Finland looks to introduce Australia-style ban on social media

Post by hn_throwaway_99 » Sat, Jan 31, 2026, 7:20 PM UTC

pfdietz wrote: post #49

athrowaway3z wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm very critical of all the schemes proposed but this is just a fundamental misconception on your part. > If there was a legitimate drive to protect kids from the worst of the Internet As with any disease, the impact heavily depends on virality. The worst the internet has to offer to children, is not the gore or porn for the few that look for it (usually individually). The worst it does to children is the attention…

"But think of the children" has always been the go-to excuse for tossing freedom out the window.

Post by mc32 » Sat, Jan 31, 2026, 7:22 PM UTC

xixixao wrote: post #74

bluescrn wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMHO the main point of these schemes is to make it hard for adults to use social media somewhat-anonyously. So the government can more easily identify those posting 'prohibited speech'. If there was a legitimate drive to protect kids from the worst of the Internet, there'd have been more of a crackdown on porn, gore, etc long before social media became such a big problem. And smartphones would have never been allowed…

Your argument hinges on the assumption that porn and gore etc. have worse impact on kids. I don’t think there’s a concensus on that. One might argue that porn and gore could have been found in print before the internet, but that social media have a more novel impact. I personally like the theory that most kids problems are actually attributable to family issues. That kids in solid family environment/upbringing will n…

Post by logicchains » Sat, Jan 31, 2026, 7:24 PM UTC

Aerbil313 wrote: post #81

Aeolun wrote: post #31

Is it really so controversial to ban it entirely? We ban heroin and other hard drugs. I think most people are better off, and have a more nuanced view of reality if the only news they get is local. Or the updates from people they know always in person.

You are downvoted, but you are totally right. Humans are not meant to cry daily over stuff that happens half a world away, or be exposed to a thousand new strangers every day. But thanks to internet, your mom and aunt can have an endless fuel to their various anxieties and your daughter can have eating disorders comparing herself to celebrities. Bring a pre-internet pre-24/7 TV person to present day and they’ll spot…

Post by MonkeyClub » Sat, Jan 31, 2026, 7:27 PM UTC

bluescrn wrote: post #58

digiown wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need a passport associated with it, you don't necessarily need to be an adult I think. Or the parent's is fine. Either way you will have to try quite hard to get a FB account not associated with a real life identity. And then they'd shadowban you.

In the UK, pay-as-you-go SIMs are widely available. Not sure how much information you need to give to activate+use one these days, though.

Post by JoshTriplett » Sat, Jan 31, 2026, 7:27 PM UTC

Mindwipe wrote: post #20

alkonaut wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any kind of zero knowledge verification should be ok. But with minors it often goes a long way to just make the law. It’s a good instruction to parents who should be able to control this. Laws on bike helmets for minors are followed nearly 100% not because they are enforced by authorities but because the law gives parents guidance.

There is no such thing in practice. Anything with zero knowledge is never going to be considered robust enough by a government. Zero knowledge protocols really have no functional revocation mechanism.