…so why are people so up in arms against bans and restrictions on children having access to social media, where they have even less oversight and can do so themselves?
Consent, for one thing.
There’s a HUGE difference between me posting stuff of myself and someone else posting stuff of me without asking me.
But also, the restrictions aren’t about the kids. They were never about the kids. “Think of the children!” has always been a convenient excuse to make people shut off their brains and agree with whatever surveillance/control thing they’re pushing.
– Frost
NOT WITH ai around, potentially making AI generated CP in dark web.
OP I need you to prove your age to ensure you’re not getting around a ban. Send me a picture of your ID, or stop using Lemmy.
I will sell and share your ID picture to whoever asks.
I don’t want to prove I’m an adult to shitpost.
Because these bans are implemented in a way that exposes their true purpose which is better tracking of all users and the deletion of even limited online privacy.
So we’re finally circling back to the mid 90s? When the world wide web was super new, it was super common to be told not to give out your real name, your address, or share pictures online.
Then Facebook came along.
ASL?
Too soon?
And soon it’ll be illegal to be anonymous online again
Yes!
If you think kids won’t get around any restrictions in about 14 minutes you’ve never met a kid. Yeah not all of them could do it, but it just takes one and then then bypasses are circulating within 16 minutes. It’s completely unworkable for what they claim they want, and will only hurt people who do comply when the collected data is leaked in 18 minuites
It’s not the desired outcome people are against, it’s the implementation.
I think you’ll have a hard time finding anyone who disagrees with the idea that children shouldn’t be exposed to the full power of the unfiltered internet, and that’s what makes these laws so insidious.
The issue lies in how governments hope to achieve this goal. Current laws propose that users provide the private company hosting the site (Facebook, TikTok, etc.) an image of their government-issued ID and/or other identifying information. The primary concerns are 1) these companies will have even more access to private information about their users, and 2) any security breach of these companies would risk the identities of their millions of users.
Imagine being able to apply for millions of stolen credit cards because of one successful hack. That’s the risk being created.
It’s not the desired outcome people are against
Yes, I am.
I think you’ll have a hard time finding anyone who disagrees with the idea that children shouldn’t be exposed to the full power of the unfiltered internet, and that’s what makes these laws so insidious.
“Children” being people of what age?
The Internet is a communication system originally intended for military communication; the WWW for exchange of articles and data among scientists and academics. It has evolved, from those roots, to being a collection of nearly all human knowledge, all human endeavors and thoughts. But its intent was never that it would conform to any cultural (or even legal) ideas of what is appropriate for young people to see…
If parents (who are supposed to be experts on their children) believe that their child isn’t yet developmentally ready to be exposed to nearly all human knowledge, endeavors, and thoughts, then they shouldn’t give that child (unsupervised) access to a communication system that contains exactly that. But I personally believe it’s generally good for children, certainly older ones and definitely teenagers, to be exposed to a wide variety of ideas, exactly as can be found on the Internet…
“Children” being people of what age?
That’s up to the parents, not me, you, or the government, or any corporation.
Completely agree that parents, not governments or corporations, should be responsible for policing their kids’ online activity. But that shouldn’t mean Roblox should be able to ignore reports of groomers on their platform just because they buy a shit load of V Bucks (yes, this happens).
Agreed that everything on the internet should be there and is 99% fine. But I think we can also agree that no ten-year-old needs to see Funky Town or One Guy One Jar. Does that mean Motherless or the government needs to involved to make sure that doesn’t happen? I don’t think so.
As for groomers on Roblox, this just sounds like https://www.techdirt.com/2019/11/20/masnicks-impossibility-theorem-content-moderation-scale-is-impossible-to-do-well/
I got my first own computer at age 10 and from then on usually browsed the Internet unsupervised.
I remember that for the first few years of doing so, I took age checks very seriously. A website says “this is an adult website, you must be over 18”? I would click cancel. A forum has a checkbox “I agree to the terms and conditions and am at least 13 years old”? Not registering there (a few years later: wait, I can now honestly say yes to this!).
