I’m not against this. I genuinely believe social media is damaging to young people (well… I believe it’s damaging to us all, but if adults want to then it’s their choice).
However, I don’t see how this could be realistically enforced.
I genuinely believe social media is damaging to young people
As do I. I still am against the government making these decisions, especially for kids as old as 16. At 16, kids should be curious about what the government is hiding, and access to information should absolutely be available. However, it should also be under the direction of parents, at least until they leave the house.
Parents should be the ones regulating this, not the government. Some kids are mature enough to handle things like social media at 16, perhaps younger, while others aren’t. Parents should be on the hook for allowing their kids access to things that could be damaging, but could also be an incredibly useful tool.
I say this as a parent. I want to be the one who decides what my kids should and should not access, and I will peacefully ignore this law and use a VPN or whatever I need to in order to evade this ban. I don’t know what that looks like in the UK, but I’m absolutely going to do this in my area once my kid hits their first block (my US state implemented age requirements for SM, and if my kids hit that, I’ll teach them to use a VPN).
I still am against the government making these decisions, especially for kids as old as 16.
This is for under-16s.
And why specifically be against the government protecting kids’ safety in this way? They already do it in countless other ways, from rules about how you’re allowed to discipline children, medication standards, age ratings, restrictions on public drinking, preventing driving, preventing gun ownership, etc.
Why shouldn’t the government make any decisions for this aspect of children’s safety, but all others are ok?
Some kids are mature enough to handle things like social media at 16
This is for under-16s. Under-16s are not 16. They are under 16.
Hence why I said “as old as.” Someone who is 15.5 is basically 16, yet they fall under the rule.
And why specifically be against the government protecting kids’ safety in this way?
Because they’re not protecting their safety, they’re using it as an excuse to pass regressive policy. Kids under 16 will be struggling with a number of things, from gender identity to abusive parents, and social media can be the best way to get the sense of community they need.
They already do it in countless other ways, from rules about how you’re allowed to discipline children, medication standards, age ratings, restrictions on public drinking, preventing driving, preventing gun ownership, etc.
discipline children - this applies to parents, as it should
medication standards - tends to apply to doctors and parents
age ratings - at least in the US, this isn’t prohibitive, but informative
public drinking - this one does apply directly to kids, but IMO should instead apply to parents; if a child is drinking, that’s the parents’ fault
driving - driving is a privilege, so it’s not a restriction to only offer it to people of a certain age; kids can drive just fine on their parents’ property if they want, regardless of age (at least in the US, not sure about the UK)
gun ownership - this also directly applies to kids, but it’s more of a parental thing; if a parent want to let their kids “own” guns, that’s fine, the legal transfer just won’t be valid until they’re 18 (the parent would buy, then transfer to the kid)
The closest example you gave is gun ownership, but that goes back to cigarettes and alcohol. The restriction should be about consent (i.e. do they understand the hazards and responsibilities associated w/ the product), and kids can’t legally consent until they’re adults. Social media doesn’t exactly fall under that umbrella, you don’t need to consent to interact w/ social media.
But gun ownership is also interesting in another way: ID requirements are often stored when you purchase a gun (e.g. to run a background check or something), just like it would need to be for social media. I trust gun stores a lot more than social media companies because they don’t stand to profit from misusing your ID information.
Due to the privacy concerns and relative lack of risk to the public (meaning, a kid having access to a SM account won’t hurt others in anywhere near the same way as them having a car or gun), I just don’t see it being justifiable. This just sounds like conservative wankery to “protect the kids” while the real intent is attacking LGBT kids and allowing SM companies to hoover up data. And no, I don’t trust digital privacy laws to be all that effective here, since they’re only fined when they get caught, and it’s pretty easy to avoid getting caught.
It’s damaging because the Internet evolved in the conditions of governments not doing their job at catching criminals, but at the same time taking upon themselves rights and responsibilities they shouldn’t have. The former made it impractical to use more cozy and personal spaces, like personal webpages with guestbooks and such, and the latter put upon webmasters the responsibilities of law enforcement which law enforcement should fulfill itself. It’s as if home owners were responsible for a crime happening on their property, and the police wouldn’t help when called, it would instead arrest them for not preventing it.
Law enforcement doesn’t need more rights, it had all it needed 20 years ago, even 30 years ago. It needs to fulfill its responsibilities.
Those jerks both want to avoid actually working and to censor what you can say. Fuck them.
The idea in Australia is to place the responsibility on the social media companies.
The government isnt filtering traffic or enforcing behaviour. It is fining companies if they don’t implement a form of age verification that is compliant with privacy laws.
We can’t even make these companies pay tax and obey other laws so I am not very optimistic but at least it raises awareness of the problem.
how would you verify the age of someone without government id?
the answer very simple: you can’t.
there is no (reliable) way to verify ID without government involvement, period.
“but it’s the companies responsibility!”
well, how are they going to verify anyone’s age?
that’s right! by checking some form of government ID (passport, drivers license, etc.)
how would they know wether an ID is legit or not? by comparing to a government database.
so it’s the government checking either way.
theoretically you could implement a hash-based system that’s secure by comparing only hashed values against a government API without ever actually saving user information anywhere, similar to how “login with google/apple/facebook” and so forth work, but i doubt there’s any government willing to spend the cash on such a system.
because that would actually work and could be made in privacy respecting way.
but because surveillance is the goal of any government trying to implement bullshit like this, it won’t ever be done this way…
remember: it’s always mass surveillance. never about “the kids”, or “the crime”, or whatever straw-man-of-the-week they pull out their ass at any given time.
