This is my humble opinion, but such a coordinated action from the governments around the world at this particular time has a certain smell. It smells like they're worried about losing governmental narrative control. It could be about foreign powers, but tech nowadays allows regular people to contest power from the government so they become a target as well. AI, the internet, anonymity/cryptography, a probable war with china and/or russia, all exacerbate this worry.
In short, governments want to retain control and prepare for the future, and to retain control they need to control the flow of information and they need to have a monopoly on information. To achieve this they need an intelligence strategy that puts common people at the center (spying on them) and put restrictions in place. But they can't say this outloud because in the current era it's problematic, so the children become a good excuse.
This is particularly clear in governments that don't care about political correctness or are not competent enough to disguise their intentions. Such an example is the Argentine government, which these years passed laws to survey online activity and to put it's intelligence agency to spy on "anyone that puts sovereign narrative and cohesion at risk".
This isn’t the product of shadowy government figures meeting together and plotting to take over the internet. It’s an obvious byproduct of the current moral panic around social media.
Just look at the HN comments. There are people welcoming this level of government control and using famous moral panic topics to justify it, like Andrew Tate or TikTok.
If democratic outputs can be sufficiently controlled via media that is for sale, then you already have a de-facto plutocracy.
Similarly, allowing foreign interests a significant media presence (and control) in your country is a very real threat to the basic principles of a democratic nation.
Who do you think is responsible for the current moral panic around social media?
That shit didn't just happen. Social media only became ontologically evil once it presented a threat to the status quo by allowing the underclasses to organize and establish political power, and when it started to undermine mainstream propaganda narratives.
It's no coincidence that TikTok is being described as a CCP weapon of war and indoctrination when it starts leading people to question their government's foreign policy and capitalism. Can't have that.
I think the problem you lay out is interesting. Back when the Arab Spring was brand new, the narrative was something like "Twitter has finally given power to the people, and once they had power they overthrew their evil dictatorships."
A decade and some time later, my personal opinion would be that the narrative reads something like this: "access to social media increases populism, extremism, and social unrest. It's a risk to any and all forms of government. The Arab dictatorships failed first because they were the most brittle."
To the extent that you agree with my claim, it would mean that even a beneficent government would have something to fear from social media. As with the Arab Spring, whatever comes after the revolution is often worse than the very-imperfect government which came before.
> To the extent that you agree with my claim, it would mean that even a beneficent government would have something to fear from social media
I'd say that governments are beneficial to the extent that they adapt to the people they're governing. It's clear that social media poses a grave danger to current governance. But that doesn't mean that all forms of governance are equally attacked.
My belief is that the current governance is just obsolete and dying because of the pace of cultural and technical innovation. Governments will need to change in order to stay beneficial to people, and the change is to adapt to people instead of making the people adapt to the current governance.
> access to social media increases populism, extremism, and social unrest.
I don't think this is necessarily a byproduct of social media, itself. But rather, the byproduct of algorithmic engagement farming social media that capitalizes on inciting negative emotions for retention. Which, I concede, is all of the large ones.
I'm sure, also, that some amount of cause will also be concern of foreign adversaries using social media to sway young people against their government as well. Since they're easier to influence than your typical adult.
It is unsettling how frank and clear your post is. However, at the time, the algorithms were way "nicer", right? Or was it that people were nicer and or people on social media were nicer?
Maybe. But the thing is that I think there is a legitimate cultural need to minimize mass exposure to these centralized social media platforms. And I think people realised this about now.
I don't advocate legal bans. And people need to stop using it. The risk is great that there will be legal overreach ...
Gen Z can't make it till end of month, can't get married, can't get a mortgage, many graduates struggle to get a job... Meanwhile they see pensioners having a blast and telling them they are lazy/stupid, and keep rising their rents.
You betcha the gerontocracy sees something brewing.
> Counterpoint: Sufficient media control kills a democracy because it enables you to control public sentiment and election outcomes.
That's just as true when the entity seizing control is the government, such that the entity that control public sentiment and election outcomes is the incumbent administration.