This of course changed when I became a teenager, but I knew what I was getting into at that point. I don’t think this is that atypical…
You’re not caught up with the Schlep-Roblox controversy, are you?
No, I don’t recall hearing about it before (maybe because I find Roblox an utterly uninteresting topic); reading up on it now.
The question still remains, as parents, do you want your child to have access to information that might influence them to do things that they otherwise weren’t even exposed to. This means that it’s not 99 percent harmless. Information itself is dangerous. One has to expand their mind to the true source of stupid shit kids do. And that includes the fact that if parents can shield their kids from it, out of sight out of mind and your kid grows up responsible. This will ultimately be the parents decision regardless because if a parent is permitting enough they could just let their child use their account if an ID registration was implemented.
Is the better, more acceptable solution to have a person’s government be in charge of identity verification and offer some sort of secured API that sites can use for confirmation?
Quite frankly yes. Proof of identity is kind of one of the core roles of government. Handing it off to private corporations is like entrusting a nation’s military to private militias and policing to gangs.
Age verification doesn’t have to mean identity verification.
Parents and human moderators solved this problem just fine. Everything changed when every platform wanted to be the first to cut moderation costs by using LLMs instead.
They abandoned a perfectly working system and have been pitching a fit about restarting it because “it costs too much” ever since.
I’ll grant it’s an automation issue. Age verification is always identity verification when it’s automated. It doesn’t matter how much you try to scrub the data. If it has to be done algorithmically, there’s no possible circumstance where an unaccountable third party should have that data.
“Better” and “more acceptable” are very subjective.
If you’re asking me what I think, I think a solution that verifies identity is uncalled for. I think the problem, though real, is also greatly exaggerated and mostly caused by a failure of platforms to moderate (Roblox, for example).
Companies don’t want to moderate their platforms because that costs money. Developers need to add the reporting functionality and paid staff need to review and action the reports. I think this is one reason tech companies are so interested in AI; automated moderation. But, AI still requires compute power, which is still a cost.
If tech companies can claim handing over your ID will solve the problem, they get that sweet private info they want so badly for free, AND they get a cost-free way of claiming their platform is moderated; it’s a double win.
I think requiring platforms to moderate themselves with humans is a very small price to pay in exchange for the broad access to our private data and hundreds of billions of dollars of advertising revenue they enjoy, and a much better, much more acceptable solution.
Edit: Just remembered, another big component to all this is, big platforms like Meta and Reddit are getting hammered by AI scrapers, which drives up hosting costs, and being bombarded with AI slop, which negatively affects their engagement KPIs. ID verification will solve both of these problems.
It’s pathetic because, the only time laws or regulations ever get passed is when one oligarch wants to weaponize the government against their competition. It’s a sick game, and we all lose every time a move is made.
Bingo.
No, because it’s a 3 way information exchange.
When you visit a site, you, the site and the government know that you went there.
In cases where the company can exploit that information because it can 100% verify you are a real person that’s bad.
But when the people in government can identify that their political opposition did “bad things” online and exploit that against them, that’s also bad. Also, the people in charge can always fake that if they want to, and if the system exists, because there is little oversight over the currently planned systems.
We’re not talking about “normal and legal behavior”, it needs to be tamper proof and safe against malicious actors inside the system. That’s nearly impossible to do, so the safe option is to not create that system.
It can be simpler than that. If operating systems offered an option to create a user account flagged as a child account, it could also come with software to limit the use of child accounts on the local machine, and let the parent configure what is/not blocked.
I know third-party solutions exist for this use case. My point is that the functionality could be implemented better and use of it could be more mainstream.
My ideal solution would be a parent controlled OS based “child account” that has a white list for allowed apps and websites and parents who then use that feature.
I would like to avoid any solution where the website learns anything about the users. Including what facebook has proposed and done in the US, making the age API request thing a law. They’re doing that to make their ad targeting more precise, not to protect anyone.
A government that’s that untrustworthy, doesn’t deserve to exist.
