Link: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/03/rep-finke-was-right-age-gating-isnt-about-kids-its-about-control

When Rep. Leigh Finke spoke last month before the Minnesota House Commerce Finance and Policy Committee to testify against HF1434, a broad-sweeping proposal to age-gate the internet, she began with something disarming: agreement.

“I want to support the basic part of this,” she said, the shared goal of protecting young people online. Because that is not controversial: everyone wants kids to be safe. But HF1434, Minnesota’s proposed age-verification bill, simply won’t “protect children.” It mandates that websites hosting speech that is protected by the First Amendment for both adults and young people to verify users’ identities, often through government IDs or biometric data. As we’ve discussed before, the bill’s definition of speech that lawmakers deem “harmful to minors” is notoriously broad—broad enough to sweep in lawful, non-pornographic speech about sexual orientation, sexual health, and gender identity.

Rep. Finke, an openly transgender lawmaker, next raised a point that her critics have since tried to distort: age-verification laws like the Minnesota bill are already being used to block young LGBTQ+ people from exercising their First Amendment rights to access information that may be educational, affirming, or life-saving. Referencing the Supreme Court case Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, she noted that state attorneys general have been “almost jubilant” about the ability to use these laws to restrict queer youth from accessing content. “We know that ‘prurient interest’ could be for many people, the very existence of transgender kids,” she added, referring to the malleable legal standard that would govern what content must be age-gated under the law.

But despite years’ worth of evidence to back her up, Finke has faced a wave of attacks from countless media outlets and religious advocacy groups for her statements. Rep. Finke’s testimony was repeatedly mischaracterized as not having young people’s best interests in mind, when really she was accurately describing the lived reality of LGBTQ+ youth and advocating in support of their access to vital resources and community.

While I think its true that for some supporting these changes its about religious, fanatic control 2 genders etc...

https://lemmy.ml/post/44638165

Meta is funding these changes and as they are a corporation, I think its fair to assume for them its about money.
So the motivation isn't about ideological change its about capitalist and share holder values.

I think its important to show who's really behind these proposals, so we know who to oppose.
This is not just about trans kids, this is about all of us.

Speculation:
Since Metas business is userdata I think they want to track you though the web with your ID connected. Similar how a user with a email is worth more to data brokers, one with a payment method is worth more and I assume one with ID even more.

Who knows what their real endgame is or I'm just too sinister but I can imagine if they leak enough IDs they might deteriorate in significance and Meta might swoop in to save the day, being the last instance who can verify you for you.

I think it's a combination of multiple different groups each with many different reasons/ideologies/motivations behind this, so I think you and the OP article are both correct.

I'm definitely guilty of putting it off, but the very second that my operating system asks me how old it I am is the second that I stop using it and switched to something else that does not.