13 ms·

A lot of the criticism is based on the concept that it won't be technically watertight. But the key is that it doesn't have to be watertight to work. Social med

by zmmmmm 11mo ago

A lot of the criticism is based on the concept that it won't be technically watertight. But the key is that it doesn't have to be watertight to work. Social media is all about network effects. Once most kids are on there, everyone has to be on there. If you knock the percentage down far enough, you break the network effect to the point where those who don't want to don't feel pressured to. If that is all it does, it's a benefit. My concerns about this are that it will lead to (a) normalising people uploading identification documents and hence lead to people becoming victims of scams. This won't be just kids - scammers will be challenging all kinds of people including vulnerable elderly people saying "this is why we need your id". People are going to lose their entire life savings because of this law. (b) a small fraction of kids branching off into fringe networks that are off the radar and will take them to very dark places very quickly. Because it's politically unattractive, I don't think enough attention has been given to the harms that will flow from these laws.

deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
spullara 11mo ago
very few laws and law makers take into consideration secondary (and beyond) effects.
ruthie_cohen 11mo ago
[dead]
downsocialmedia 11mo ago
b) This was always the case in past too, but I think this is handleable. But most importantly, there's no expectation of kid to be on social media anymore, which is much more important than whether they are actually there or not.
basisword 11mo ago
Curious about your thoughts on (a). I understand privacy concerns but not your point about scams. How are people going to lose their life savings? A photo ID is useful because you can compare the photo on it to someone human. Passports contain mirochips. If losing your ID was so dangerous people would be in trouble all the time, because people lose them all the time.
- zmmmmm 11mo ago
  I guess it comes back to again not whether things are technically watertight, but how socially normalised something is. People are used to giving their ID out for significant transactions. This law says now that pretty much any random website has a good reason to ask you for ID documents. So when someone seeking to steal your identity already has two forms and is just trying to fill in that 3rd document to get over the line to where they can call up the bank to reset your password - the bar just got lowered. They no longer have to trick you into thinking it's a message from your bank or anything else significant. It can literally be "oh my cousin sent me pictures of their grand kids, let me just get my passport to upload so I can see them".
ivan_gammel 11mo ago
> a) normalising people uploading identification documents and hence lead to people becoming victims of scams The reasonable approach to solve this problem is verification protocol that mandates integration with the apps chosen by users. You have your wallet with digital ID and you use only it on any website, sharing the bare minimum of details. No uploads of anything anywhere. Independent wallet providers ensure privacy and prevent state overreach. > (b) a small fraction of kids branching off into fringe networks that are off the radar and will take them to very dark places very quickly. Unfortunately dark places existed in mainstream social media too. It’s something that should receive sufficient attention from law enforcement, nothing has changed here.
- pajamasam 11mo ago
  > sharing the bare minimum of details The reasonable approach, yes, but the approach most in the interest of the governments and corporate players driving these laws...?
  - rtpg 11mo ago
    I think people are overindexing on how much of this is "get more data on users". I don't get why people believe there's a conspiracy here. There's perhaps a large tent, but "social media bad" is not a controversial opinion! "The gov't should do something about it" is more controversial, though I think the controversiality is less heavy in spaces with parents, teachers, places where people have to deal with kids. Not that this is how things should be determined, but... I think reading this as a "get more data and track people" play feels like giving everyone involved too much credit. It really just feels like what it says on the tin here.
wrxd 11mo ago
a) is solvable by a system that instead of collecting IDs reveals only the single bit of information required b) parents still need to do their job Arguably parental control should have been enough to avoid all of this but the regulation still helps parents. It’s way more difficult to ask kids not to have social media when all of their friends have it. I would have preferred stricter social media platform regulation for everyone forcing tech companies to take responsibility for what happens on their platforms. It’s not that they are dangerously only for kids
- anon84873628 11mo ago
  In other words it solved the multi-agent coordination problem amongst parents, which otherwise would require the majority of them to be rational and good (a tall order).
yladiz 11mo ago
In the EU you don’t need to upload your ID anywhere, the service can use the government’s portal for ID verification. In the case of age verification they can get a yes/no response if the age is above some threshold. This is opaque to the service so they wouldn’t get any additional ID details.
- petcat 11mo ago
  > This is opaque to the service The "service" is irrelevant. I think most people would trust Porno Hub to be discreet about their visits. That's in their business interest. But now they have to tell your government about all the times you're visiting Porno Hub. And nobody should trust their government. Also, keep in mind that western governments share with each other. There will come a time when Australians will try to enter USA but they'll get flagged at the border because the AUS government shared that this particular individual visited Porno Hub and a few other age-restricted websites 7,000 times in the last 30 days. Red Flag!