Which would require submitting personal information, like IDs, to social media organizations. You could do it better (i.e. through a disinterested third party or the government), but how likely is that to actually happen?
I’m against it mostly on privacy grounds, but also on free speech grounds. Parents should be the ones deciding this, not governments.
I’m not against this. I genuinely believe social media is damaging to young people (well… I believe it’s damaging to us all, but if adults want to then it’s their choice).
However, I don’t see how this could be realistically enforced.
I’m absolutely against this.
As do I. I still am against the government making these decisions, especially for kids as old as 16. At 16, kids should be curious about what the government is hiding, and access to information should absolutely be available. However, it should also be under the direction of parents, at least until they leave the house.
Parents should be the ones regulating this, not the government. Some kids are mature enough to handle things like social media at 16, perhaps younger, while others aren’t. Parents should be on the hook for allowing their kids access to things that could be damaging, but could also be an incredibly useful tool.
I say this as a parent. I want to be the one who decides what my kids should and should not access, and I will peacefully ignore this law and use a VPN or whatever I need to in order to evade this ban. I don’t know what that looks like in the UK, but I’m absolutely going to do this in my area once my kid hits their first block (my US state implemented age requirements for SM, and if my kids hit that, I’ll teach them to use a VPN).
This is for under-16s.
And why specifically be against the government protecting kids’ safety in this way? They already do it in countless other ways, from rules about how you’re allowed to discipline children, medication standards, age ratings, restrictions on public drinking, preventing driving, preventing gun ownership, etc.
Why shouldn’t the government make any decisions for this aspect of children’s safety, but all others are ok?
This is for under-16s. Under-16s are not 16. They are under 16.
Hence why I said “as old as.” Someone who is 15.5 is basically 16, yet they fall under the rule.
Because they’re not protecting their safety, they’re using it as an excuse to pass regressive policy. Kids under 16 will be struggling with a number of things, from gender identity to abusive parents, and social media can be the best way to get the sense of community they need.
The closest example you gave is gun ownership, but that goes back to cigarettes and alcohol. The restriction should be about consent (i.e. do they understand the hazards and responsibilities associated w/ the product), and kids can’t legally consent until they’re adults. Social media doesn’t exactly fall under that umbrella, you don’t need to consent to interact w/ social media.
But gun ownership is also interesting in another way: ID requirements are often stored when you purchase a gun (e.g. to run a background check or something), just like it would need to be for social media. I trust gun stores a lot more than social media companies because they don’t stand to profit from misusing your ID information.
Due to the privacy concerns and relative lack of risk to the public (meaning, a kid having access to a SM account won’t hurt others in anywhere near the same way as them having a car or gun), I just don’t see it being justifiable. This just sounds like conservative wankery to “protect the kids” while the real intent is attacking LGBT kids and allowing SM companies to hoover up data. And no, I don’t trust digital privacy laws to be all that effective here, since they’re only fined when they get caught, and it’s pretty easy to avoid getting caught.
It’s damaging because the Internet evolved in the conditions of governments not doing their job at catching criminals, but at the same time taking upon themselves rights and responsibilities they shouldn’t have. The former made it impractical to use more cozy and personal spaces, like personal webpages with guestbooks and such, and the latter put upon webmasters the responsibilities of law enforcement which law enforcement should fulfill itself. It’s as if home owners were responsible for a crime happening on their property, and the police wouldn’t help when called, it would instead arrest them for not preventing it.
Law enforcement doesn’t need more rights, it had all it needed 20 years ago, even 30 years ago. It needs to fulfill its responsibilities.
Those jerks both want to avoid actually working and to censor what you can say. Fuck them.
The idea in Australia is to place the responsibility on the social media companies.
The government isnt filtering traffic or enforcing behaviour. It is fining companies if they don’t implement a form of age verification that is compliant with privacy laws.
We can’t even make these companies pay tax and obey other laws so I am not very optimistic but at least it raises awareness of the problem.
problem here is as follows:
how would you verify the age of someone without government id?
the answer very simple: you can’t.
there is no (reliable) way to verify ID without government involvement, period.
“but it’s the companies responsibility!”
well, how are they going to verify anyone’s age?
that’s right! by checking some form of government ID (passport, drivers license, etc.)
how would they know wether an ID is legit or not? by comparing to a government database.
so it’s the government checking either way.
theoretically you could implement a hash-based system that’s secure by comparing only hashed values against a government API without ever actually saving user information anywhere, similar to how “login with google/apple/facebook” and so forth work, but i doubt there’s any government willing to spend the cash on such a system.
because that would actually work and could be made in privacy respecting way.
but because surveillance is the goal of any government trying to implement bullshit like this, it won’t ever be done this way…
remember: it’s always mass surveillance. never about “the kids”, or “the crime”, or whatever straw-man-of-the-week they pull out their ass at any given time.
By age checking everybody connecting to social media
Which would require submitting personal information, like IDs, to social media organizations. You could do it better (i.e. through a disinterested third party or the government), but how likely is that to actually happen?
I’m against it mostly on privacy grounds, but also on free speech grounds. Parents should be the ones deciding this, not governments.