161–170 of 720 posts
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?
Actually, in many states there is no minimum age to get a tattoo with parental consent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_tattooing_in_t...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Answering a problem with unenforceable garbage like this doesn't seem like a very sound strategy.
This discussion can be seen every time when the EU decides on some regulation against tech industry. A lot of people will jump that it won't be enforced, then when we see the first fines those people will jump that it won't move a needle, then when the tech giants do change a bit their course then... well the tech bros will always find a reason to jump against doing anything to curb tech.
I support this. Normally, I think government intervention is bad and parents should be in control. But, as a parent myself, it was hard not to allow my child to have a phone when she kept saying, "Everyone has one. I'll be the only one without a phone". No one wants their child left out or left behind. This will remove that rationale.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anonymous credentials. A central authority with verified age information of each person grants credentials that verify the age to third parties, but the authentication tokens used with the third party can't be used by the third party nor the central authority to identify anything else about the credential holder.
Then there is a data breach, and every person in the country is de-anonymized. No thank you.
The central authority should be someplace that already has your non-anonymous ID data, so using your ID for age verification doesn't give them any new ID information. The only new thing that them doing age verification adds is that they might keep a list of verification tokens they have issued.
Someone who obtained copies of the verification tokens you requested might go to various social media sites and ask them who used those tokens, allowing matching up your social media identities with your real identity.
That's fixed by making it so the token that is given to the social media site is not the token that came from site that checked your ID. You give the social media site a transformed token that you transform in such a way that the social media site can recognize that it was made from a legitimate token from the ID checker but does not match anything on the list of tokens that the ID checker has for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A massive, decades-long decline in the habit? Stemming from ad restrictions, warning labels, media campaigns, taxation, legal action by states/Feds, etc.
This must be why there’s not 50 vape shops in my town with big neon signs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While people are on the fence about it, our children are having their youth, innocence and brains destroyed by tiktok et al. Those platforms are cancer to adults even, let alone impressionable kids... yet here we are still debating it and faffing around about "1st amendment yaddi yadda".
>children are having their youth, innocence and brains destroyed by tiktok For one, ease up on the hyperbole if you want to be taken seriously. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because the news is nothing but hyperbole these days, so it's easy to pick up the habit. Second, most kids aren't having "their youth, innocence and brains destroyed." The news takes the edge cases, amplifies them and presents it as the…
I disagree that this is hyperbole. It's a huge problem among kids. Literacy rates are dropping. Listen to the stories you hear from teachers.
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?
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.
Even more if the system worked in a centralized way: this email/phone is used exclusively by a kid, so now all on-boarded companies must delete their accounts and not allow them to register again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m normally anti-regulation as well, but as a parent I’m fully on board with this. The amount of peer pressure to be on social media is insane.
Are you asserting that parents should not have the rights to determine this for their own children?
I'm a pretty pro-market guy, but there are times when the interests of the market are orthogonal to the interests of mankind.