  - Tadpole9181 11mo ago
    To be entirely fair, a government that would abuse your vague "am I allowed to access porn" history seems well into the territory of a government that would just make it up. A nefarious, powerful entity has no real requirement to be honest in their maliciousness. They also have more direct means of accessing more specific data via ISPs, audits, banks, etc.
    - deleted 11mo ago
      [deleted]
    - nrhrjrjrjtntbt 11mo ago
      That is an assumption. The games the powerful play leverage truth and provable things. I think there is a lot of need for privacy and abuse of dragnet information before you get to the government framing people.
      - 11mo ago
hintymad 11mo ago
I'd even go one step further: it does not have to be enforceable at all. This has to do with teen's psychology. For whatever reason, kids just fight their parents but listen to their schools and government a lot more. Of course, there are exceptions, but I'm talking about trend. The kids in my school district were generally angry towards their parents when they couldn't get a smartphone when their peers did. However, when my school district introduced the strict ban of electronic devices in school, the kids quieted down and even bought the same reasons that their parents were saying: attention is the most precious assets one should cherish. Kids complained that the problem sets by RSM (Russian School of Mathematics) are too hard and unnecessary (they are not by the standard of any Asian or East European country), yet they stopped complaining when the school teacher ramped up the difficulty of the homework. So, when the government issues this ban, the kids would listen to their parents a lot more easily.
- NoPicklez 11mo ago
  That's exactly what its part of it. So many people are looking at this from a technical stand point and how water tight or perfect its going to be. But there is a large psychological part of this that helps parents and I know that part of it is what a number of parents I've spoken to like about it. Its not just about the current generation, but the next wave of kids who have grown up under these laws, the psychology of it will have changed.
- amelius 11mo ago
  Yes, there is a normative aspect to it. This also works with other things such as alcohol and (old school) smoking (neither of which has watertight control, but the control is still very effective).
- codebje 11mo ago
  Absolutely this. We have limits in place for usage of a bunch of this sort of stuff, from not at all to up to an hour, and we'd be constantly tested and pushed on these limits. Constantly. "But my friends are..." is the usual start to it. Government says you can't chat with just anyone in Roblox, and suddenly it's accepted that this is just what it is. Not only that, but limits and rules on how much and when you can watch YouTube and the like are also suddenly more acceptable. So far what my kids are saying is that this is broadly true across their peer groups. The exceptions are just that, exceptions. The peer pressure to be in on it all is lessened. And in turn, that means less push-back on boundaries set by us, because it's less of a big deal. (And I face less of a dilemma of how much to allow to balance out the harm of not being part of the zeitgeist vs. the harm of short form, mega-corporation curated content).
jen729w 11mo ago
> normalising people uploading identification documents and hence lead to people becoming victims of scams We've long lost this war. I'm in Italy, staying at my 3rd Airbnb. I was surprised when the first asked me, casually, to drop a photograph of my passport in the chat. I checked with Claude: yep, that's the law. (I'll remind you that Italy is in the EU.) On checking into this place last week, the guy just took a photo of our passports on his phone. At this point I'm too weak to argue. And what's the point? That is no longer private data and if I pretend that it is, I'm the fool.
- zmmmmm 11mo ago
  Well, even there, you're doing a transaction worth hundreds to thousands of dollars probably. This pretty much lowers the bar to any random website on the internet can ask for ID to do something as trivial as look at a photo. In a world where social engineering is the last unsolvable security vector, this is significant even if it is just a matter of degree.
- rtpg 11mo ago
  I'm pretty sure in most places in the world if you are travelling from abroad you are asked to share your passport, and have been for a very very very very long time. The difference between sending it over a chat and handing it over to a clerk (who then photocopies it or types in the data into the computer) feels almost academic. Though at least "Typing it into the computer" doesn't leave them with a picture, just most of the data.
  - fn-mote 11mo ago
    > The difference between sending it over a chat and handing it over to a clerk (who then photocopies it [...] The difference is that the paper copy is local and only accessible to the hotel (and any government employee that might come knocking). The digital version is accessible to anyone who has access to the system, which as we know well on HN includes bureaucrats (or police) with a vendetta against you and any hacker that can manage to breach the feeble defenses of the computer storing the data. That computer isn't locked down because the information is not valuable to the person who holds it; they're paid to satisfy a record-keeping law, not maintain system security. > at least "Typing it into the computer" doesn't leave them with a picture, just most of the data. Agreed, except now uploading a scan is the easiest way to file the data.
roenxi 11mo ago
Well, yes but the other problem is this is putting authoritarians in charge of more stuff. I had a comment comparing this to allowing people to eat too much food and that is literally where the logical outcome of this sort of thinking goes - it happens in practice, that isn't some sort of theoretical risk. The more the government decides what people can and can't want to do the worse the potential gets when they make mistakes. And this is further normalising the government making decisions about speech where they have every incentive and tendency to shut down people who tell inconvenient and important truths. The risks are not worth the rewards of half-heatedly trying to stop kids communicating with other kids. They're still going to bully each other and what have you. They're still going to develop unrealistic expectations. They're probably even still going to use social media in practice.
