Submitted 3 weeks ago by wesker@lemmy.sdf.org to [deleted]
…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?
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.
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.
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
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 online, versus more harm?
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.
The modern world has made it so that teenagers have nowhere to “exist” without paying. Even hanging out on the road gets the police called on them.
Many have moved to online communities. At that point the line between social media and game are quite blurry. Is a Minecraft server a game, or a way of having fun with your friends?
As someone who “found my tribe” online, long before I found them in real life, I understand where the woods are coming from. Even for adults, the modern world has become VERY socially isolating.
It’s also not just bad households. A lot of families now have 2 working parents. This leaves very little time for arranging playdates, or giving lifts to friends. Kids supplement their lost social time with online time. Some end up in toxic communities, but most flow through it with years of experience at this point.
I watched a talk on internet safety for children (as a parent/guardian). One of the biggest bits of advice was to stay involved. Play the games they love, even if they bore you. Let them talk about their online friendship groups. You can then help guide them towards good choices, rather than deal with the fallout from bad ones compounding.
Its probably your love for the boot.
So we’re finally circling back to the mid 90s?
Yes!
As someone who was using internet forums back then, it was so bizarre to experience the facebook breakthrough in real time.
“So you are using your real name and posting photos of yourself for everyone to see?”
“Relax, everybody is doing it. It is no big deal, and it makes it so easy to find old friends.”
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 child safety system or a whole 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 website 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.
Personally I don’t have an 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. You could implement age checks in a privacy-friendly way (I mean one that actually works, not just “click yes if you’re 18”), but they’re not going to.
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 more 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 destroy actual freedoms. The analogy is made even better by the fact that both are supposed to protect people from tyranny while in reality neither does.
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.
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
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.
I don’t want to prove I’m an adult to shitpost.
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 initially 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 overshare our lives and soapboxes.
NOT WITH ai around, potentially making AI generated CP in dark web.
Dookieman12@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
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.
schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 3 weeks ago
Yes, I am.
“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…
Dookieman12@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
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.
wesker@lemmy.sdf.org 3 weeks ago
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?
GreenBeard@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
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.
Dookieman12@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
“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.
it_depends_man@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
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.
DarkCloud@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
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 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 Timmy is shithead on reddit.
sunsofold@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
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.
josephc@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
Yes. In fact, zero-knowledge proofs make it possible for me to do something like prove my age in a way that is verifiable by the site without the site knowing any other information about me AND without the government knowing what website I’m asking. It doesn’t even require an API. The government needs to digitally sign my identity papers and publish its signature. One time download and you can even do offline checks.
The EU digital ID program does this. Everyone has privacy.
lucullus@discuss.tchncs.de 3 weeks ago
You don’t want the target site to have your identity (nor your age, only the information, that you are old enough). Though you also don’t want to tell the government, which age restricted sites you are using (imagine the government getting having a list of all your porn site usage).
There are ways to do this, though the implementations in most countries don’t adhere to these requirements (either by giving your identity to the target site or the government collecting your usage data).
I might remember that wrong, but I think I heard a proposal in germany, that would fit the requirements. Something about, that you can generate up to 30 cryptographically signed tokens (don’t know why the limit was included) from the government, that the target site can use to verify their age limit. No communication between the government and the site. Though I don’t know, if that proposal got any track.
We will probably also see, that nearly all websites will need age verification, since there is a lot, that is not suitable for very young children. A bit older children and teenagers will also have to use that verification workflow quite often. Adults way more often. That is a lot of friction easily avoided with a VPN.
And of course the governments would also need to block every site, that does not comply to the local regulations. Different worldviews make this impossible. A small blog about queer education in europe would need to implement age verification, because the US and russia hate queer people.
It’s a big clusterfuck