91–100 of 720 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you asserting that parents should not have the rights to determine this for their own children?
Parents don’t have the right to get their kids a tattoo, vote or buy alcohol before a regulated age. Is this different?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_tattooing_in_t...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Parents don’t have the right to get their kids a tattoo, vote or buy alcohol before a regulated age. Is this different?
So your answer is yes? Your position is that decisions about youth access to social media should be fully taken from the parents and made by govs instead. Penalties can be assumed from your examples. This is the reality that you want imposed on parents and children - yes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm in favor of kids not using social media, but not of the government forcing this on people nor spinning up whatever absurd regulatory regime is required. And the chance of actually enforcing it is zero anyway. It's no more realistic to expect this to work than to expect all parents to do it as you say. It's just wasted money plus personal intrusion that won't achieve anything.
Several governments have already effectively banned sites like Pornhub by creating regimes where people have to mail their ID to a central clearinghouse (which creates a huge chilling effect.) The article talks about “reasonable age verification measures” and so saying it’s unenforceable seems a little bit premature. Also, you can bet those measures won’t be in any way reasonable once the Florida legislature gets thr…
In my opinion, these governments haven't implemented 'effective' bans (though maybe chilling, as you say) but primarily created awkward new grey markets for the personal data that these policies rely on for theatrics. Remember when China 'banned' youth IDs from playing online games past 10PM? I think a bunch of grandparents became gamers around the same time...
I'm still on the fence about government doing a parent's job here, especially for kids under 13, but I can't stand that no one pushing these bills has come up with an actually reasonable age verification method.
The problem here is that it's pretty much out of the hands of the parents. If your kids' friends have social media, your kids will absolutely need it too in order to not be left out. I've witnessed the pressure, and it's not pretty. Add to that the expectation from society that children shall have access to social media.
Regulation is pretty much the only way to send the right signals to parents, schools, media companies (e.g. Swedish public service TV has a kids app that until recently was called "Bolibompa Baby", but it's now renamed to "Bolibompa Mini"), app designers, and so on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think enforcement actually needs to be very tightly controlled. The barriers that are put in place like the one you describe are already enough to create a social milieu where parents and kids with think twice about these things and understand that there is a recognised harm potential. There's nothing stopping you pouring your youngsters a glass of wine with dinner, but as a society we've made the dangers of…
> as a society we've made the dangers of alcohol and similar things so well understood that no parent wants to. Unfortunately, as a society, we have a much harder time grasping social media threat data. I suppose some of that is due to how news orgs consistently+bizarrely+hugely overstating the actual harms in the data. https://www.techdirt.com/2024/01/08/leading-save-the-kids-ad...
As a Floridian and someone in IT - I'm curious how this will be implemented I can't remember the last time I signed up for a new social network; do they ask age? Is it an ask to Apple / Google to add stronger parental approval? Verify drivers license #? We heard about this days ago on local news and I've been struggling to figure out short of are you 16 years or older how this is gonna get done and how do you fine so…
> I'm curious how this will be implemented The only way to determine age is to compile a database of gov-issued IDs and related data. Which is an unconstitutional barrier to speech. Which is why this will get struck-down like each similar law. The part about ID data eventually being shared with 3rd parties, agencies - and/or leaked - is a bonus.
That would indeed allow the site to compile a database of government issues IDs and give that information (willfully or via leaks) to third parties.
Those issues can be fixed by using a three party system. The parties are the user, the site that they need to prove their age to, and a site that already has the information from the user's government ID.
Briefly, the user gets a token from the social media site, presents that token and their government ID to the site that already has their ID information, and that site sign that token if the user meets the age requirements. The user presents that signed token back to the social network which sees that it was signed by the third site which tells it the third site says the user meeds the age requirement.
By using modern cryptographic techniques (blind signatures or zero knowledge proofs) the communication between the user and the third site can be done in a way that keeps the third site from getting any information about which site they are doing the age check for.
With some additional safeguards in the protocol and in what sites are allowed to be the ID checking sites it can even be made so that someone who gets records of both the social media site and the third site can't use timing information to match up social media accounts with verifications and so could work with sites that allow anonymous accounts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Several governments have already effectively banned sites like Pornhub by creating regimes where people have to mail their ID to a central clearinghouse (which creates a huge chilling effect.) The article talks about “reasonable age verification measures” and so saying it’s unenforceable seems a little bit premature. Also, you can bet those measures won’t be in any way reasonable once the Florida legislature gets thr…
>effectively banned In my opinion, these governments haven't implemented 'effective' bans (though maybe chilling, as you say) but primarily created awkward new grey markets for the personal data that these policies rely on for theatrics. Remember when China 'banned' youth IDs from playing online games past 10PM? I think a bunch of grandparents became gamers around the same time... https://www.nature.com/articles/s415…
Its impressive how people here, that should know better, are cheering this on - just because they are parents themselves. Even disregarding the legality, its not going to work technically. The perceived safety of ones kids really crosses some wires in parents.
Of course this is technically unenforceable. There will always fbe workarounds. You could smoke as an 11 year old if you were determined enough.
But we need more pushback and dialogue on social media’s role in the common discourse. For a while, nobody talked about smoking being bad and it became normalized while killing a lot of people. Seatbelts. Dumping waste in the river… most people go with the flow of common consensus until that consensus is scrutinized.