Dark conspiracy... Or collective acknowledgement of the harm of being constantly online has done to a generation of young people. How it amplifies abuse, entrenches deeply negative tribes.
It's not stupid —at a national future-of-society level— to want to do something about this. I agree, it's possible to overreach and just get it wrong, but doing nothing is worse.
I'd rather my government control the narrative my children are exposed to than Andrew Tate.
Edit: To expand, this is not just a flippant remark. People ignore Andrew Tate because he's so obviously, cartoonishly awful, but they are not the audience. It's aimed at children, and from personal experience its effect on a large number of them worldwide is profound, to the extent that I worry about the long term, generational effect.
Children will be exposed to narratives one way or another, and to want to (re)assert some control that over that isn't necessarily just an authoritatian power play.
The targets to control are not children. They don't need to be controlled, from an intelligence point of view. Government's attention is not infinite, and between worries of losing power and worries about the wellbeing of children, one of the two is the winner, and it's not the children. If children's well-being was the priority, you would see other stuff being made.
This sort of makes sense if our governments are, on the whole, 'better' than Andrew Tate, for some definition of 'better'. But as the slide goes on there will be a tipping point where our governments are worse, meaning them surveilling me becomes problematic. Best shout about it now than then.
Do you decline any responsibility in the moral upbringing of your children? I think you should be the one that decides how they interact with dubious content, not your government.
Counterpoint: Andrew Tate resonates with the younger generations because modern society (at least in the UK) appears to be an ever-growing middle finger to them and Tate promises a (fake, but believable) way out.
When your future looks like endless toil just so you can give half of the fruits of your labor to subsidize senile politicians/their friends (via taxes) and the other half to subsidize boomers (via rent), Tate's messaging and whatever get-rich-quick scheme he's currently hawking sounds appealing.
You can ban Tate but without solving the reason behind why people look up to him it's just a matter of time before another grifter takes his place.
Casual calls for banning children from social media are becoming common, even here on HN. The people demanding these bans always assume that the bans will cleanly apply only to sites they don’t use or don’t like, as if only Facebook and TikTok will be impacted.
This proposed amendment shows exactly why this entire concept is problematic. The definition of social media site is this:
> by regulations made my statutory instrument require all regulated user-to-user services to use highly-effective age assurance measures to prevent children under the age of 16 from becoming or being users.
Now imagine all of the user-to-user services you use on the internet: Hacker News, Discord, Signal, any messaging app, the comment section on your favorite news websites. Even Wikipedia is a user-to-user website.
The second point that people calling for heavy regulation neglect is that the only way to keep under-16s out of these websites is to enforce age verification on everyone who visits the website. So HN would require ID verification, and Discord, and your messaging apps. I always see ideas about creating age verification services that don’t disclose ID information, but a key part of age verification is confirming (as reasonably possible) that the person presenting the ID with the age on it is the same person who is trying to use the service. The same reason a 16 year old can’t walk into a liquor store with their mom’s ID is going to be applied to these age checks, requiring that the sites make an effort to associate an ID with the user. Otherwise, kids are smart and will borrow their parents or older friends’ IDs or even use online black market services if there are no negative consequences for sharing IDs that perform anonymous age checks. Associating IDs with user accounts is a key part of age check legislation.
I'm not sure why we give kids smart phones and laptops. This is actually unavoidable. Your school will give your kid a laptop, even if you prohibit it at home. Imagine being 14 and having an entire laptop to prevent you from ever needing to focus in class. I never would have managed it.
It's a coordination problem. I can "parent" my kids by banning them from social media sure, but if the other parents don't also do that, then I just made my kid a social outcast.
As it is we have to allow our eldest a lot more screen and social media time than we think is healthy, but it's more healthy than not having any friends.
I'm not necessarily in favour of a government ban, but I do wish more parents were on board. At the primary school (age 10) 100% of other kids had phones, and no one else seemed to give a shit.
Your stance is one of those thought-terminating stances. It's not as if parents somehow have more control over their children than the entire world. Yes, they may have a plurality of the influence - they are the single most influential factor - but it doesn't outweigh the entire rest of the world.
