5 ms·

Also, key point in the framing, when was it decided that Discord supposed to be the one enforcing this? A pop-up saying "you really should be 18+" is one thing,

by roenxi 2y ago

Also, key point in the framing, when was it decided that Discord supposed to be the one enforcing this? A pop-up saying "you really should be 18+" is one thing, but this sounds like a genuine effort to lock out young people. Neither Discord nor a government ratings agency should be taking final responsibility for how children get bought up, that seems like something parents should be responsible for. This is over-reach. Both in the UK and Australia.

threeseed 2y ago
> This is over-reach. Both in the UK and Australia 2/3 of Australians support minimum age restrictions for social media [1] and it was in-particular popular amongst parents. Putting the responsibility solely on parents shows ignorance of the complexities of how children are growing up these days. Many parents have tried to ban social media only for those children to experience ostracisation amongst their peer group leading to poorer educational and social developmental outcomes at a critical time in their live. That's why you need governments and platform owners to be heavily involved. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/04/guardian-essential-poll-facebook-social-media-ban https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/...
- exe34 2y ago
  that sounds quite puritan. my god says I can't, is one thing. my god says you can't either, is very different. now replace god with parent.
  - monkeywork 2y ago
    You realize that is how EVERY law works right... The person your replying to says the public overall supports the idea/law. If following that law is a deal breaker for you you either need to persuade thos ppl to your view or move
    - exe34 2y ago
      A law to stop people from not going out of their way to include you when you made a choice to be unreachable sounds pretty desperate.
  - jasonfarnon 2y ago
    maybe it's "puritan" or maybe it's a normal view and it looks puritan from where you stand. how do you know which? One bit of evidence is the 2/3 to 1/3 split.
    - exe34 2y ago
      Everybody loves government overreach until the government starts to tell you how to live.
- DrillShopper 2y ago
  > Putting the responsibility solely on parents shows ignorance of the complexities of how children are growing up these days. Don't have kids if you're unwilling to parent them. "It's hard! :(" is not an argument. "We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!"
pjc50 2y ago
It almost certainly is overreach, but locking young people out of porn is hardly a new concern. We have variants of this argument continuously for decades. I'm not sure there is a definitive answer.
KaiserPro 2y ago
When a corner shop sells cigarettes to minors, who's breaking the law? When a TV channel broadcast porn, who gets fined? These are accepted laws that protect kids from "harm", which are relatively uncontroversial. Now, the privacy angle is very much the right question. But as Discord are the one that are going to get fined, they totally need to make sure kids aren't being exposed to shit they shouldn't be seeing until they are old enough. In the same way the corner shop needs to make sure they don't sell booze to 16 year olds. Now, what is the mechanism that Discord should/could use? that's the bigger question. Can government provide fool proof, secure, private and scalable proof of age services? How can private industry do it? (Hint: they wont because its a really good source of profile information for advertising.)
- EA-3167 2y ago
  Cigarettes are deadly Broadcasting porn isn't an age ID issue, it's public airwaves and they're regulated. These aren't primarily "think of the children" arguments, the former is a major public health issue that's taken decades to begin to address, and the latter is about ownership. I don't think that chat rooms are in the same category as either public airwaves or drugs. Besides what's the realistic outcome here? Under 18's aren't stupid, what would you have done as a kid if Discord was suddenly blocked off? Shrug and not talk to your friends again? Or would you figure out how to bypass the checks, use a different service, or just use IRC? Telegram chats? Something even less moderated and far more open to abuse, because that's what can slip under the radar. So no I don't think this is about protecting kids, I think it's about normalizing the loss of anonymity online.
  - Symbiote 2y ago
    You can swap cigarettes with another age restricted product, like pornography or 18-rated DVDs if you prefer. The UK also has rules on what can be broadcast on TV depending on the time of day.
  - KaiserPro 2y ago
    > These aren't primarily "think of the children" arguments Are you kidding me? v-chip, mary whitehouse, Sex on TV are all the result of "think of the children" moral panics. Its fuck all to do with ownership. > I don't think that chat rooms are in the same category as either public airwaves Discord are making cash from underage kids, in the same way that meta and google are, in the same way that disney and netflix offering kids channels. Look I'm not saying that discord should be banned for kids, but I really do think that there is a better option than the binary "Ban it all"/"fuck it, let them eat porn" Kids need to be able to talk to each other, but they also should be able to do that without being either preyed upon by nonces, extremists, state actors and more likely bored trolls. Its totally possible to provide anonymous age gating, but its almost certainly going to be provided by an adtech company unless we, the community provide something cheaper and better.
leotravis10 2y ago
There's a SCOTUS case in FSC v. Paxton that could very well decide if age verification is enforced in the US as well so sadly this is just the beginning.

