15 ms·
A US Bill Would Ban Kids Under 13 from Joining Social Media
- traveler01 3y agoWhy are always these US politicans talking about banning something? This decisions should only be up to the parents, not someone in DC...
- forinti 3y agoShould it be up to parents if children drink or smoke? I don't think so. Furthermore, peer pressure is very strong, and children and adolescents will make your life miserable if they can't have what everyone else has. So it would be a lot easier if nobody else had social media.
- jqpabc123 3y agoShould it be up to parents if children drink or smoke? I don't think so. Whether you want to accept it or not, it really is up to the parents.
- proc0 3y agoRight, and how will they determine what a social media site is? People in power don't get it because they're mostly from the generation when the Internet hadn't yet taken over every aspect of civilization. Trying to impose a ban is such a lazy and naive solution. Kids will find alternatives. There are thousands of options for kids to go online and interact with one another. My guess would be that video games would become the next social platforms, and then what, ban video games? ban multiplayer games? I'm not saying do nothing. There are plenty of potential and creative solutions. Maybe something like incentivizing companies to build a kid-friendly version of their apps, and advising parents on how to be aware of what they're using. Banning tech is usually not the answer in a world where tech is more and more part of everything.
- Zetobal 3y agoSnore. It's the same argument as always from absolutists. If most adult people can't handle the web in it's current how should kids? Do you believe kids are harder to scam than your granny? 2
- proc0 3y agoI don't get your comment, maybe you could clarify. Kids know technology better than older people, yes. Scamming is already illegal and should be dealt with accordingly. Banning kids from social media will not work, other apps and games will just add features that will essentially provide the same experience. The fact that kids are suffering from social pressure is a human problem, not a tech problem.
- MrPatan 3y agoSocial pressure from a local group is one thing. From a global group, selected by algorithm for unknown reasons, another thing entirely.
- cultureswitch 3y agoIf you read the proposal, pretty much every website, messaging platform or online game would fall under the definition of social network.
- proc0 3y agoYou understand almost all games are online now, how would that work?
- jqpabc123 3y agoIn other words, US bill will *require* all social media to violate user privacy.
- Zetobal 3y agoHow? Because they take the burden of the companies to age verify their users? Right now they really argue that a kid should have read the ToS and get of Scots free if something happens on their platform.
- bdcravens 3y agoAre you willing to submit your photo ID information to Y Combinator? After all, they have no way of knowing any of us aren't 12 without that information.
- jqpabc123 3y agoAfter all, they have no way of knowing any of us aren't 12 without that information. And equally important, they have no way to really know we aren't 12 even *with* that information. For example, a 12 year old could easily provide a photo of mommy or daddy's ID. Or a photoshopped copy of an older friend's ID? Basically, any reasonably secure verification method will need to be equivalent to the KYM (know your customer) process used by banks --- and a lot of *legal* users will be excluded because they can't pass the test. Many teenager's lack a reasonably secure identity document. The USA suffers from an over abundance of ignorance and stupidity --- and this extends all the way to the government level.
- friendlyHornet 3y agoYeah just give a scan of your ID to Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Instagram, WhatsApp, TikTok, Snapchat, etc There is absolutely no chance that it will ever get leaked, misused or stored unencrypted
- b112 3y agoGiving Facebook my picture, in conjunction with ID, is a sure way for the entire platform to do facial recognition on all existing pictures. They already do it, but such a time save to 100% verify who is who. And even if you esque facebook, never have an account, you're one step away from the same happening after a buyout, data share agreement, etc. Banks often get around data sharing laws, by jointly buying companies to perform tasks. Thus, bank 1 owns 20% of an ID company, along with 4 other banks, and can write agreements such as "our associated companies" and such blather. Inside that ID corp, all 5 entites can share data, aggregate it, anonymized it, and then sell it. And as we all know, de-anonymizing is trivial... and if one knows who you are, they now all do, simply via the parent corp buying(for pennies) and de-anonymizing.
- rhaway84773 3y agoWouldn’t it make a lot more sense to simply have parental education around the harms of social media for kids under age XYZ? I mean, I’m all in favor of the goals of this bill. I think social media is a horrible negative for people of all ages, but especially children since they largely don’t have the mental capability to defend against the smartest people in the world trying to hijack their brains. But I can’t see how a “social media” ban can actually work. And im not even sure it’s actually better than parental education and information.