Plus, what are you going to say about children of people who aren't very good at parenting? Do they deserve to grow up addicted to dopamine and groomed into fascism? Or should we try to help them too?
I don't like the solution of age verification on every social media website, but the problem is real and must be solved if we want the future to be any good.
I always find it ironic when people complain about social media on social media, drawing some arbitrary line on what is social media (implied to be bad) and what is not (implied to be good).
I would also add GitHub and StackOverflow to the list of social media, they have user-to-user interaction and a visible reputation system with gamification. Stretch things a bit and you could even include email. IRC and USENET too of course.
The only time I have seen something sensible was is I think a proposal in a US state, where the social media the ruling is about is clearly defined. I think it has to have user interaction, a personalized algorithmic feed, and a number of specific patterns, such as infinite scroll, essentially Facebook, TikTok, Instagram,... but not Reddit or Hacker News. The good think about that is that the social media in question could "work around" the ruling by stripping off some dark patterns, I would consider it a win should it happen.
Because it gives governments authority to pick and choose which sites to ban or allow, it’s a mechanism that can accommodate political coercion and subterfuge. The platforms can now be de-platformed.
It’s no longer user-to-user websites, its user-to government-to-user.
If every website needed verification, why not simply move the verification to the device or ISP level? This seems like an authoritative move to track users across websites, and another good reason to keep using a VPN.
Certainly a terrifying amount of responsibility and upkeep for each individual website. If the UK wishes to establish this and not want it to lead to an insane amount of privacy leaks, it should consider developing a technology that makes it work in a privacy-respecting way, like the European Age Verification Solution [0]'s Zero-Knowledge Proofs.
> the UK wishes to establish this and not want it to lead to an insane amount of privacy leaks, it should consider developing a technology that makes it work in a privacy-respecting way
They don’t care about the privacy aspect.
A key part of effective age verification is associating an identity with the account. They don’t just want to confirm that the person accessing the site has access to an ID of anyone who is 16+, they want to make an effort to associate the ID with the account. It’s the same reason why when you present an ID to buy alcohol they look at the photo to make sure the ID is actually yours, not just that you have an ID of someone older in your possession.
Even if we keep it at the website level, a government-run solution that allows you to verify your age without revealing your identity would be the logical solution. There is no good reason why they need to know who I am to know how old I am. The EU seems to be headed that way. The UK doesn't seem to care, almost as if associating real names with accounts was the whole point and saving children was just a convenient excuse for them
This is the exact policing we don't want government to do regardless of the age. In my opinion it's the responsibility of the parents to decide how to raise their children and teach them how to live and adapt in the age of social media and maintain a balance.
In the same sense one could argue that social media like Facebook or WhatsApp should be banned among older population because that's one of the major ways mis/fake information being spread among elderly people and now with AI videos they actually believe those fake stories to be 100% true as well. I think that's more risk to modern day democracy and well being of the society in general.
In theory, libertarian-type approaches seem reasonable when you model for cooperative actors. In practice, however, you hit tragedies of the commons and severe first-mover disadvantages. Well-meaning parents who ban teenagers from social media at the level of the family rather than at the level of society will mainly just socially ostracize their kids. I'd imagine you'd need to go Amish-mode and build a social network on behalf of your kids for anything like this to work.
If you want to restrict kids from social media (which is an open question), I would much prefer that the laws not gate kids from social media directly as this would require social media websites to ask for ID. Rather, abusive parents who don't lock their kids out of social media websites should be sanctioned. First offenders get all of their Internet accesses taken down for a few months.
> Rather, abusive parents who don't lock their kids out of social media websites should be sanctioned. First offenders get all of their Internet accesses taken down for a few months.
Wow, people really will advocate for anything except actually fixing the harmful aspects of these sites.
Also, calling parents "abusive" who let their kids on social media is harsh and will likely only ever push people away from understanding your position.
What happens after the second offence, out of curiosity?
If you have been a teenager or adult before, you will be familiar with the concept of the clique. For teens, there are athletes, nerds, theater kids, Lululemon kids, etc.
