Social media is going the way of alcohol, gambling, and other social sins: Societies are deciding it’s no longer kid stuff. Lawmakers point to compulsive use, exposure to harmful content, and mounting concerns about adolescent mental health. So, many propose to set a minimum age, usually 13 or 16.
In cases when regulators demand real enforcement rather than symbolic rules, platforms run into a basic technical problem. The only way to prove that someone is old enough to use a site is to collect personal data about who they are. And the only way to prove that you checked is to keep the data indefinitely. Age-restriction laws push platforms toward intrusive verification systems that often directly conflict with modern data-privacy law.
This is the age-verification trap. Strong enforcement of age rules undermines data privacy.
↫ Waydell D. Carvalho
The answer to the dangers of social media is not to ban social media use among minors, for a whole variety of reasons. There’s data privacy, as the linked article goes into, but there’s also the fact that for a lot of people, including minors, who live in regressive, backwards environments and/or are victims of abuse, social media is their only support network. Cut them off from social media, and you cut them off from the very people who can save them from further abuse.
The problem isn’t social media in and of itself – it’s profit-seeking social media. Companies like Facebook and TikTok spend billions to hyper-optimise and hyper-target vulnerable people, much like how tobacco companies and drug dealers do, to feed and worsen their addiction because keeping people addicted is how they maximise profits. The solution to the dangers of corporate social media is to strictly regulate their behaviour, something we already do with countless dangerous products and services.
I’m obviously not qualified to come up with specific measures that would need to be taken, but I think we can all agree that whatever corporate social media have been and are doing is dangerous, unethical, should be stopped.
The answer to this problem is a digital wallet. However, for some reason I hardly read about it. Check this one: https://yivi.app/en/
That’s only a single example of a proposed state bill. To be clear, there are several democrats AND republicans on board with the idea at both the state and federal level. This isn’t a democrat thing, it’s a surveillance society thing. It’s a big brother thing. It’s laughable to think anyone would believe it’s actually about `the kids` rather than eroding privacy and expanding surveillance on the population.
I know “it’s a single example” and that “democrats” aren’t the only one on this. Yet the video shows that the “proposed state bill” is from the very same people screaming about “freedom of speech” and “ICE being bad”, and “voter ID being bad”, and … It’s not me making things up. And of course I almost forgot : “it’s about the kids”.
I don’t want bills that take away online freedoms to be passed, regardless of who’s passing them. IMHO age verification is much less important than civil liberties.
Alfman,
Agreed. Civil rights is not a partisan issue.
But… “for the children” laws are how they get those civil liberty violations. As soon as they enforce “One ID -> One Internet User” rule, they can then use this pretense to enact future ones
“We just added ‘for the kids’ IDs, why not also use them ‘for your security’ checks for all online interactions”
There should be no gaps in the civil rights firewall.
Does it use Google Play Integrity?
The EU is also working on one, but they’re taking their time.
I was waiting when this would be picked up, @Thom thanks for amplifying the concern.
All of this makes zero sense. We already have pretty solid parental controls on devices. Amazon (2012), Apple (somewhere in between), Google (2017) all offer one way or another for of locking down kids devices.
When a parent buys a device, they already have the options to guard their kids. The systems ask “are you setting this up for a child?” specifically. And they won’t let a child to set up by themselves in the first place.
And kids cannot install apps, add contacts, visit social media, or even use device outside of approved hours.
And why do we need IDs?
Because government wants to shoehorn legislation for more control.
That is it.
“For the children!”, “Don’t you think about security!” and all other nice sounding words are just crappy ways to take away our freedoms.
(Edit: Nintendo Switch and other gaming devices also have similar setups)
“For the children!”, “Don’t you think about security!”
From the very same people that covered the Epstein files for so long.
Kochise,
Of course there would be double standards.
And I’m pretty sure the devices they buy for government will not be subject to any of these ID verification nonsense.
“Rules for thee, but not for me”
The problem is that neoliberalism went from social development tool to a fundamentalist religion. Fix that and everything else de-shittify.
Any potential “age verification” technology needs to do it like this:
1. Using zero-knowledge proofs (or similar) to prove your age is over 18; this needs to happen without giving the website or app any information who you are and without giving the ‘verifier’ (e.g. wallet app, browser extension) any information which website or app you are trying to access. It must be possible to prove your age even while staying completely anonymous and without unnecessary friction when browsing websites as a guest (no account).
2. 100% compatible with any generic computing device, not limited to certain operating systems or browsers. Specifically, it should work on a 100% FOSS stack and not enforce existing monopolies. So not like the EU ID Wallet prototype which is only compatible with iOS or Android and for the latter even requiring Play Integrity (= Stock ROM + Play Services + Google Account). If you have only one computing device and that’s a 20 year old PC running NetBSD with Pale Moon, it still needs to work.
Once governments have figured this out, I won’t complain any more. Oh wait, I forgot, the governments don’t actually care about protecting the children (otherwise they wouldn’t be involved with people like Epstein and Dutroux), it’s about abolishing anonymity online so they have an easier time prosecuting those who speak against the government’s policies or personnel.
Apparently, OSNews now censors posts that point out this is about mass surveillance rather than `protecting the kids`. What a shame.
friedchicken,
Mine too, don’t really know why.
?
The thread is missing and we assumed you took it down, but if you did not then maybe someone else did?
I see a couple post ids missing (for example 10456361, 10456357), but all we can see from the outside is that posts are missing and not what the posts contained.
Yes, not sure what happened… but a thread is lost.
I haven’t known Thom for deleting threads, so it could be a database hiccup, or some other external factor.
Some did warn back in 2020 that perhaps, perhaps having to show QR codes so you could have a coffee outdoors was not so much a measure to protect anyone’s health, but here we are… and the walls are closing in fast.