- bigfudge 11mo ago
  The attempt is to remove the market do exploiting the attention of children for profit. This doesn’t have to be perfect to be worth it. What’s more, the idea that this puts children at the mercy of authoritarians is laughable. The US tech industry has shown us beyond doubt that they are perfectly ok with genuine authoritarians in charge, provided the dollars keep rolling. Fuck them, and good on ya Australia.
  - fnikacevic 11mo ago
    So are we banning all advertising to children? Or only banning them from communicating and posting with each other? If it's about monetizing child attention not about speech control why isn't every single toy ad, food ad, movie ad, also banned?
    - hshdhdhj4444 11mo ago
      Because all those aren’t close to being as harmful as social media is. We do ban the things that consume children the way social media does. Alcohol, addictive drugs, etc.
      - 11mo ago
jmward01 11mo ago
These are exactly my thoughts as well, both the positives (it doesn't need to be air-tight) and the negatives (providing documentation). I don't know that there is a great system here. The best I can think of is having independent third parties that people can register with and that can provide a 'proof of eligibility' token tied to an e-mail address or something similar with the explicit, backed by law, understanding that sharing more than that proof of eligibility with a third party is a criminal offense. The money side of things would be that FB and the like would pay the proof company a service fee so they make money and FB gets the proof without getting access to your documents. Just a thought.
freefaler 11mo ago
Social networks aren't that social anymore. Around 65% of the facebook content is not shared/generated by your friends in your social graph. So they're all just a Tik-Tok clones basically. Short dopamine addiction info-snacks with more and more AI generated slop. (and some of the slop is interesting like Cold War military tech stories from books read and visualized by AI). The network effects doesn't matter that much for the Tiktok's of the world.
chillfox 11mo ago
Australia has APIs that can be used to verify ID without uploading them, but American tech companies has always refused to use them.
NoPicklez 11mo ago
"the Social Media Minimum Age legislation specifically prohibits platforms from compelling Australians to provide a government-issued ID or use an Australian Government accredited digital ID service to prove their age. Platforms may offer it as an option but must also offer a reasonable alternative, so no one who is 16 or older is prevented from having a social media account because they choose not to provide government ID. This includes situations where other age check methods return a result the user does not accept."
- steve_taylor 11mo ago
  Digital ID is optional by default. Service providers that integrate with the Digital ID can apply for an exemption to make it mandatory. Given the mandatory nature of age verification checks for social media, the fact that social media is typically free to use and ad-supported and the cost of age verification would be prohibitive for smaller apps without significant VC backing, an argument for exemption could be made on the basis that their legal obligation can't otherwise be fulfilled without a prohibitive upfront cost.
aetherspawn 11mo ago
Australia already has a government digital ID verification service, so this social media ban is just a first step towards legislators realising they can force people to just integrate and use that, then there is no user data changing hands. Edit: > or use an Australian Government accredited digital ID service to prove their age Here you go. If you’re concerned about your personal data, only use platforms that integrate and use this.
- steve_taylor 11mo ago
  There has only been one accredited Digital ID that sort of isn't government and that's Australia Post's Digital ID which they're now winding down in favour of the government's. While the Digital ID act does allow for these third-party accredited providers, I think we can realistically expect that the only one that will be in use will be the federal government's.
  - aetherspawn 11mo ago
    It’s called “myID” https://www.myid.gov.au/ https://www.myid.gov.au/
- protocolture 11mo ago
  >Here you go. If you’re concerned about your personal data, only use platforms that integrate and use this. The Australian Governments IT Security is a joke.
voxleone 11mo ago
I’d say you made a good risk-benefit analysis, recognizing the potential upside of the ban (breaking the network effect, reducing social pressure) while raising important concerns about security, privacy, and a possible migration to more dangerous online spaces. That kind of debate is essential. But I also think some of the consequences you fear (widespread scams, a mass shift to “dark” networks, extreme social isolation) are not guaranteed. They will depend heavily on how the law is implemented, how platforms handle age verification, and what healthy social alternatives (offline or moderated) are offered. I do believe it’s possible to design a safe system. Personally, having seen many dire predictions fail to materialize in the past, I don’t view this as either a “clear net benefit” or an “inevitable disaster,” but rather as a social experiment with real potential for success as well as serious unintended consequences. I support the Australian law and would like to see something similar in my own country. We can’t simply assume an invisible hand will resolve this issue for the better. Still, it’s worth watching closely and following the empirical data over the coming months.