There are cliques of kids who do not use social media (because their parents won't let them, or they don't want to, or they prefer to do something else, or their parents do not use social media, or they cannot afford the devices). Teens who do not use social media sort into different cliques. That's it. They are not ostracized any more than theater kids or computer geeks are ostracized. (The latter inclusion was intentional, as it may cause some self-reflection among well-adjusted adults who at one time were members of school computer clubs.)
We absolutely do need regulation of this harm by the law. It's how we stand together as a society, otherwise one child's rules will seem draconian against their friend's lax parents. There's plenty of precedent in other threshold ages at which children can start indulging in other potentially harmful vices.
The vulnerable elder population is more difficult to define by a simple age threshold. We all decline at different ages and different rates.
> There's plenty of precedent in other threshold ages at which children can start indulging in other potentially harmful vices.
Yeah but, there's no precedent for regulating something that parents are opting into (by buying their kids devices and then turning them loose with no oversight).
We should be punishing liquor stores when a parent willingly buys their child alcohol, then?
> one child's rules will seem draconian against their friend's lax parents.
So what is wrong with that? parenting is not equal among all parents in UK and why should only this aspect be normalized?
> The vulnerable elder population is more difficult to define by a simple age threshold. We all decline at different ages and different rates.
This is a hypocritical statement. For children we are more than willing to normalize and enforce rules as us adults wants because we assume all children grow up at same age and same rates, but when it comes to policing adults, the line is gray and more difficult because everyone is different.
> one child's rules will seem draconian against their friend's lax parents
That’s how it has been for most everything. Someone else’s parents let their kids watch TV on a school night, or stay up past 10pm, or has a curfew of 1am instead of midnight, or lets them drink soda at the dinner table. The response from my parents to me, and from me to my kids, has always been to point out that families are different, they have different rules, and that in this house we do X.
> We absolutely do need regulation of this harm by the law
> There's plenty of precedent in other threshold ages at which children can start indulging in other potentially harmful vices.
In those other vices, we have various other regulations in order to reduce their harm as much as possible. Yet, there has been no similar push for the purported harm done by social media - or, apparently, the Internet in general. It's like we've tried nothing and are surprised it's still an issue.
If we need regulation of "this harm", then what we need to be regulating is the social media networks, not the children (and adults!) that use them.
We need to be banning algorithmic feeds. We need to be banning promotion of hateful content. We need to be banning moderation that is biased against marginalized groups, or against criticism of the platform.
If they weren't being subjected to feeds specifically designed to create maximum "engagement" with fear, hate, and self-doubt, most young people using social media would be interacting in similar ways to how they interact offline. Perhaps there would be a little less inhibition due to the feeling of anonymity, but overall, anything harmful they might be doing or saying to each other on there is very similar to what they would be doing or saying to each other in person, regardless of what social media you let them access.
Every single right you have can be taken away by the justification of it will protect children or it is wrong because of something some person wrote in a religious text.
Parents who think they need this are bad parents and bad citizens.
Someone pointed out that every single one of these laws in spirit does not need the website to verify and block the user. There is no need for complicated schemes of all websites implementing complex screening software and storing all our IDs. The website could report a single string saying if there is adult content and software the parent or authoritarian governments ISP has installed on the device could block it.
Why does that mean people who don't want this law's privacy gets to be invaded? How is this not those parents' responsibility to ensure their child doesn't go on those sites they don't like?
The fact of me being a parent is non of your concern I would say.
If most of voting age parents want this, then what prevents them from enforcing it on their children. Why do they have to rely on government to be the parent. Maybe those parent should not have been parents in the first place if they need government to step in to raise their children.
The UK in particular seems to be headed into a terrible direction with regard to free speech, being a nanny-state, and surveilling its citizens. I wonder if these sorts of measures (broadly) are supported by their voters or if the voters really have no choice.
In the UK any topics in regards to politics that are widely spoken about in public is to do with immigration / inflation / housing crisis. Because of these other issues this is happening under the radar and no political party cares.
It is because the vast majority of the people don't understand really what the internet is, how it works and therefore cannot understand the consequences.
However the effects of immigration (both positive and negative), inflation and not being able to afford a house is more easily understood by the layman.
