So... de-facto mass deanonymisation of all Spanish social media users? I see a lot of supporters of these policies either not acknowledge that you can't identify under-16yo without identifying over-16yos.
Age verification is possible without revealing personally identifiable information (beyond old enough yes/no, which is not in any way personally identifiable info) and from my perspective should be a strict requirement with any such laws.
In fact, if these laws make the requisite infrastructure (ID cards that offer that functionality) a hard requirement then creating an anonymous web that nevertheless has age checks easier, not harder.
What you basically want is an ID card where you as the owner can decide what you want to share with the private business. And for age verification that’s basically just requirement fulfilled yes/no.
So if the law is well written then this could be an advantage, not a disadvantage. Preemptive cynicism isn’t helpful here.
Given the track record of both the country and other EU attempts (despite the existence of a zero trust verification framework) I am quite sure this will be used to de-anonymize users online, see UK.
It is definitely technically possible, and it has been for some time in many places. But I doubt anybody (sm companies, state) cares to implement it like that, instead of taking it as a chance to increase surveillance.
It is not preemptive cynicism. My issue isn't with private corporations having access to my data, it's with my government having access to my social media profile.
You need ID to buy cigarettes and alcohol, prescription drugs or to get sim card... you will need it to register for social network account... do not seem as big of a deal to me. Even less when considering all the positives.
When I show my ID at the cash register I assume the person working there doesn’t instantaneously memorize all my details and then write down when exactly I was at the shop, along with other details, to use this info later for their own reasons.
Whereas if I upload my ID to a tech company (that potentially answers to both my own government and foreign governments, as well as having its own ad-related agenda) I am a bit less certain about what will happen to this data.
Needing ID to buy a sim card was a big deal, though. Didn't seem like it because it seemed like we still had the internet for anonymous communication. That will be gone soon by the looks of it. Frog status: boiled.
The problem is that they promise to delete IDs but then don't, and get hacked, and then all that personal information is published to the dark web for nefarious purposes. If you need evidence, it just happened again to 70,000 Discord users: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8jmzd972leo
that's exactly my proposal with protecting children online - issue unique certificates for some symbolic price like 1EUR which will be sold over 18yo in shops exactly same as alcohol and cigarettes where nobody writes down your ID details, heck don't even have a look if you look old enough, that's as far as I am willing to go to protect kids (without this certificate) online, anything else is just internet deanonymization
When traveling abroad, it always surprises me when I’m asked for my id when buying alcohol. That’s only a thing in my country when you’re in the age bracket in which it’s risky to tell your age just by your looks, but after that, I haven’t been asked for my id since at least I’m 20 or 21 (drinking age is 18 here).
Prescription drugs are different because those are tied to your name anyway, and that’s why medical information has a different protection standard.
As a parent of 2 I think it’s better to talk to your kids, check what they’re up to, and, you know, be involved in their lives. Also, as a former kid, if there’s something they want to do but you don’t want them to: they’ll do it. Better that they know they can trust you to say “I still want to do X” than have to do it in hiding and without your support if anything goes wrong.
There is a difference between "not all, by choice", and "absolutely none, by compulsion". This is something your average 4 year old can easily understand.
While I'm in favour of limiting social media for kids, there doesn't seem to be a right way to do it unless this system doesn't store identification data, just confirms their age and deletes everything.
It's possible to build an identity system that can assert certain properties about a person (eg. "older than 16") without revealing any other details about that person. Similarly, it's also possible to build such a system where the identity system can attest these details without knowing which website is being accessed. That way, the social media site (or whatever other "adult" service) can validate the user is old enough, while the identity system doesnt track who is using what.
there is, identify users with anonymous code bought exactly same as cigarettes and alcohol in shops where they don't write down your data or don't even have look at your ID card if you look old enough
any age identification done online is not anonymous
False dichotomy. Plenty of governments have a digitalised id/login service to log into the tax office, government portals, whatever. This is usually also offered as a "single sign-on". After signing on, the website can request any piece of information, the list of those pieces is presented to the user, who clicks Accept or Go Back. Pretty standard stuff.