- MrPatan 3y agoHow is parental education going for "don't do drugs" or "don't commit crimes"?
- hnlmorg 3y agoGenerally pretty well considering that those who you describe are a small subset of society. Though plenty of news networks would like to convince you otherwise because scare stories attract viewers more than “society is generally doing ok” style stories. I do take issues with the drug laws in a lot of countries though. They are, in part, based around marginalising individuals rather than protecting people from harm. But this is a whole other discussion.
- Mindwipe 3y agoBetter than banning them is.
- john_the_writer 3y agoMuch better than the "war on drugs".
- jutrewag 3y ago[dead]
- bdcravens 3y agoGiven the social interactions that exist, shouldn't this include online gaming platforms?
- crooked-v 3y agoThis seems like it would have been a great idea about thirty years ago, but would be functionally impossible to even try to enforce working from scratch today.
- mattmanser 3y agoHow would it be functionally impossible? At one point kids could buy cigarettes. Now, across hundreds of thousands of stores, they can't. There's only a few social media sites, it's seems infinitely easier. Trivial even.
- woodruffw 3y agoWhen you buy cigarettes in a store, you normally get carded. It stands to reason that an equivalent online system would require a similar online solution; most people are not particularly enthused by the idea of having to present an ID to consume any information that could potentially considered to fall under “social media.”
- mattmanser 3y agoThey already card you in most social media apps. This is like saying "oh no, they want you to use your real identity". It's already a part of the process. This is incredibly destructive and addictive stuff. The days of the wild west of the internet are over.
- woodruffw 3y agoI’m not aware of any major social media site that makes users present a government issued ID during their normal registration flow. They might require it for registrations that trigger a fraud or similar alert, but it’s certainly not the norm. If you want to get rid of a destructive and addictive thing, maybe it would be more effective to just advocate for that. Requiring a government ID and government categorization of every site on the Internet is not likely to accomplish what you want.
- 226_ebro_treaty 3y agoBlanket ban anyone under 14 from having an online account, IMHO.
- Ekaros 3y agoLet's be sensible and set it at 21. It cannot be less harmful than alcohol.
- 226_ebro_treaty 3y ago18 for 99% of stuff is honestly fine with me.
- goatlover 3y agoWhy should there be age restrictions once you're legally an adult at 18? 21 is unnecessarily puritanical (EU countries don't have that) and most teenagers are going to drink anyway, just as they're going to find a way to bypass age verifications for their social media of choice.
- forinti 3y agoMaybe the law could have different ages for beer and distilled spirits. Let the kids have a beer at 16 or 18. I have the same feeling about motorcycles. The age for riding them should be a bit later, when you've acquired some sense. Maybe 21 or even 24.
- zarzavat 3y agoThis is essentially the law in the UK. To be able to drive a motorcycle of unrestricted size you need to be 24, or have worked you way up by holding a license for a smaller size class. The difference is that driving is a privilege not a right (riding a motorcycle especially so), as you are endangering the lives of others.
- Ekaros 3y agoFinland does that 18 for up to 22% and 20 for above that in stores(state has monopoly for above 5.5%). Maybe some type of tiered system could be in place. Text one limit, images next and then video one more.
- mormegil 3y agoWhich social networks do they have on mind? Facebook, Instagram, Twitter do not allow children under 13 to register an account due to already existing legislation (COPPA).
- potamic 3y agoYoutube is also a social network, ain't it?
- TheAceOfHearts 3y agoThis seems a bit too far reaching of a legislative act under the guise of protecting the children. Surely we could come up with a solution that isn't an outright ban? Especially as technology has become so commonplace and many of our social interactions happen in digital spaces. In any case, maybe it would be interesting to evaluate how other countries have approached these problems. I know that in South Korea you need a government ID to play certain multiplayer videogames, it would be interesting to explore the impact of these systems and what lessons can be gleamed. Since I'm not a parent myself I haven't really considered the problem domain with much care or consideration, but maybe some hacker parents could share their thoughts and insights as they've dealt with the existing ecosystem?
