I feel I should reiterate: I disagree this blanket solution is the proper implementation, and I could write an entire thesis which no one would read explaining in elaborate detail as to why, with explicit citations for objective examples of proof backing my claims.
Even the current all-or-nothing implementation of age verification is shortsighted, restricting access to otherwise reasonable and consenting users.
Imagine you’re trying to show off what VRC is, for adults, and you want to take a friend who is a new player to your usual hangout: Permanently locked out, until they shell out 10 usd per month, their government ID, the use of a cellphone which they may or may not have just for a browser with camera access, and that’s BEFORE this grown, hopefully working adult has the opportunity to decide if VRC is right for them to experience longterm.
It shouldn’t need explaining that public instances and even group moderated, non-age gated instances are very different from the current age locked communities.
That’s just one hypothetical which adds friction to new user on-boarding, especially since it seems anecdotally true that adults make up the vast majority of daily users and paying subscribers.
I’m not trying to argue that more stringent measures are not needed, as it seems others think of me: Most certainly, we need a fix for this, immediately.
One that implements more problems than it solves will not help us, however.
For my extended opinion:
Content locked tags should first and foremost default to ON for new users and most shield levels, requiring active and intentional opt out. Content tagging needs to be more stringently enforced: And that doesn’t mean ban anyone who doesn’t tag their content properly; Forcing tags onto content after reports would be an extremely simple implementation with longstanding and compoundable effects through other systems. Removing the significant cost of poorly designed assets and lack of content tagging while encouraging proper tagging would prevent the users currently trying to skirt the system from having a reason for doing so.
Rather than constantly trying to lock people out of where you don’t want them to be, systems as complex as VRC needs to design with the intent of sending people where you need them, so they never have a reason to break things in the first place.
Atop of those content level nuances, adding invite-ability to non-verified users by verified users is going to become a mandatory system requirement, whether it’s via a consensus mechanic or by individual friend / group level invite access: that isn’t a guess, that’s the reality of everyone’s desire to remain somewhat age-segregated; the only balanced result contending to those who refuse age verification and those who require it for their groups.
Otherwise, we have similar optics problems as what virtual platforms are already currently facing regarding mixed-age spaces, and I can already imagine some of the questioning of intent things will come to when users who value privacy are once again threatened as meaningless to the stability of the very systems we all hope to inhabit safely.
That’s a long winded way of saying: Without proper foresight, one way or another, this problem may kill the platform, and it’s a needle thin edge trying to implement adequate countermeasures to the problems that are manifesting.