Social media is going the way of alcohol, gambling, and other social sins: societies are deciding it’s no longer kids’ 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.
Someone needs to come up with a better argument other than “threat to your privacy.” People that understand the concept of security/privacy already are in that boat. People that dont, never will.
Weve hit the point of cigarettes. You can report all the studies you want about the risks and damages done by smoking but when 99% of the population knows its bad but still smokes anyways, its time to find thr cyber security version of taxing the evwr living shit out of it to force wveryone who doesnt care into caring.
Somehow everyone has forgotten about parental controls that have been apart of consumer grade home routers for years.
Parental controls are there specifically to help parents. These settings allow a parent to block everything online only allowing access to approved lists of websites, generaly done through a whitelist or approved websites.
What is missing at a government level is a curation effort of websites, similar to Libraries that classify books by genres and appropriate age levels.
I would propose a government fund where Librarians or similar organizations can start this effort, and make these lists easily accessible within routers for non tech individuals, together with local initiatives and programs for parents that have a interest to learn more.
For power users lists like these already exists curated by public individuals very similar to pihole block lists and whitelists.
This concept would be the most privacy respectful IMO giving parents the most power to parent, while respecting everyone else’s privacy online including children.
The mass majority of parents don’t parent. This is a different problem than the government is trying to fix. My first introduction to this was when NWA was causing a ruckus and got white christian womens panties in a kerfuffle that led to parental advisory labels on music.
Ultimately having the government force age ID isn’t about parenting. Its a pathway to further, easier surveillance on the public under the guise of “protecting the children”.
Bingo! And this is why we need to remind our governments that if this is really about “protecting the children”, we should not be sacrificing our own children privacy and safety, in the name of their safety!
Exactly. MAGA is never going to endorse a reasonable strategy that doesn’t allow them to connect our exact identities to everything we do online, because that’s the real objective. “Protecting children” is just an excuse to Diddy-Lube the Slippery Slope, as it ALWAYS is.
That’s the point unfortunately.
The recent designation of anyone in the EU developing E2EE as a “hostile actor” makes that much clear.
Wasn’t that just in the UK?
Surly that has made a lot of people unexpectedly hostile actors. Like what about people developing a webserver that has e2ee does that make them a hostile actor
If this is the way forward, I’d very reluctantly accept some central organization (Apple, Google) to provide a Boolean isOfAge = true that you can use across the web. To be clear, I don’t like this either, but it’s just barely more stomachable than providing my ID to every fly-by-night poorly-secured website.
There’s no reason to give in to any of this shit in Any way
Ah, well most people use the internet for banking, employment, housing, medical care, government services, and communicating with friends and family, so… how would you propose to avoid it once it’s implemented?
*edit: downvotes, but no counterarguments. Hilarious.
I know it may difficult to believe, but humanity existed before the internet era. If it doesnt actually serve the people and is instead being egregiously leveraged against them, it needs to be flushed down with the rest of the waste
Doctors can still accommodate clients without internet communications
Banks can still give out and accept your money, and you are perfectly capable of writing down those transactions in a ledger with red and black ink
Landlords or mortgage holders do too, even if you use paper cheques. You… Can… write a cheque… right?
Employers have been whining for at least since I started working about people being on the internet on their phones (2010’s), they’d consider you ditching it a win
Friends and family? Oh man you may or may not believe it, but you may actually have to meet up irl to maintain those relationships. Maybe even every weekend.
How to avoid it when implemented? TOR, self hosted Docker programs like TeamSpeak6, Fluxer or anything similar. There’s a lot of options there though you have to have the slightest interest to fix then
It can go as far as meshtastic nodes and HomeAssistant using LORA communications these days. There is a guy in Ukraine doing just that to use HA at work to trigger smart home systems when cellular is down
People use this garbage because its convenient and easily accessible is all, it takes maybe a weekend of research to bypass all formal methods of communication on 10 year old hardware sitting in peoples closets if someone is even slightly aspiring to, and it only takes one person capable of doing so per family or even maybe town if this goes far enough past people’s willingness to tolerate it
The end of the anonymous web is nigh. We may not like it, but it’s probably the only way. We used to joke in the 90s about requiring an internet driver’s license before allowing people on Usenet. It might actually be happening.
TBF in recent years there’s little of it worth visiting.
The end social media maybe. It’s fundamentally broken anyways. They can keep breaking it worse for all I care.
We’re not meant to be ruled by algorithms. It was a stupid idea to listen to antisocial neckbeards selling the world on how they could master sociology with graph theory. These are the same geniuses who deride soft sciences as not real science.
And it might be a good decision in the dawn of the bot-internet. It forces even bots to be traceable to some real person or getting no access to the mentioned platforms. May be even bot-free platforms
Hypothetically: Lemmy instances where every user has to have physically met an admin and proved that they’re real or something. And they’ll only federate to other instances following the same rules.
It’ll almost be like the early 90s dialup BBS small communities, with FIDOnet ;)
