakkenheim
Karl Erikson, No Guts No Glory | Chipper, Curse of Strahd
Silverwood Group 1 | Silverwood Group 2
Get rickrolled here. Awesome music here. Track 51, 10/23/25, Viva La Vida
I literally live in the country that has placed the law to which this action is directly responding - it came into effect two days ago. This action by DDB is directly in response to this law.
This law has specific definitions and, in particular, it denotes which platforms are, and are not, affected by it - for instance, Discord was thought to be affected by the law, but as it turns out, it actually isn't. DDB is NOT affected by this law.
(*And in fact, if it was affected by this law, then they would not legally be allowed to 'settle' for my simply declaring that I am an adult in a DoB field as soon as I nominated that I was located in Australia: they would be required to demand a verification check from me. They aren't and didn't because they are not subject to the new law.)
Ok, thank you!
Applying some basic reasoning, the deadline in D&D Beyond is in January - if they only cared about Australia’s law, then that would be far too late to bring them into compliance and they would have enacted this to come into effect before then, or would be scrambling to come up with a more rapid solution.
You are only looking through this from your own personal lens when facts clearly establish a different, larger pattern. Laws globally are changing - with the UK and many American states increasingly cracking down on underage internet usage. That is clearly the legal trend Wizards is responding to, not simply the one piece of the puzzle you are choosing to fixate on.
Is what they call justification.
Oh, I'm sure you're not wrong. It's all about making a safe environment, while also having some legal CMA in place - while also trading technically anonymized data as hard and fast as they can.
I'll admit - that's mostly hard trained paranoia. I trust precisely no one to have any sort of moral standards. So anything we give to anyone anywhere, any shred of data is technically anonymous, in that it doesn't have our names or ID's or credit card histories. But it's sorted into neat piles with interests and purchaces, sites visited, interests expressed, and so on, and we're fed an endless stream of .... well. And no one is innocent. Literally. No one.
I've worked long and hard to purge myself of any remaining false views, considering corporate entities as having any semblance of humanity left to them. They are Cthulic monsters with their tentacles in absolutely everything, and nothing even remotely like morals. incomprehensible terrors from beyond the void.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
If websites actually moderated their "forums" instead of censoring and parents actually parented the Internet would be a much better place. I am right there with you on dumping this site if it becomes the dumpster fire it is headed for.
So with Australia's social media ban for children, this forum would be considered social media. And an account on DDB grants access to it. So anyone 16 or younger would be barred from having an account here and would have to rely on a parent's account. DOB and country location would be relevant in relation to that now.
I was about to say 'No! That's not how it works ...' But then I thought, well, maybe that's exactly how it works?
And ... it's not. Not exactly. The law doesn't carpet ban everything with a personal profile and social interaction. But the law can ban access to something like DNDB. Which I consider, maybe, something of an overreach.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Yeah but the response to it being overreach is, fight it in court, which costs a lot of money. Or put in measures like this. Hasbro is a big enough company that 'could' fight it, but is too greedy to fight it.
My understanding is that it's not a law that bans everything that fits a given description - but rather that anything that fits may be banned by court order or some such.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Hasbro absolutely has no reason to fight these laws, and it is kind of unfair to expect them to. As a company, Hasbro is smaller than you likely think - it does not break into the Fortune 500 and consistently produces far lower profits than its revenues due to their heavy up-front costs in materials and manufacturing (last year, they only made some $300 million on $4.14 billion revenue). Their business is consistently strapped for cash due to these materials costs and having to constantly invest in future growth, and their business is incredibly prone to common problems like inflation in materials costs, manufacturing disruptions in China and other countries, tariffs, and the fact entertainment products are the first thing cut when individual consumers start feeling financial pinches.
Then you look at their portfolio and it becomes pretty clear that this is not a fight Hasbro wants to take - outside of D&D Beyond, I am not sure they have any real stake in the current changes to social medial laws globally. Why on earth would a company with longstanding cash-flow issues, facing an absolutely uncertain future that is very much at the whims of numerous global issues right now, want to go up against multipole national governments across the entire world in lengthy and expensive litigation? Speaking as an attorney with a pretty good grasp on how much litigations like this can cost, we are talking easily a couple hundred thousand dollars in each of many different national and state jurisdictions - without any guarantee that they will win.
I do not see "hey, maybe we should not fight back against entire governments globally, just for a small handful of people in a small corner of our struggling business," as greedy - that is just common sense for basic survival.
If this is a winnable fight, someone like Reddit, whose business is actually significantly hurt by the laws and thus stands to gain from fighting back (and who has already filed a lawsuit) will win that fight. A company like that is the proxy who will fight back on Hasbro's and others' behalf - it simply does not make sense for Hasbro to also throw their name in the ring when they have little to gain and lots to lose.
I'm going to go ahead and say 'nope.'
You have my name and address already, linked to a credit card in my name. You don't need, and will not get, any more than that.
Greed? It’s up to an American company to fight for the free speech rights of Australian teenagers? Seems like that issue should be up to the people of Australia.
And if they did try and take them on, how’s that look? Meddling in another nation’s affairs so they can squeeze money from those same Australian teenagers. Where’s the win condition for WotC?
Yes, it isn't much, but as privacy advocates know, the more information provided to a third-party service, the more susceptible you are to breaches and the possibility for a hostile actor to correlate this information with your PII available elsewhere. You can try to argue that it is an acceptable risk for most users, but the key is that users must make that choice for themselves and ought to be aware of the risks.
I wouldn't say I'm paranoid about this particular case, but there is a pernicious trend among policymakers who are trying to lock entire sectors of the internet behind gates that require PII. It always starts with age and location.
In theory:To spend money less on executives & investors/shareholders/venture capitalism firms/Blackrock-type money blobs that are inaccessible to younger people on the business, employees, owed taxes in full forever & in perpetuity & ESPECIALLY the end-users while doing the best ideal thing always to make more money than they are now, then releasing their entire IP stock into the public domain.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
How is giving away everything they own a win condition for WotC?!
This is why I said "in theory"
Because that's what a very loud group of people think EVERY business MUST do to stop consequences.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.