Not sure where you are from but it's not exclusive to the UK. People directly quoting the US president following the tragic death of a right wing commentator also found themselves locked up. Not to mention the same president suggesting that people suggesting that the military should refuse illegal orders should be locked up etc.
I think realistically we've grown up in an age where you could say almost anything online, free from any threat of any kind of reprisal. It probably reasonable that, given the internet is key to daily life these days, that we treat it as no different from standing on a park bench and shouting. If you're calling for the death of people based on their religion or some other characteristic then there are consequences to your speech.
Unfortunately the most recent example of this kind of legislation, the laws surrounding age verification on websites, was introduced under a previous government so it really doesn't matter who you vote for on this anyway.
I'm a parent of four, and the family controls on Android, paired with sensible oversight of laptop use at home, are perfectly sufficient. We've enabled WhatsApp, but check it every so often for the younger ones; they have a timeout, can use Wikipedia, and have a time limit on their use of AI. They can't use the stupid services like Tiktok.
There is a very simple and powerful alternative; add a flag to the http header standard, which is enforced device-wide or web-browser wide for any parent controlled device.
If you dont want to serve or moderate your site for children and be exposed to fines, you block any request with the relevant flag.
You just need a law to enforce what can be served when using the relevant flag, and some talks with Google, Apple Microsoft and w3 to implement it.
you can even segment it my category; no-login, no-posting, no-18-plus, no-violence, no-politics, under-16, region-EU, region-UK.
This leaves control to parents to do what they deem appropriate for their age, and doesn't turn into a authoritative surveillance state.... wait thats the point isn't it...
Adding even more personal information into HTTP headers is NOT the way to go. The web shouldn't require identification. The web shouldn't require segmentation on protected demographics. The business should. If the goal is to "protect the children", sending this information on every request is ANYTHING BUT protecting the children.
Seems like it could work in the other direction... mandate that adult sites etc. include a standard, relevant flag in the response, so that parental control software can detect it if it's installed. Sites don't have to know anything about their users, parents can reliably filter out naughty sites.
To op's point, age verification is really a surveillance measure, so this won't happen.
> Adding even more personal information into HTTP headers is NOT the way to go
It's exactly the way to go; because the alternative currently being pursued by half the western world is to attatch your full government ID to every internet request. Some preference flags are pretty harmless in comparison, and very powerful tool to solve some related problems.
The internet is already segmented and will continue to become more segmented (Intellectual property, GDPR, gambling). Adding a method to control that with the power in the hand of the user; is the least bad way to implement it.
It also makes regulating the internet alot less painful for businesses and governments. A buisness can refuse my service if they don't like my http request. No more murky "US company liable for EU user traffic even if unintended" nonsense. (The user can choose to voluntary remove GDPR protection with this method for example)
Exactly. In order to prove you are not 15 online you have to prove you are >=16, even if you are 63.
And there's no "I'm an adult" proof with leaking exactly who you are.
This is thinly veiled "we want to know exactly who is behind every account" legislation. Expect it to be coupled with the usual "If you've nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" argument.
I am not sure who is going to be interested in the general population amoral interest in a country that is/was OK with well known personal personalities being pedophiles and rags like the mail that will push whatever narratives they feel brings the more dosh.
Readit News
In short, governments want to retain control and prepare for the future, and to retain control they need to control the flow of information and they need to have a monopoly on information. To achieve this they need an intelligence strategy that puts common people at the center (spying on them) and put restrictions in place. But they can't say this outloud because in the current era it's problematic, so the children become a good excuse.
This is particularly clear in governments that don't care about political correctness or are not competent enough to disguise their intentions. Such an example is the Argentine government, which these years passed laws to survey online activity and to put it's intelligence agency to spy on "anyone that puts sovereign narrative and cohesion at risk".
Just look at the HN comments. There are people welcoming this level of government control and using famous moral panic topics to justify it, like Andrew Tate or TikTok.
People and especially kids drink too much soda but I don't think bans are appropriate.
If democratic outputs can be sufficiently controlled via media that is for sale, then you already have a de-facto plutocracy.