- quattrofan 3y ago[dead]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- hnlmorg 3y agoThe issue as I see it isn’t going to be solved by forcing social networks to gather even more personal information about individuals (eg proof of ID and proof of age). The issue is how social networks are engineered, either by chance or by design, to promote negativity in the pursuit of engagement. If we can find a way to declaw social networks then we’d have a healthier ecosystem for all ages. But this is a much harder problem to solve.
- jahsome 3y agoI wonder if it really is harder, or maybe the solution is just less obvious?
- csydas 3y agoIn general I hope this Bill doesn't pass, because it's extremely poorly written, and based on the list of exceptions and the loose wording, I'm not sure the Bill authors have any idea _how_ any of this should be enforced. https://www.schatz.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/protecting_kids_on_social_media_act_2023.pdf https://www.schatz.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/protecting_kids_... That's the actual Bill, and it's quite a fast read and in fairly plain language, but it's mostly an empty several pages. Multiple times the Bill states that it is not to be construed as a requirement for Government ID, but then in Section 7 regarding the pilot program, it mentions these as a reference on how to validate users in the pilot program. No other definitions or examples of "reasonable". In fact, the validation method in Section 3 simply says > IN GENERAL > A social media platform shall take > reasonable steps beyond merely requiring attestation, taking into account existing > age verification technologies, to verify the age of individuals who are account > holders on the platform. That's not a ton of guidance besides Government ID's referenced later on, and leaving it to "reasonable" is really too vague; if a user signs up with a gmail email address, is it enough to assume that because Gmail requires a user to be a certain age that they are validated? Is it Gmail's fault if it turns out the owner of an address misrepresented their name or is it the social media company's fault? How exactly are the Social Media companies supposed to validate this? More importantly, how is an individual supposed to validate it without giving out more information on themselves or spreading records of their Government Identification to a bunch of sites? The exceptions list in Section 2, Paragraph 6 subsection C is way too big and you can guess the businesses that the Bill has in mind for each entry. But it's also so loose; if TikTok starts adding in-app purchases for the items in ads you get, is it now exempted under ection 2, Paragraph 6 subsection C item i? After all, it's facilitating transactions now with the algorithm, and logically a guardian has given consent to use the platform if they forked over their card number so their kid can make purchases. There is so much loose language and intent here when the crux of the bill is hidden under Section 6, which is to tone down the algorithm usage.
- michael9k 3y agoDon't know how this could be implemented in a good way (so FB etc do not get access to important identity information), but trying to limit social media for kids below 13 is a fantastic idea. One could wish the adults/parents would limit this themselves, but sadly this is seldom the case. For some reason it seems most parents really are clueless to the level of harm imposed by social media to their kids?!
- yaur 3y agoCOPA already effectively does this, but kids just lie about their age. Making FB and company liable for those cases where parents decide to let their preteens go wild on social media seems insane.
- zo1 3y agoSo plan B would be to make the parents liable? Just have Facebook refer suspected cases for police to confirm.
- Mindwipe 3y agoUnfortunately plan B is to ban anonymous access to websites.
- hellojesus 3y agoPeople will just stop using us based sites.
- Mindwipe 3y agoThe UK and most of Western Europe are doing the same thing. Russia and China are no fans of the free internet.
- hellojesus 3y agoTrue, but it only takes a single country anywhere in the world to keep the internet free. And by keeping the net free, they'll get all the money, so they're is a strong incentive to do so. In the event there are no countries left there are still options: 1. Hidden services 2. Decentralized 3. Just create a pool mechanism where you contribute your private key for whatever gov Auth system exists, then use a random id from the pool among all sign-ups everytime you sign up for a service.
- htag 3y agoThis is movement is going to be widely regarded as on of the largest prohibitions in our era. * Whatever verification system a user has to do to prove they are older than 13 will also being to freak users out about 'whoes listening'. It's insane to think a First Name, Last Name, and Address might be tied to _every reddit account_. * That data will be used for government surveillance. Maybe I should start creating a hat out of metallic kitchen supplies, but I largely think 'how can we spy on more Americans" has been a central political battle fought over the last 3 decades. It's a long fight, not over. * This could cause all users to stop adopting these public networks, and and move to underground networks. Some underground networks will just normal application with some social space that aren't targeted. Some might be based on traditional dark-web style services. Others might be based on something more web3-y.