by roenxi 2y ago

threeseed 2y ago

> This is over-reach. Both in the UK and Australia 2/3 of Australians support minimum age restrictions for social media [1] and it was in-particular popular amongst parents. Putting the responsibility solely on parents shows ignorance of the complexities of how children are growing up these days. Many parents have tried to ban social media only for those children to experience ostracisation amongst their peer group leading to poorer educational and social developmental outcomes at a critical time in their live. That's why you need governments and platform owners to be heavily involved. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/04/guardian-essential-poll-facebook-social-media-ban https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/...

exe34 2y ago
that sounds quite puritan. my god says I can't, is one thing. my god says you can't either, is very different. now replace god with parent.
- monkeywork 2y ago
  You realize that is how EVERY law works right... The person your replying to says the public overall supports the idea/law. If following that law is a deal breaker for you you either need to persuade thos ppl to your view or move
  - exe34 2y ago
    A law to stop people from not going out of their way to include you when you made a choice to be unreachable sounds pretty desperate.
- jasonfarnon 2y ago
  maybe it's "puritan" or maybe it's a normal view and it looks puritan from where you stand. how do you know which? One bit of evidence is the 2/3 to 1/3 split.
  - exe34 2y ago
    Everybody loves government overreach until the government starts to tell you how to live.
DrillShopper 2y ago
> Putting the responsibility solely on parents shows ignorance of the complexities of how children are growing up these days. Don't have kids if you're unwilling to parent them. "It's hard! :(" is not an argument. "We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!"

pjc50 2y ago

It almost certainly is overreach, but locking young people out of porn is hardly a new concern. We have variants of this argument continuously for decades. I'm not sure there is a definitive answer.

KaiserPro 2y ago

When a corner shop sells cigarettes to minors, who's breaking the law? When a TV channel broadcast porn, who gets fined? These are accepted laws that protect kids from "harm", which are relatively uncontroversial. Now, the privacy angle is very much the right question. But as Discord are the one that are going to get fined, they totally need to make sure kids aren't being exposed to shit they shouldn't be seeing until they are old enough. In the same way the corner shop needs to make sure they don't sell booze to 16 year olds. Now, what is the mechanism that Discord should/could use? that's the bigger question. Can government provide fool proof, secure, private and scalable proof of age services? How can private industry do it? (Hint: they wont because its a really good source of profile information for advertising.)

EA-3167 2y ago
Cigarettes are deadly Broadcasting porn isn't an age ID issue, it's public airwaves and they're regulated. These aren't primarily "think of the children" arguments, the former is a major public health issue that's taken decades to begin to address, and the latter is about ownership. I don't think that chat rooms are in the same category as either public airwaves or drugs. Besides what's the realistic outcome here? Under 18's aren't stupid, what would you have done as a kid if Discord was suddenly blocked off? Shrug and not talk to your friends again? Or would you figure out how to bypass the checks, use a different service, or just use IRC? Telegram chats? Something even less moderated and far more open to abuse, because that's what can slip under the radar. So no I don't think this is about protecting kids, I think it's about normalizing the loss of anonymity online.
- Symbiote 2y ago
  You can swap cigarettes with another age restricted product, like pornography or 18-rated DVDs if you prefer. The UK also has rules on what can be broadcast on TV depending on the time of day.
- KaiserPro 2y ago
  > These aren't primarily "think of the children" arguments Are you kidding me? v-chip, mary whitehouse, Sex on TV are all the result of "think of the children" moral panics. Its fuck all to do with ownership. > I don't think that chat rooms are in the same category as either public airwaves Discord are making cash from underage kids, in the same way that meta and google are, in the same way that disney and netflix offering kids channels. Look I'm not saying that discord should be banned for kids, but I really do think that there is a better option than the binary "Ban it all"/"fuck it, let them eat porn" Kids need to be able to talk to each other, but they also should be able to do that without being either preyed upon by nonces, extremists, state actors and more likely bored trolls. Its totally possible to provide anonymous age gating, but its almost certainly going to be provided by an adtech company unless we, the community provide something cheaper and better.

leotravis10 2y ago

There's a SCOTUS case in FSC v. Paxton that could very well decide if age verification is enforced in the US as well so sadly this is just the beginning.