Similarly, allowing foreign interests a significant media presence (and control) in your country is a very real threat to the basic principles of a democratic nation.
That shit didn't just happen. Social media only became ontologically evil once it presented a threat to the status quo by allowing the underclasses to organize and establish political power, and when it started to undermine mainstream propaganda narratives.
It's no coincidence that TikTok is being described as a CCP weapon of war and indoctrination when it starts leading people to question their government's foreign policy and capitalism. Can't have that.
A decade and some time later, my personal opinion would be that the narrative reads something like this: "access to social media increases populism, extremism, and social unrest. It's a risk to any and all forms of government. The Arab dictatorships failed first because they were the most brittle."
To the extent that you agree with my claim, it would mean that even a beneficent government would have something to fear from social media. As with the Arab Spring, whatever comes after the revolution is often worse than the very-imperfect government which came before.
I'd say that governments are beneficial to the extent that they adapt to the people they're governing. It's clear that social media poses a grave danger to current governance. But that doesn't mean that all forms of governance are equally attacked.
My belief is that the current governance is just obsolete and dying because of the pace of cultural and technical innovation. Governments will need to change in order to stay beneficial to people, and the change is to adapt to people instead of making the people adapt to the current governance.
I don't think this is necessarily a byproduct of social media, itself. But rather, the byproduct of algorithmic engagement farming social media that capitalizes on inciting negative emotions for retention. Which, I concede, is all of the large ones.
I'm sure, also, that some amount of cause will also be concern of foreign adversaries using social media to sway young people against their government as well. Since they're easier to influence than your typical adult.
I don't advocate legal bans. And people need to stop using it. The risk is great that there will be legal overreach ...
You betcha the gerontocracy sees something brewing.
A democracy that yields sufficient media control to (single) individuals, corporations or foreign nations is basically commiting suicide.
That's just as true when the entity seizing control is the government, such that the entity that control public sentiment and election outcomes is the incumbent administration.
It's not stupid —at a national future-of-society level— to want to do something about this. I agree, it's possible to overreach and just get it wrong, but doing nothing is worse.
Edit: To expand, this is not just a flippant remark. People ignore Andrew Tate because he's so obviously, cartoonishly awful, but they are not the audience. It's aimed at children, and from personal experience its effect on a large number of them worldwide is profound, to the extent that I worry about the long term, generational effect.
Children will be exposed to narratives one way or another, and to want to (re)assert some control that over that isn't necessarily just an authoritatian power play.
When your future looks like endless toil just so you can give half of the fruits of your labor to subsidize senile politicians/their friends (via taxes) and the other half to subsidize boomers (via rent), Tate's messaging and whatever get-rich-quick scheme he's currently hawking sounds appealing.
You can ban Tate but without solving the reason behind why people look up to him it's just a matter of time before another grifter takes his place.
This proposed amendment shows exactly why this entire concept is problematic. The definition of social media site is this:
> by regulations made my statutory instrument require all regulated user-to-user services to use highly-effective age assurance measures to prevent children under the age of 16 from becoming or being users.
Now imagine all of the user-to-user services you use on the internet: Hacker News, Discord, Signal, any messaging app, the comment section on your favorite news websites. Even Wikipedia is a user-to-user website.
The second point that people calling for heavy regulation neglect is that the only way to keep under-16s out of these websites is to enforce age verification on everyone who visits the website. So HN would require ID verification, and Discord, and your messaging apps. I always see ideas about creating age verification services that don’t disclose ID information, but a key part of age verification is confirming (as reasonably possible) that the person presenting the ID with the age on it is the same person who is trying to use the service. The same reason a 16 year old can’t walk into a liquor store with their mom’s ID is going to be applied to these age checks, requiring that the sites make an effort to associate an ID with the user. Otherwise, kids are smart and will borrow their parents or older friends’ IDs or even use online black market services if there are no negative consequences for sharing IDs that perform anonymous age checks. Associating IDs with user accounts is a key part of age check legislation.
As it is we have to allow our eldest a lot more screen and social media time than we think is healthy, but it's more healthy than not having any friends.