Meaning: these websites simply need to request 2 pieces of data: a boolean stating whether you are older than 16 or younger, and a UUID. Zero other pieces of identifying information. Where does the mass deanonymisation enter into this? What does it even mean in the context of using algorithmic social media whose entire business model is surveillance of its users?
> Where does the mass deanonymisation enter into this?
Via the UUID. Also via the fact that the authentication service sees what you're logging into, regardless of whether the social media site does or not.
This isn't complicated. It's obvious if you're not desperately trying not to think about it.
This is a straw-man argument. A public service that can answer whether a one-time key provided by the user to the service fulfills a certain requirement would suffice.
I am personally going to avoid anonymous social media as much as I can going forward. (Not counting topic-specific forums and such). They have all become toxic cesspools and now AI is making it all so much worse.
I’ve stopped using Facebook a long time ago, but started using a similar locally made social media app/site, which is based on logins tied indirectly to national ID. Holy crap it’s so much better. Only real people. No bots or scams. Even the ads are better. Actual relevant local businesses. And people hesitate before writing nasty comments. Not that I’m using it a lot, I’m still not a big social media guy, but having groups for the neighbourhood or town is nice for becoming aware of events and such happening nearby.
I still have the Facebook account for now. There’s a group or two I need to check in on sometimes. Every time I log in I get so confused why anyone would still use it.
There was a point in time where I though of social media as an invention that facilitates the freedom of speech.
Recent years changed that perception completely. It's a platform where russian oligarchs create discord in Europe cheaply (and the West in general) and American oligarchs profit from it.
I don't have any hopes left that the business will deliver us freedom of speech in any form. Next best bet is democratically elected government.
When you put on top of this how some things like youth suicides, youth grneral mental health decline, number of people killed in school shootings in US correlates with development of social media I will happily see it burn.
Good, heavily in favor. Social media has just become media, the social aspect is mostly gone. Especially since all of them just try to shove down 30sec shorts/reels/tiktoks down your throat. I have not a single real-life friend or family member (except those, that are under 16 and use tiktok) that ever recorded a short.
I want to see regulation of the algorithm. Something like forcing a chronological feed, or somehow nerfing the recommendation engine. Figure out a way to make it boring, bypass the whole censorship debate.
Not great, because they promise to delete our IDs but don't, and get hacked (see Discord hack from a few months ago where 70k users had government IDs leaked).
To reiterate what I wrote above: We need to ban addictive dark patterns on ALL platforms for ALL ages.
I think the opposite is in order. Ban phones with screens for those over 18 (driving limit). Phones are a drug that people cannot seem to let go off. Even when driving. Kids don’t have cars. Perhaps a trade? A phone or a car?
Yeah. We need to introduce social-media literacy tests that certify that you are capable of being a good valuable citizen on social media instead of a disinformation sharer and slop consumer.
> We need to introduce social-media literacy tests that certify that you are capable of being a good valuable citizen on social media instead of a propaganda sharer and slop consumer.
... and force it first on Zuckerberg, Musk ... and Trump.
This is really globally coordinated, isn't it? I'm just not sure why now and not previously. Is it just that Twitter went over the toxicity threshold that everyone noticed?
Why now? Because in the past 2-3 years it has been made abundantly clear that:
(a) Social media operators choose to do nothing at all against coordinated influencing operations, unless the influencing goes against the interests of very specific countries and groups.
(b) US government most likely has unfettered access to social media data. As if this isn't bad enough, they will probably give them out to Palantir for "data integration" and under uncertain terms.
Those things were pretty clear well before 2-3 years.
Social media is seen as a driver for people having opinions deemed a threat to the status quo. Western governments have been fighting a long battle to use these tools to control domestic influence and at times have probably thought they were winning, but recently things seem to be turn a bit.
"Think of the children" is obviously the oldest and most pathetic trick in their playbook. We know it's a bald faced lie because data and studies on social media harms on children has been coming out for well over a decade by now, and not a finger was lifted for years. So we know that is not the reason, and we know they are lying about the reason. Therefore we know the real reason is seen as unpopular with the electorate. And curbing foreign (including US government) influence and access to data is not unpopular anywhere.
