Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A US Bill Would Ban Kids Under 13 from Joining Social Media

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 109 posts

Re: A US Bill Would Ban Kids Under 13 from Joining Social Media

#51

Post by hnlmorg »

_8j50 wrote: post #44
htag wrote: post #39

This is movement is going to be widely regarded as on of the largest prohibitions in our era. * Whatever verification system a user has to do to prove they are older than 13 will also being to freak users out about 'whoes listening'. It's insane to think a First Name, Last Name, and Address might be tied to _every reddit account_. * That data will be used for government surveillance. Maybe I should start creating a h…

A system to verify age is not needed. Simply making it illegal and holding parents accountable is enough. It's one of those things where perfection is the enemy of good. Some kids will do it anyways but parents can install hard to remove monitoring software on devices and the penalty can be similar to a somewhat serious traffic citation.

We haven’t had a good track record in recent years of businesses honouring the spirit of the law. For example cookie consent banners with horrible dark patterns aren’t necessary to operate in the EU but some companies feel this is a better approach than reducing the amount of data they harvest. Likewise some companies will see this new legislation as an excuse to collect more data too.

The fact that a lot of social networks require or request phone numbers “for security” rather than TOTP codes (for example) is another such example of how data collection is hidden behind “safety”.

Re: A US Bill Would Ban Kids Under 13 from Joining Social Media

#52

Post by echelon »

htag wrote: post #39

This is movement is going to be widely regarded as on of the largest prohibitions in our era. * Whatever verification system a user has to do to prove they are older than 13 will also being to freak users out about 'whoes listening'. It's insane to think a First Name, Last Name, and Address might be tied to _every reddit account_. * That data will be used for government surveillance. Maybe I should start creating a h…

> verification system a user has to do to prove they are older than 13

Once LLM-powered bots flood social media [1], websites will have to implement verification as a means of survival.

[1] That hasn't even really begun. Wait until ChatGPT+ capabilities can be run from home at next to zero cost.

Re: A US Bill Would Ban Kids Under 13 from Joining Social Media

#53

Post by meindnoch »

john_the_writer wrote: post #47
madaxe_again wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s also that kids are far smarter than generally given credit for, and are perfectly capable of going behind their parents’ backs. What is needed, and has been for some time, is an identity service. This does exist in some parts of the world - here in Portugal, for instance, I access government services online with a smartcard, password and 2FA - and I don’t see why they couldn’t extend this as a general SS…

I don't understand that "behind parents back" bit. My teen kids aren't on social. I know this because their dumb phones don't support it, and their computers are not permitted in their rooms (Kitchen table only). I suppose they could get on, through a friends smart-phone, but that would be limited to the time they spend on the bus to/from school.

How do you know they don't have a second phone? E.g. a friend gave them their old phone.

As a kid I was doing graffiti, and later drinking and smoking weed without my parents knowledge.

Re: A US Bill Would Ban Kids Under 13 from Joining Social Media

#54

Post by csydas »

hnlmorg wrote: post #23

The issue as I see it isn’t going to be solved by forcing social networks to gather even more personal information about individuals (eg proof of ID and proof of age). The issue is how social networks are engineered, either by chance or by design, to promote negativity in the pursuit of engagement. If we can find a way to declaw social networks then we’d have a healthier ecosystem for all ages. But this is a much har…

In general I hope this Bill doesn't pass, because it's extremely poorly written, and based on the list of exceptions and the loose wording, I'm not sure the Bill authors have any idea _how_ any of this should be enforced.

https://www.schatz.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/protecting_kids_...

That's the actual Bill, and it's quite a fast read and in fairly plain language, but it's mostly an empty several pages.

Multiple times the Bill states that it is not to be construed as a requirement for Government ID, but then in Section 7 regarding the pilot program, it mentions these as a reference on how to validate users in the pilot program. No other definitions or examples of "reasonable". In fact, the validation method in Section 3 simply says

> IN GENERAL

> A social media platform shall take

> reasonable steps beyond merely requiring attestation, taking into account existing

> age verification technologies, to verify the age of individuals who are account

> holders on the platform.

That's not a ton of guidance besides Government ID's referenced later on, and leaving it to "reasonable" is really too vague; if a user signs up with a gmail email address, is it enough to assume that because Gmail requires a user to be a certain age that they are validated? Is it Gmail's fault if it turns out the owner of an address misrepresented their name or is it the social media company's fault? How exactly are the Social Media companies supposed to validate this?

More importantly, how is an individual supposed to validate it without giving out more information on themselves or spreading records of their Government Identification to a bunch of sites?

The exceptions list in Section 2, Paragraph 6 subsection C is way too big and you can guess the businesses that the Bill has in mind for each entry. But it's also so loose; if TikTok starts adding in-app purchases for the items in ads you get, is it now exempted under ection 2, Paragraph 6 subsection C item i? After all, it's facilitating transactions now with the algorithm, and logically a guardian has given consent to use the platform if they forked over their card number so their kid can make purchases.

