4 ms·

Apparently you'll need to scan an ID if you don't have a credit card, and I bet the EU has millions of young adults without a credit card. Either way, the end r

Apparently you'll need to scan an ID if you don't have a credit card, and I bet the EU has millions of young adults without a credit card. Either way, the end result is that you cannot use a video service without exposing your real identity to the service provider. And for what? Is there an epidemic of video clips wrecking children's minds I'm not aware of? Lacking that, this doesn't seem even remotely justified. All this is either EU lifers keeping themselves busy to justify their existence to themselves, MEPs wanting something to grandstand on, or something equally vapid. A much better approach would have been to keep the age prompt and leave the rest up to the parents, ie, to do nothing.

cdubzzz 5y ago
> And for what? Is there an epidemic of video clips wrecking children's minds I'm not aware of? I mean... maybe. I have young children and have no desire to have them anywhere near YouTube for essentially as long as possible _because_ of that very concern.
- thu2111 5y ago
  You can already restrict YouTube on any sort of computing device you might give kids. Parental controls are built in to Android and iOS. There's no need for every website to duplicate that. However, there's a great "need" for the EU to constantly generate massive floods of legislation because they have ~30,000 civil servants they "need" to keep employed, many of whom earn more than the British Prime Minister. And unfortunately the EU loves coming up with reasons to fine tech firms because they managed to ensure there are none in Europe itself, so it looks a lot like free money, to an organization that's desperate for it (huge budget hole now UK has left + fines go straight into the EU spending pot).
  - zimpenfish 5y ago
    > many of whom earn more than the British Prime Minister. Is that the basic pay (£79,936; €92,584) or the basic+entitled pay (£155,376; €179,968)? (via https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/930798/Salaries-of-members-of-Her-Majestys-Government-April-2020.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...) https://eufactcheck.eu/factcheck/uncheckable-4000-eu-officials-are-paid-more-than-merkel/ https://eufactcheck.eu/factcheck/uncheckable-4000-eu-officia... suggests that only 3-4000 (10-13%, not exactly "many"?) are PG13 or above which would be €196,305 (£169,481) - above UKPM.
    - thu2111 5y ago
      How is 4000 civil servants / 10% of the entire workforce earning more than the PM not many of them? What threshold of the workforce would need such compensation to be considered many, in your view?
      - zimpenfish 5y ago
        > How is 4000 civil servants / 10% of the entire workforce [...] not many of them? As a raw number, sure, 4000 is "many" but 10% is not really "many of whom" (which is what GP said) - for me, obviously; other people's interpretation may vary. (e.g. If I said "there's some cats outside; many of them are blue" but only 10% are blue, I would expect people to query the "many".)
        thu2111 5y ago
        That's an interesting take on language. If you said many cats were blue, given that cats are never blue I'd certainly feel you were justified in saying many were if 10% of them were. I tend to interpret many as a relative term, meaning "a high number relative to what you're probably expecting". The dictionary is no help here as it just defines many as "a lot", but that in turn is also a relative term. I think if you want to argue with this point, a better tack would be to argue that the British PM is underpaid and EU staff are what "normal" compensation should look like. Quibbling over whether 10% of them being paid more qualifies as a lot isn't that worthwhile.
        zimpenfish 5y ago
        > argue that the British PM is underpaid Being in the situation of currently enjoying* the UK PM's leadership, I'd be more inclined to argue the other way. (Although, in a more serious tone, I would argue that long-term high level civil servants probably do deserve a higher wage than transients like PM, President, Cabinet Minister, etc.)
- alerighi 5y ago
  Well it should be your responsibility to control what your children see online, on the web there are things fare worse than the one you can see on YouTube. I don't see why YouTube should ask your ID where most sites that host adult content doesn't.
  - lmz 5y ago
    The 100% adult content sites get blocked by school proxies or sometimes even ISPs. Because youtube is mixed content it has to implement access control on the site.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  Are you specifically worried about the 18+ videos that youtube allows? I feel like even a perfect age check wouldn't do much to make youtube safer for young children.
GlitchMr 5y ago
> Is there an epidemic of video clips wrecking children's minds I'm not aware of? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsagate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsagate
dkersten 5y ago
> All this is either EU lifers keeping themselves busy to justify their existence to themselves, MEPs wanting something to grandstand on, or something equally vapid. Or.. companies being obtuse with their implementation of the law, as they often are with the cookie/GDPR laws.

