Submitted 1 hour 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Dookieman12@piefed.social 57 minutes 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.
wesker@lemmy.sdf.org 48 minutes 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?
Dookieman12@piefed.social 3 minutes 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.
sunsofold@lemmy.zip 7 minutes 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.
DarkCloud@lemmy.world 7 minutes 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.
GreenBeard@lemmy.ca 16 minutes 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.