- _8j50 3y agoA system to verify age is not needed. Simply making it illegal and holding parents accountable is enough. It's one of those things where perfection is the enemy of good. Some kids will do it anyways but parents can install hard to remove monitoring software on devices and the penalty can be similar to a somewhat serious traffic citation.
- hnlmorg 3y agoWe haven’t had a good track record in recent years of businesses honouring the spirit of the law. For example cookie consent banners with horrible dark patterns aren’t necessary to operate in the EU but some companies feel this is a better approach than reducing the amount of data they harvest. Likewise some companies will see this new legislation as an excuse to collect more data too. The fact that a lot of social networks require or request phone numbers “for security” rather than TOTP codes (for example) is another such example of how data collection is hidden behind “safety”.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- cykros 3y ago
- bigbacaloa 3y agoGovernment should not usurp parental functions. Stay the hell out of my house.
- Dalewyn 3y agoCOPPA already exists and websites that properly adhere to it ask for age verification (granted usually in no verifiable capacity) and refuse service to anyone under 13 years old. Personal anecdata, way back in the 90s in my childhood, a games website I used to frequent actually demanded potential users (read: kids) under 13 years old to fax in written consent from the parents to collecting information. Websites used to actually take COPPA seriously back then. If this bill makes compliance to COPPA more stringent, well, the law already mandated it anyway. Kids and can't-be-arsed parents will find workarounds, no doubt, and the world will keep spinning. As an aside, I would rather the US government handle identification (they already have all the goods anyway) than the likes of GAFA.
- endisneigh 3y agoInteresting to compare this thread with the banning gas one in New York. In general once you accept the government making decisions for you “for your best interest”, don’t be shocked once they start doing things you disagree with. This is why I generally do not support any bans dictated by the government. In this case it’s difficult to find a reasonable solution that’s not draconian. You could tell parents to use screen limiting tools but those are unlikely to be used by the parents whose children need it the most. Perhaps making social media require a $1/year fee with it being returned to you after 6 months would stop the vast majority of children.
- throwaway473825 3y agoIt's also interesting to compare which countries have banned gas in new buildings (the Nordics, the Netherlands) and which countries have draconian surveillance (China, Russia).
- endisneigh 3y agoUnited States also has draconian surveillance, as well as the UK and several EU countries- or was that your point?
- mikewarot 3y agoEdward Snowden basically threw his life away to prove we're completely surveilled here in the US, and the "Western World" in general. What's different here that you're free to criticize the Government without fear of (open) repression.
- uvnq 3y ago> What's different here that you're free to criticize the Government without fear of (open) repression. For now
- dirtyid 3y agoDon't care much for bans, but would not mind some sort of oauth system that includes age and ability for platforms/users to block interactions / content according to age range. I want to filter content a little bit like one filters dating profiles.
- jacquesm 3y agoI'm not convinced that social media is a net positive, no matter what the age.
- sycamoretrees 3y agoI'm all for it, though I won't comment on this bill in particular, which seems to be lacking. There are, of course, ways to implement this that don't include sending even more personal data to social media companies. The most obvious way, for starters, would be through a government app or system that simply tells Facebook "This user is over the age of 13" without sending over any more information. The reality is that we do need to do something about the issue, just like how porn shouldn't be freely available to literal children. It's an inevitable consequence of the internet moving into the very center of our lives.
- bentt 3y agoHow about this… if your social network has ads, is funded by ads, etc, then ALL of the network falls under FTC compliance for children’s advertising.
- mikewarot 3y agoWhat we need are laws requiring Social Media to support children. To give them a safe space that their parents can monitor. It should be a simple affirmative thing, like a birth-date, with no other authentication required. That way a parent can set up the account for the child, and then monitor their activities through the site. Once they age out, their parents roles are reduced appropriately. The same should also be true in reverse, so that adults can monitor the social media of their elderly parents, to keep them from getting scammed. This can be negotiated and agreed to by the parents. Either way, a person under care of another should see zero ads.