There is so much loose language and intent here when the crux of the bill is hidden under Section 6, which is to tone down the algorithm usage.

Re: A US Bill Would Ban Kids Under 13 from Joining Social Media

#55

Post by cykros »

_8j50 wrote: post #44
htag wrote: post #39

This is movement is going to be widely regarded as on of the largest prohibitions in our era. * Whatever verification system a user has to do to prove they are older than 13 will also being to freak users out about 'whoes listening'. It's insane to think a First Name, Last Name, and Address might be tied to _every reddit account_. * That data will be used for government surveillance. Maybe I should start creating a h…

A system to verify age is not needed. Simply making it illegal and holding parents accountable is enough. It's one of those things where perfection is the enemy of good. Some kids will do it anyways but parents can install hard to remove monitoring software on devices and the penalty can be similar to a somewhat serious traffic citation.

I'd love to live in a town with these parents with superpowers you envision. In my town, people look at me like I have 3 heads when I explain we've enabled Microsoft's Family Link on our son's computer and that screen time rules make it so he just can't use it after bedtime, which is why unlike their kids, he's not up til 2 am.

Installing software? How about just using what's already there and begging you to use it.

Forget about showing credentials to use social media. The issue here may be needing credentials to breed -- but, you know, who watches the watchmen?

Re: A US Bill Would Ban Kids Under 13 from Joining Social Media

#56

Post by Kwpolska »

madaxe_again wrote: post #33
michael9k wrote: post #26

Don't know how this could be implemented in a good way (so FB etc do not get access to important identity information), but trying to limit social media for kids below 13 is a fantastic idea. One could wish the adults/parents would limit this themselves, but sadly this is seldom the case. For some reason it seems most parents really are clueless to the level of harm imposed by social media to their kids?!

I think it’s also that kids are far smarter than generally given credit for, and are perfectly capable of going behind their parents’ backs. What is needed, and has been for some time, is an identity service. This does exist in some parts of the world - here in Portugal, for instance, I access government services online with a smartcard, password and 2FA - and I don’t see why they couldn’t extend this as a general SS…

I don't want Facebook/Twitter/Reddit/etc knowing my real identity, and I don't want my government knowing my Facebook/Twitter/Reddit/etc profile ID.

Re: A US Bill Would Ban Kids Under 13 from Joining Social Media

#57

Post by MagicMoonlight »

_8j50 wrote: post #44
htag wrote: post #39

This is movement is going to be widely regarded as on of the largest prohibitions in our era. * Whatever verification system a user has to do to prove they are older than 13 will also being to freak users out about 'whoes listening'. It's insane to think a First Name, Last Name, and Address might be tied to _every reddit account_. * That data will be used for government surveillance. Maybe I should start creating a h…

A system to verify age is not needed. Simply making it illegal and holding parents accountable is enough. It's one of those things where perfection is the enemy of good. Some kids will do it anyways but parents can install hard to remove monitoring software on devices and the penalty can be similar to a somewhat serious traffic citation.

Parents don’t do that and nobody is going to be able to enforce a law specifically against them

Re: A US Bill Would Ban Kids Under 13 from Joining Social Media

#58

Post by InCityDreams »

michael9k wrote: post #26

Don't know how this could be implemented in a good way (so FB etc do not get access to important identity information), but trying to limit social media for kids below 13 is a fantastic idea. One could wish the adults/parents would limit this themselves, but sadly this is seldom the case. For some reason it seems most parents really are clueless to the level of harm imposed by social media to their kids?!

>to the level of harm imposed by social media to their kids

That 'level of harm' being decided by yourself, I'll wager?

Re: A US Bill Would Ban Kids Under 13 from Joining Social Media

#59

Post by goatlover »

Ekaros wrote: post #25
226_ebro_treaty wrote: post #11

Blanket ban anyone under 14 from having an online account, IMHO.

Let's be sensible and set it at 21. It cannot be less harmful than alcohol.

Why should there be age restrictions once you're legally an adult at 18? 21 is unnecessarily puritanical (EU countries don't have that) and most teenagers are going to drink anyway, just as they're going to find a way to bypass age verifications for their social media of choice.

Re: A US Bill Would Ban Kids Under 13 from Joining Social Media

#60

Post by RobinL »

michael9k wrote: post #26

Don't know how this could be implemented in a good way (so FB etc do not get access to important identity information), but trying to limit social media for kids below 13 is a fantastic idea. One could wish the adults/parents would limit this themselves, but sadly this is seldom the case. For some reason it seems most parents really are clueless to the level of harm imposed by social media to their kids?!

As mentioned by Hilary Clinton in a recent interview on the rest of politics, it's very telling that when silicon valley entrepreneurs advertise for nannies, they often have strict requirements for minimising screen time.

Seems like there's pretty strong revealed preference here (watch what people do not what they say). The people building this tech know it's harmful to kids.

As a parent the argument I hear most often is that all the other kids have it so it's almost impossible to stop your own kids. I don't necessarily buy that, my kids are still young but I intend to keep them away from social media as long as possible.

Post reply on HN