Well COVID green pass didn't work out to save us all from deadly flu with 0.31% fatality rate[1][2], so now they are trying it to save our children with digital ID...
It does seem to be, yes. Sweden will also fall if the leftist side wins in the september government election.
They will end up banning sites allowing purely anonymous comments. (This might include HN.) This is the consequence of the ambition that is already clearly anounced by the opposition leader Magdalena Andersson of the social democrats.
These anonymous comments are incidentally their current worst enemy. The are really good at amplifying stories that the 3 (three!) national news publishers (government/public service, Bonnier News, Schibsted) decide to ignore or deamplify for ideoleogical reasons.
Very cheap way to appear to be doing something about anything. Lot of talk, a few memos. All implementation burden on private sector. Aimed at group that can't currently vote. Only ones against it on principle care about implementation not actually the ban.
And some of us think it doesn't go far enough. I would set limit to 18. Would solve lot more issues. Like make adult content fully allowable by default as everyone can automatically be considered to be an adult then.
Maybe it's because now we are starting to realize the effects that social media exposure have on human brain, specially on teenagers. Legislation always lag behind.
Shock at how many people believe Palestinians are human got the ball rolling, but now its prepping for the fallout of the release of more and more Epstein files.
Definitely tickles all kinds of conspiracy theory senses.
Of course it could just be law makers seeing one country do it and then going "wait, you can do that and people will go along with it???". I'm not sure if that's any better than a global conspiracy though.
Seems easier to justify if social media owners are hanging out with child sex traffickers and enabling features that let you undress anyone who posts photos to the site.
Ooohhh I finally get it. It's another "protecting the children" guise when in actuality they want to introduce new mechanisms to control speech, classify what they don't like as "hate speech", fine/punish companies for hosting content they've decided is "hate speech", etc. How naive of me to think it was just about protecting the kids.
I feel like people avoid the elephant in the room that social media companies became too influential and too big that going after them for addictive and dark patterns is not possible. Specially that most of them is in the US with current political situation it will not be possible anyway.
So they are taking half measures that are more problematic on different aspect like privacy.
Not to praise China, but it seems they seem to do doing better job against their big companies to prevent such situations (please don't pass the point here).
I think things would be much better if these companies is to be held accountable for their actions beyond the current fines that they just consider it now cost of doing business.
In total social media has long surpassed drug addiction in bad effects in young people (mental, psychological and physical). Together with the economic situation they are the cause of the unfortunate state of youth today.
Banning them is in the right direction even at the cost of any deanonym. A dozen entities, both public and private, know us very well already. They know that eveyone watches porn, now they will know how offen.
Readit News
In fact, if these laws make the requisite infrastructure (ID cards that offer that functionality) a hard requirement then creating an anonymous web that nevertheless has age checks easier, not harder.
What you basically want is an ID card where you as the owner can decide what you want to share with the private business. And for age verification that’s basically just requirement fulfilled yes/no.
So if the law is well written then this could be an advantage, not a disadvantage. Preemptive cynicism isn’t helpful here.
Whereas if I upload my ID to a tech company (that potentially answers to both my own government and foreign governments, as well as having its own ad-related agenda) I am a bit less certain about what will happen to this data.
And if you're suggesting Digital ID (EUDI style); showing ID at the store doesn't share metadata of that purchase with the government.
Prescription drugs are different because those are tied to your name anyway, and that’s why medical information has a different protection standard.
As a parent of 2 I think it’s better to talk to your kids, check what they’re up to, and, you know, be involved in their lives. Also, as a former kid, if there’s something they want to do but you don’t want them to: they’ll do it. Better that they know they can trust you to say “I still want to do X” than have to do it in hiding and without your support if anything goes wrong.