cdubzzz 5y ago

> And for what? Is there an epidemic of video clips wrecking children's minds I'm not aware of? I mean... maybe. I have young children and have no desire to have them anywhere near YouTube for essentially as long as possible _because_ of that very concern.

thu2111 5y ago
You can already restrict YouTube on any sort of computing device you might give kids. Parental controls are built in to Android and iOS. There's no need for every website to duplicate that. However, there's a great "need" for the EU to constantly generate massive floods of legislation because they have ~30,000 civil servants they "need" to keep employed, many of whom earn more than the British Prime Minister. And unfortunately the EU loves coming up with reasons to fine tech firms because they managed to ensure there are none in Europe itself, so it looks a lot like free money, to an organization that's desperate for it (huge budget hole now UK has left + fines go straight into the EU spending pot).
- zimpenfish 5y ago
  > many of whom earn more than the British Prime Minister. Is that the basic pay (£79,936; €92,584) or the basic+entitled pay (£155,376; €179,968)? (via https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/930798/Salaries-of-members-of-Her-Majestys-Government-April-2020.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...) https://eufactcheck.eu/factcheck/uncheckable-4000-eu-officials-are-paid-more-than-merkel/ https://eufactcheck.eu/factcheck/uncheckable-4000-eu-officia... suggests that only 3-4000 (10-13%, not exactly "many"?) are PG13 or above which would be €196,305 (£169,481) - above UKPM.
  - thu2111 5y ago
    How is 4000 civil servants / 10% of the entire workforce earning more than the PM not many of them? What threshold of the workforce would need such compensation to be considered many, in your view?
    - zimpenfish 5y ago
      > How is 4000 civil servants / 10% of the entire workforce [...] not many of them? As a raw number, sure, 4000 is "many" but 10% is not really "many of whom" (which is what GP said) - for me, obviously; other people's interpretation may vary. (e.g. If I said "there's some cats outside; many of them are blue" but only 10% are blue, I would expect people to query the "many".)
      - thu2111 5y ago
        That's an interesting take on language. If you said many cats were blue, given that cats are never blue I'd certainly feel you were justified in saying many were if 10% of them were. I tend to interpret many as a relative term, meaning "a high number relative to what you're probably expecting". The dictionary is no help here as it just defines many as "a lot", but that in turn is also a relative term. I think if you want to argue with this point, a better tack would be to argue that the British PM is underpaid and EU staff are what "normal" compensation should look like. Quibbling over whether 10% of them being paid more qualifies as a lot isn't that worthwhile.
        zimpenfish 5y ago
        > argue that the British PM is underpaid Being in the situation of currently enjoying* the UK PM's leadership, I'd be more inclined to argue the other way. (Although, in a more serious tone, I would argue that long-term high level civil servants probably do deserve a higher wage than transients like PM, President, Cabinet Minister, etc.)
alerighi 5y ago
Well it should be your responsibility to control what your children see online, on the web there are things fare worse than the one you can see on YouTube. I don't see why YouTube should ask your ID where most sites that host adult content doesn't.
- lmz 5y ago
  The 100% adult content sites get blocked by school proxies or sometimes even ISPs. Because youtube is mixed content it has to implement access control on the site.
Dylan16807 5y ago
Are you specifically worried about the 18+ videos that youtube allows? I feel like even a perfect age check wouldn't do much to make youtube safer for young children.

GlitchMr 5y ago

> Is there an epidemic of video clips wrecking children's minds I'm not aware of? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsagate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsagate

dkersten 5y ago

> All this is either EU lifers keeping themselves busy to justify their existence to themselves, MEPs wanting something to grandstand on, or something equally vapid. Or.. companies being obtuse with their implementation of the law, as they often are with the cookie/GDPR laws.