Sure, but they still do exist.
Yes. Like sexual predators they’re more common than people like to admit and I’ve had the displeasure of knowing a few. Also like sexual predators, living like they’re ubiquitous instead of taking out the trash is not the best way to deal with them.
It’s not about who is/not worthy of that level of trust. It’s about the risks associated with putting that much private information in any one place.
Even if you trust the person you’re giving your info to completely, mistakes happen every day, that many identities in one place is an attractive target for hackers, and there are very few regulations that would require a private company to disclose such a breach, even fewer that would require them to compensate you for any damages resulting from such.
Nope, all you have to do is regulate ISPs and Telcos so they don’t sell Internet connections to kids. Make that the offense.
If parents want their kid to have an internet connection, the parents have to buy the kids-only Internet. If that’s the aim, then do that!
Most people are fine with that, most people have their names on their bank accounts and show proof of age when buying a sim card or ISP connection, but don’t want to give it over to EVERY social media site they’re ever going to interact with. This isn’t a TikTok level of responsibility, it’s an ISP and Telco/bank card level.
If you want kids to be kids, then parents have to be parents. Don’t wreck the Internet because little Timmy is shithead on reddit.
That would be better, but better still would be to find a solution that doesn’t enable surveillance of the uninvolved. Most people trust neither their government nor corporations to not misuse or abuse the power of their data. Certain public key cryptography techniques could be used, but because companies can’t make money from it, it’ll never happen.
Don’t put pictures of others in the internet without their consent
Don’t restrict marginalised children from finding support and community online when their in person “support system” is harming them
Don’t restrict marginalised children from finding support and community online when their in person “support system” is harming them
What are the statistics on this, and how many children actually find a healthy support system on social media sites, versus more harm? Not just the demographics perceived as at risk, but children as a whole.
EDIT: I don’t understand the downvotes, on a platform that otherwise seems to greatly encourage freethinking based on empirical data?
The internet didn’t exist when I was a kid. If it had, I would likely have found a way to escape my abusive parents much earlier. Saying that, I am also an strong-willed, stubborn autistic person, so I may not represent the average person.
I grew up on the 90s internet. It wasn’t necessarily safe. The biggest difference seems to be that it wasn’t as populated, saturated, and easy for Ye Average Person to get sucked into (or groomed by) harmful communities. Those remained fairly underground. We were hopeful the internet would benefit from (and benefit mankind) via increased accessibility and interoperability, but in retrospect I feel like that has been it’s downfall. This is a subjective opinion.
deleted by creator
There’s a lot of “Likely would have” comments when this subject comes up, and a lot of second-hand anecdotes that don’t constitute a good basis for decision making. While I’m sure at some point, such support networks have formed, and stayed a major part of an individual’s life, in most cases, without a real grounded, in person network, most of these groups end up collapsing into isolated fragments again or turning into just another ad funnel for garbage that doesn’t actually help anyone, it just monetizes suffering.
Net good to net harm? There’s a strong case to be made that the marginal benefits of these platforms are deeply outweighed by the enormous suffering they cause.
I found my people and it saved my life. All I am saying is that the internet can make it easier to find your people, even locally. There are programs for queer kids, abused women, and abortion that serve this very purpose. the question is not whether they exist and work, it is whether they are accessible to kids when their own guardians may be the entire problem. Both prongs of this proverbial “making services available” fork are important.
At what cost? How many have lost hope and worse because the only thing they found in the noise of the internet was hate? Or worse, someone profiteering or exploiting their isolation?
At what ratio do we acknowledge that the “cure” is at least as bad as the disease. Could we even get reliable numbers on that given it’s all on private platforms that have every reason to lie? Facebook is responsible for igniting at least one genocide. How many more before it’s too many?
Removed by mod
What a constructive comment.
I think people are up in arms about making EVERYONE have to give over their identity documents, rather than making it a system that either detects just the kids accounts, or an opt-in system where the parents flag the whole family Internet account as having kids on it.