So all Spanish social media users are currently anonymous? I do not think so.
any age identification done online is not anonymous
Meaning: these websites simply need to request 2 pieces of data: a boolean stating whether you are older than 16 or younger, and a UUID. Zero other pieces of identifying information. Where does the mass deanonymisation enter into this? What does it even mean in the context of using algorithmic social media whose entire business model is surveillance of its users?
How is it not deanonymisation when your tax ID is inextricably linked to your social media profile?
Via the UUID. Also via the fact that the authentication service sees what you're logging into, regardless of whether the social media site does or not.
This isn't complicated. It's obvious if you're not desperately trying not to think about it.
I’ve stopped using Facebook a long time ago, but started using a similar locally made social media app/site, which is based on logins tied indirectly to national ID. Holy crap it’s so much better. Only real people. No bots or scams. Even the ads are better. Actual relevant local businesses. And people hesitate before writing nasty comments. Not that I’m using it a lot, I’m still not a big social media guy, but having groups for the neighbourhood or town is nice for becoming aware of events and such happening nearby.
I still have the Facebook account for now. There’s a group or two I need to check in on sometimes. Every time I log in I get so confused why anyone would still use it.
Recent years changed that perception completely. It's a platform where russian oligarchs create discord in Europe cheaply (and the West in general) and American oligarchs profit from it.
I don't have any hopes left that the business will deliver us freedom of speech in any form. Next best bet is democratically elected government.
When you put on top of this how some things like youth suicides, youth grneral mental health decline, number of people killed in school shootings in US correlates with development of social media I will happily see it burn.
Once that’s done we should ban the over the 65+.
Banning advertising targeted at the user rather than the context
Enforcing Do Not Track
Enforcing GDPR (especially sites that use cookie banners)
Drawing that to its ultimate conclusion: people are very susceptible to being influenced and social media may well turn out to be a net negative.
To reiterate what I wrote above: We need to ban addictive dark patterns on ALL platforms for ALL ages.
... and force it first on Zuckerberg, Musk ... and Trump.
Ideologies are cultivated young.
(a) Social media operators choose to do nothing at all against coordinated influencing operations, unless the influencing goes against the interests of very specific countries and groups.
(b) US government most likely has unfettered access to social media data. As if this isn't bad enough, they will probably give them out to Palantir for "data integration" and under uncertain terms.
Social media is seen as a driver for people having opinions deemed a threat to the status quo. Western governments have been fighting a long battle to use these tools to control domestic influence and at times have probably thought they were winning, but recently things seem to be turn a bit.
"Think of the children" is obviously the oldest and most pathetic trick in their playbook. We know it's a bald faced lie because data and studies on social media harms on children has been coming out for well over a decade by now, and not a finger was lifted for years. So we know that is not the reason, and we know they are lying about the reason. Therefore we know the real reason is seen as unpopular with the electorate. And curbing foreign (including US government) influence and access to data is not unpopular anywhere.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187603412... [2] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
They will end up banning sites allowing purely anonymous comments. (This might include HN.) This is the consequence of the ambition that is already clearly anounced by the opposition leader Magdalena Andersson of the social democrats.
These anonymous comments are incidentally their current worst enemy. The are really good at amplifying stories that the 3 (three!) national news publishers (government/public service, Bonnier News, Schibsted) decide to ignore or deamplify for ideoleogical reasons.
And some of us think it doesn't go far enough. I would set limit to 18. Would solve lot more issues. Like make adult content fully allowable by default as everyone can automatically be considered to be an adult then.
Shock at how many people believe Palestinians are human got the ball rolling, but now its prepping for the fallout of the release of more and more Epstein files.
Of course it could just be law makers seeing one country do it and then going "wait, you can do that and people will go along with it???". I'm not sure if that's any better than a global conspiracy though.
So they are taking half measures that are more problematic on different aspect like privacy.
Not to praise China, but it seems they seem to do doing better job against their big companies to prevent such situations (please don't pass the point here).
I think things would be much better if these companies is to be held accountable for their actions beyond the current fines that they just consider it now cost of doing business.
Banning them is in the right direction even at the cost of any deanonym. A dozen entities, both public and private, know us very well already. They know that eveyone watches porn, now they will know how offen.