I get why this sounds better than websites directly collecting IDs, but I think it still understates the problem. Even if the site only sees “18+”, the system still begins with strong identity proofing somewhere upstream. So this is not really anonymous access, it is identity-based access with a privacy layer on top.
The bigger issue is centralization. You still need trusted issuers, approved apps, approved standards, and authorities deciding who can participate. That means users are being asked to trust a centralized framework not to expand, not to abuse its power, and not to fail. History gives us no reason to be relaxed about that.
I am also skeptical of the privacy promises. These systems are always presented in their ideal form, but real-world implementations involve metadata, logging, renewal, compliance rules, vendors, and future policy changes. “The website does not know who you are” is only one small part of the privacy question.
So even in the best-case version, this is still dangerous because it normalizes the idea that access to lawful online content should depend on credentials issued inside a centrally governed identity ecosystem. Today it is age verification. Tomorrow it is broader permissioned access to the internet. That is why I do not see this as a decent compromise, but as infrastructure for future control.
What surprises me more is that someone feels the need to justify staying on Linux at all. That’s a conversation that shouldn’t even exist.
The question has almost always been the other way around: why use anything else?