Single people without kids shouldn’t have to fork over their identity if it’s not really a matter related to them. If all this is done for the kids, then have the kids and parents sort it out. Don’t change the whole nature of the Internet so it all has to be family and kid oriented, or so that adults in general have to give up identity documents transmitting them to private companies just to log into relatively banal services.
Make it so kids can’t buy phones and Internet connections without their parents if that’s your goal. Don’t make it so that I have to give my government ID to Reddit just to have an account.
Are you implementing a child safety system or a whole-of-internet id and tracking system to track everyone? That’s just gonna kill the Internet as we know it, and expose people to identity theft and unwarranted privacy concerns.
Saying websites need expensive levels of secure storage of government documents just to run a forum? That’s gonna stop new websites forming and established ones from growing. Because there’s no way I’m trusting reddit or lemmy with that stealable bank-and-finances level of identity data.
If IDs are ever a requirement. I am quitting technology and going back to printed media.
The social media platforms themselves are pushing age verification.
They have proven repeatedly that they never do anything that doesn’t benefit themselves, so how can I support them?
Also, the implementations of age verification are terrible.
Personally I don’t have a big issue with not allowing children on social media, but with how it’s going to get enforced. Do you trust your government with ID data that’s immediately linked to everything you say or do on a social media website? And I’d be surprised if the social media companies don’t get access to that ID data, too. They could implement age checks in a very privacy-friendly way (I mean one that actually works, not just “click yes if you’re 18”), but they’re not going to.
And there are good arguments for allowing children anyway, it can be a great tool for children who get mistreated in “real life”. The more locked down the web becomes for minors, the more difficult it’s going to be to get info on e.g. safe sex, LGBT+ or anti-abuse topics, and IMO seeing the info on a static information website (as long as that’s allowed in the first place, which is going to be an issue especially with a far right government) is often not enough.
Perceived freedoms, similar to the US gun situation. Many Americans feel that the second amendment gives them the right to own any and all weapons, regardless of capability without restriction and any law proposal that comes up that may infringe on that totally unfettered right is met with hostility and uproar.
People aren’t viewing it in terms of safety, they are viewing it in terms of freedom.
This issue is made more egregious by the method in which they are proposing to “protect the children” with many methods completely stripping everyone online of their privacy. Many people, myself included, will die long before they upload an ID to anyone online for the privilege of visiting a website.
This seems very accurate. It’s about perceived “freedom” and not about some actual benefits. “We’ll have guns because we can!” while thousands die needlessly in shootings and “people need to be anonymous on social media” while massive disinformation campaigns dismantle actual freedoms we have. The analogy is made even better by the fact that both are supposed to protect people from tyranny while in reality neither does.
You don’t see the difference between a parent deciding this for their child vs. the child doing it themself?
Age verification laws certainly wouldn’t stop parents from uploading pictures of their children, the parents are adults after all…
Not all (not even nearly all) “social media” typically involves posting pictures of oneself, e.g. how many times do you see pictures of users here on Lemmy? But I’m not aware of any age verification law that is limited to websites where people can post pictures of themselves.
You don’t see the difference between a parent deciding this for their child vs. the child doing it themself?
I don’t follow, sorry. This isn’t an argument about consent, I’m fairly certain most governments place limitations on the ability of children to consent to many things.
I’m asking why are we starting to accept and realize that the internet isn’t a safe place to even post family photos, but simultaneously at odds with implementations that would keep kids away from it?
Because those things that keep kids away from it won’t, and they’re clearly NOT about “protect the kids” - just like every other “protect the kids” things.
This is about forcing adults to identify themselves wherever they go. This is Doublespeak at it’s clearest.
Yes. I’m glad you answered in this way. This is the correct answer.
Not safe in what sense?
If your asking in regard to the part of the title referring to posting family photos that contain your children, the perceived immediate risk is chomos and groomers. But in the day and age of corpo tracking, social doxing, etc, building what amounts to a social paper trail on your children is unsafe in general. The same applies to adults, except we can consent to being idiots that ignorantly overshare our lives and soapboxes.
