After blocking its service in Mississippi over its new age-assurance law, the social networking startup Bluesky is taking a different approach to comply with laws in South Dakota and Wyoming. Instead of restricting access to all unverified users, Bluesky will allow users in these states to verify their ages through the Kids Web Services’ solution.
This service provides multiple methods for age verification. Users can choose to use a payment card, an identity document, an anonymous face scan for facial age estimation, or other alternatives. Bluesky is already using this same service to comply with the similar requirements of the U.K.’s Online Safety Act.
The company explained its reasoning in a blog post, stating that this approach strikes the right balance. Bluesky will remain available to users in these states, and the company will not need to restrict the app for everyone.
While Bluesky acknowledges that governments are trying to mitigate risks for children online, it found Mississippi’s poorly written and overly broad law difficult to comply with. That law would have required Bluesky to verify all users, not just those accessing age-restricted content, and to obtain parental consent for every user under 18. The penalties for non-compliance are also hefty, at up to ten thousand dollars per user.
The startup previously explained that its small team lacks the resources to make the substantial technical changes required by Mississippi’s law. This led to the unfortunate decision to leave the state entirely, a move that allows larger competitors like Meta to maintain their dominance.
By comparison, Bluesky said the laws in South Dakota and Wyoming offer a better solution. Laws requiring age verification are expanding around the globe, not just in the United States. However, the lack of federal regulations has led dozens of U.S. states to enact their own age-verification laws.
When these laws target social networks, they can create significant challenges for smaller players like Bluesky, making it difficult for them to compete. Privacy advocates also complain that such laws put users at an increased risk of identity theft and are generally invasive.