Earlier quoted context omitted.
Politics works that way sometimes. It could be a fad. It could be the culmination of years of the intelligentsia, political, and corporate benefactors finding this to be the right time to move forward. There has been a lot of propaganda since the mid teens targeting the social and psychological impacts of social media. It is certainly plausible that some group or the aforementioned entities had a big part of this. Re…
[flagged]
The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online
501–510 of 598 posts
Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online
#502I just listened to a radio program on my local NPR station about the topic of kids and social media. From what was presented, the research shows (longitudinal study) that there is very little evidence of social media impacting mental health--which is shocking because a majority of adults think there is a connection and the politicians are pushing that narrative. I have not personally vetted the research. Has anyone e…
There's quite a lot of statistics saying currently teens struggle with mental health even more than is historically normal for teenagers. [1, 2] Young people are also spending less time with friends, drinking less, and having less sex than ever before. Obviously it's difficult to pin a 20-year trend on a single cause. But most parents have the sense their teens spend too much time on their phones; and with social med…
Two of those three are probably better outcomes.
Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online
#503Anybody else think it is weird that suddenly all Western countries suddenly want to lockdown the internet to "protect the children"? There is surely an international special interest group lobbying for this?
Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online
#504In many states, children under some age are prohibited from using firearms. There is substantial evidence to show that firearms pose a real and present harm to individual children and large groups. An excellent rider to the KIDS act would be to mandate the installation of age (that is, identity) verification to all firearms in order to disable the safety.
Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online
#505Earlier quoted context omitted.
One cannot use a handwavey "organized" and "coordinated" without a subject. Who specifically do you propose is ordering this?
If Facebook, in light of the 2021 "Facebook Papers," believed the legislation inevitable, what kind of legislation would maximize its advantage? Noteworthily, the legislation moves age verification from individual apps to app-store operators [Apple, Google] which reduces Facebooks legal exposure for inaccurate/incorrect age verifications.
Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online
#506Earlier quoted context omitted.
Parental controls are extremely weak on all the major platforms. Apple, Google, Amazon, etc. they all have them so they can check the box but they are not good and certainly not a solution. That said, it is better than nothing, but that’s about it.
You can control which apps children can install, how much time they are allowed to use those apps a day, decide if they have access to the web, which web sites they can visit, and decide who they are allowed to communicate with. What features are missing that makes everyone giving up their privacy a better option?
This is basic level protection.
How do I do this?
Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online
#507Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh my God, this. Kids are safer today.
Safer from shock images? What about the psychological manipulation stuff, you know, the actual dangerous stuff? If a preteen sees a horse fucking a human they won't even know what that is. Notice you didn't answer the question btw
Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online
#508Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that not all parents are "concerned parents" and children dont deserve to be taken advantage of by trillion dollar corporations for the crime of having bad parents.
That's the classic question of when the state should step in to correct bad parenting, and when it should leave well enough alone. I'm sympathetic to the idea that this is one of the "step in" times, but I think the negatives for doing so seem far too costly. At any rate, with age verification, un-concerned parent will likely just want their kid to shut up, and will verify using their own details to give the kid the…
Well, no, this is the slightly different classic question of whether, in order to prevent (or, more realistically, on the pretext of preventing) bad parenting, the state should impose a universal totalotarian papers-please approach to basic life activities which requires everyone to prove identity to refute the assumption that they are a child so that it may impose its own (also bad, because totally one-size-fits-all and corcumstance blind) parenting on every child, without regard to the imposition on the liberty of every adult necessary to do so.
Stepping in to correct bad parenting happens when there is a system to identify bad parenting requiring correction and intervene only where such is identified, not when you are imposing a universal regime on everyone on the justification that without it, some will act as bad parents. While both are approaches frequently proposed, they are different and should be distinguished.
Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online
#509Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not for the kids. That’s just the excuse. In order to validate kids, they really need to identify everyone. That’s the real play.
the effort is being driven by a handful of tech and social media companies who have suddenly realized they cannot close the pandoras box of AI. without a meaningful headcount of real users, advertisers will begin to push back on cost or even reduce and eliminate spending on social media altogether. by proactively identifying real humans, you prevent the collapse of major social media outlets. by tracking their age an…
No shady agenda about killing public discourse is necessary if you view the push for identify verification in that light. (That doesn't mean it won't kill public discourse, but that's an unintended consequence.)
Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online
#510Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not for the kids. That’s just the excuse. In order to validate kids, they really need to identify everyone. That’s the real play.
Yes, but do you have any specifics? No one seems to have any specifics. I don't mean "plausible explanations of what the government might wish to to" -- I mean "specific actors pushing specific agendas."