I'm not necessarily in favour of a government ban, but I do wish more parents were on board. At the primary school (age 10) 100% of other kids had phones, and no one else seemed to give a shit.
Plus, what are you going to say about children of people who aren't very good at parenting? Do they deserve to grow up addicted to dopamine and groomed into fascism? Or should we try to help them too?
I don't like the solution of age verification on every social media website, but the problem is real and must be solved if we want the future to be any good.
I would also add GitHub and StackOverflow to the list of social media, they have user-to-user interaction and a visible reputation system with gamification. Stretch things a bit and you could even include email. IRC and USENET too of course.
The only time I have seen something sensible was is I think a proposal in a US state, where the social media the ruling is about is clearly defined. I think it has to have user interaction, a personalized algorithmic feed, and a number of specific patterns, such as infinite scroll, essentially Facebook, TikTok, Instagram,... but not Reddit or Hacker News. The good think about that is that the social media in question could "work around" the ruling by stripping off some dark patterns, I would consider it a win should it happen.
It’s no longer user-to-user websites, its user-to government-to-user.
Certainly a terrifying amount of responsibility and upkeep for each individual website. If the UK wishes to establish this and not want it to lead to an insane amount of privacy leaks, it should consider developing a technology that makes it work in a privacy-respecting way, like the European Age Verification Solution [0]'s Zero-Knowledge Proofs.
[0] https://ageverification.dev
They don’t care about the privacy aspect.
A key part of effective age verification is associating an identity with the account. They don’t just want to confirm that the person accessing the site has access to an ID of anyone who is 16+, they want to make an effort to associate the ID with the account. It’s the same reason why when you present an ID to buy alcohol they look at the photo to make sure the ID is actually yours, not just that you have an ID of someone older in your possession.
World governments are going to crack down hard on the free internet over the next century. A distributed solution is sorely needed.
That will turbocharge the draconian lockdown of computing. You will never own a computer you buy every again if that is pushed.
In the same sense one could argue that social media like Facebook or WhatsApp should be banned among older population because that's one of the major ways mis/fake information being spread among elderly people and now with AI videos they actually believe those fake stories to be 100% true as well. I think that's more risk to modern day democracy and well being of the society in general.
If you want to restrict kids from social media (which is an open question), I would much prefer that the laws not gate kids from social media directly as this would require social media websites to ask for ID. Rather, abusive parents who don't lock their kids out of social media websites should be sanctioned. First offenders get all of their Internet accesses taken down for a few months.
Wow, people really will advocate for anything except actually fixing the harmful aspects of these sites.
Also, calling parents "abusive" who let their kids on social media is harsh and will likely only ever push people away from understanding your position.
What happens after the second offence, out of curiosity?
Parent of a teen here. This is just flatly false.
If you have been a teenager or adult before, you will be familiar with the concept of the clique. For teens, there are athletes, nerds, theater kids, Lululemon kids, etc.
There are cliques of kids who do not use social media (because their parents won't let them, or they don't want to, or they prefer to do something else, or their parents do not use social media, or they cannot afford the devices). Teens who do not use social media sort into different cliques. That's it. They are not ostracized any more than theater kids or computer geeks are ostracized. (The latter inclusion was intentional, as it may cause some self-reflection among well-adjusted adults who at one time were members of school computer clubs.)
The vulnerable elder population is more difficult to define by a simple age threshold. We all decline at different ages and different rates.
Yeah but, there's no precedent for regulating something that parents are opting into (by buying their kids devices and then turning them loose with no oversight).
We should be punishing liquor stores when a parent willingly buys their child alcohol, then?
> one child's rules will seem draconian against their friend's lax parents.
So what is wrong with that? parenting is not equal among all parents in UK and why should only this aspect be normalized?
> The vulnerable elder population is more difficult to define by a simple age threshold. We all decline at different ages and different rates.
This is a hypocritical statement. For children we are more than willing to normalize and enforce rules as us adults wants because we assume all children grow up at same age and same rates, but when it comes to policing adults, the line is gray and more difficult because everyone is different.
That’s how it has been for most everything. Someone else’s parents let their kids watch TV on a school night, or stay up past 10pm, or has a curfew of 1am instead of midnight, or lets them drink soda at the dinner table. The response from my parents to me, and from me to my kids, has always been to point out that families are different, they have different rules, and that in this house we do X.
> There's plenty of precedent in other threshold ages at which children can start indulging in other potentially harmful vices.
In those other vices, we have various other regulations in order to reduce their harm as much as possible. Yet, there has been no similar push for the purported harm done by social media - or, apparently, the Internet in general. It's like we've tried nothing and are surprised it's still an issue.
And that would be a great oportunity to teach that child that those measures exist for a reason.
The government is and must always be a subsidiary actor.
Not every risk must be addressed, otherwise zebra crossings would not exist, or driving would be prohibited.
We need to be banning algorithmic feeds. We need to be banning promotion of hateful content. We need to be banning moderation that is biased against marginalized groups, or against criticism of the platform.
If they weren't being subjected to feeds specifically designed to create maximum "engagement" with fear, hate, and self-doubt, most young people using social media would be interacting in similar ways to how they interact offline. Perhaps there would be a little less inhibition due to the feeling of anonymity, but overall, anything harmful they might be doing or saying to each other on there is very similar to what they would be doing or saying to each other in person, regardless of what social media you let them access.
Parents who think they need this are bad parents and bad citizens.
Someone pointed out that every single one of these laws in spirit does not need the website to verify and block the user. There is no need for complicated schemes of all websites implementing complex screening software and storing all our IDs. The website could report a single string saying if there is adult content and software the parent or authoritarian governments ISP has installed on the device could block it.
But protecting children isn't the point
If most of voting age parents want this, then what prevents them from enforcing it on their children. Why do they have to rely on government to be the parent. Maybe those parent should not have been parents in the first place if they need government to step in to raise their children.
However the effects of immigration (both positive and negative), inflation and not being able to afford a house is more easily understood by the layman.
I think realistically we've grown up in an age where you could say almost anything online, free from any threat of any kind of reprisal. It probably reasonable that, given the internet is key to daily life these days, that we treat it as no different from standing on a park bench and shouting. If you're calling for the death of people based on their religion or some other characteristic then there are consequences to your speech.
Unfortunately the most recent example of this kind of legislation, the laws surrounding age verification on websites, was introduced under a previous government so it really doesn't matter who you vote for on this anyway.
If you dont want to serve or moderate your site for children and be exposed to fines, you block any request with the relevant flag.
You just need a law to enforce what can be served when using the relevant flag, and some talks with Google, Apple Microsoft and w3 to implement it.
you can even segment it my category; no-login, no-posting, no-18-plus, no-violence, no-politics, under-16, region-EU, region-UK.
This leaves control to parents to do what they deem appropriate for their age, and doesn't turn into a authoritative surveillance state.... wait thats the point isn't it...
nevermid there is no alternative /j
Adding even more personal information into HTTP headers is NOT the way to go. The web shouldn't require identification. The web shouldn't require segmentation on protected demographics. The business should. If the goal is to "protect the children", sending this information on every request is ANYTHING BUT protecting the children.
To op's point, age verification is really a surveillance measure, so this won't happen.
It's exactly the way to go; because the alternative currently being pursued by half the western world is to attatch your full government ID to every internet request. Some preference flags are pretty harmless in comparison, and very powerful tool to solve some related problems.
The internet is already segmented and will continue to become more segmented (Intellectual property, GDPR, gambling). Adding a method to control that with the power in the hand of the user; is the least bad way to implement it.
It also makes regulating the internet alot less painful for businesses and governments. A buisness can refuse my service if they don't like my http request. No more murky "US company liable for EU user traffic even if unintended" nonsense. (The user can choose to voluntary remove GDPR protection with this method for example)
If you want to send the net neutrality to /dev/null, please, head on.
What?
And there's no "I'm an adult" proof with leaking exactly who you are.
This is thinly veiled "we want to know exactly who is behind every account" legislation. Expect it to be coupled with the usual "If you've nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" argument.