- energy123 11mo ago
  Like anything it's a matter of magnitudes. My best guess is that any negative side effects are going to be of a trivial magnitude, cancelling out a small amount of the upside on net. At the very least it's an experiment worth running, and if successful, worth extending to further regulations for adults too, especially around mechanics (not the content itself) such as the algorithmic feed.
stephen_g 11mo ago
> If you knock the percentage down far enough, you break the network effect to the point where those who don't want to don't feel pressured to. I've seen this argument a lot, and I don't think it really matches reality - I very much expect that the problem users of social media who are teens will tend to be the ones that will want to get around the ban (and will easily be able to). Kids who just have an account because they are "pressured" to probably aren't actually really using it much or problematically? And the other problem is that everyone knows it's a silly law so I don't think there will be any less pressure to have accounts because enough kids will be evading it. The ban will only motivate many kids (if you know much about how teenagers think)
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
heavyset_go 11mo ago
> (b) a small fraction of kids branching off into fringe networks that are off the radar and will take them to very dark places very quickly. Congratulations, Australia, you just drove a ton of kids into the arms of psychopaths like 764. If you think Instagram and even 4chan are bad, that's nothing compared to the groups that sadly, are usually kids that were groomed themselves, who goad other kids into self-harm, violence and suicide through extortion, love bombing and literal cult shit. Instagram might make you feel sad, but it doesn't threaten to kill your family if you don't strangle your pet cat and carve CVLT into your chest for a bunch of organized pedophiles online.
- boomlinde 11mo ago
  My understanding is that 764 are mostly active on mainstream social media platforms, where most "fringe networks that are off the radar and will take them to very dark places very quickly" tend to operate, contrary to GP's concern.
dclowd9901 11mo ago
On your second point, that might be a little less of a concern. Granted there can be dark places anywhere, they're _so much easier_ to find online, and have to potential to be so much more reinforcing for problematic behavior.
lbrito 11mo ago
(b) a small fraction of kids branching off into fringe networks that are off the radar and will take them to very dark places very quickly. This already happens, and I don't see how a law like this would significantly change the volume of edgelords and incels funneling into imageboards
- heavyset_go 11mo ago
  There's internet culture precedent for this. 4chan itself has an early history of picking up leftovers from communities that were banned on other sites/forums/platforms. 4chan's origin itself fits that archetype, as well. It was created when a hentai subforum got banned on a larger forum, and the community moved over to the new imageboard. It acts as sponge for more than just edgelords.
stein1946 11mo ago
> A lot of the criticism is based on the concept that it won't be technically watertight Those who do that, are not interested in this ban working, they are the individualists assaulting the community. > a) normalising people uploading identification documents... we have technical measures for which there is no need for the end user to upload anything. With oath you can basically have a simple age check; nothing more. > (b) a small fraction of kids branching off into fringe networks that are off the radar and will take them to very dark places very quickly. You can always minimize the fraction, but you can never make it go away. > Because it's politically unattractive, I don't think enough attention has been given to the harms that will flow from these laws. This was a politically bold move and there will be no harms that will come out of it; especially when compared to the status quo. Those who feign concern about this usually have vested interests into stopping this bill; their "interest" is just another attempt in stopping it albeit with a more "nuanced" approach.
Nursie 11mo ago
> normalising people uploading identification documents This is dependent on implementation. From what I have heard (from ConnectID), some sites are using services like ConnectID as a way to have your bank verify you are of age without releasing any ID or specific details. But I don't think it's all of them, and I agree it's a risk.
de6u99er 11mo ago
It's very simple. Parents can configure parental controls on their children's devices. I personally think, Facebook and Twitter need to be taken down because Zuckerberg and Musk are using the ppatform to interfere with politics.
- TacticalCoder 11mo ago
  [dead]
lencastre 11mo ago
triggering thoughts… it’s a difficult balancing act, and I tend to agree as blocks are put in place, there are very likely two groups of outcomes: the kid gives up and finds other alternatives which can be healthy or unhealthy, the kid perseveres and bypasses the block both provide good learnings and shape development, but blocking isn’t the answer, communication, understanding, and moderation is the alternative that one could flood the kid with unfettered access till the kid becomes nauseated and desensitised doesn’t really work either because it can be too risky the best solution may be something in between, make it a hinderance more than an inconvenience, like the parent post, and go for the greatest impact on network effects, the evil genie in me would make all these platforms super unreliable, spotty at best but hey, it’s a developmental milestone for the average generation member to rebel against the member’s previous generations
mk89 11mo ago
> (a) normalising people uploading identification documents You might not know it or think too often about it, but most "real life" services we use require online identification, at least in Europe. Even on a simple rental agency portal in Germany it's recommended to "verify" your online identity to get more chances. Which means: just do it. Sure, you're free not to do it, as landlords are free not to care about your application at all. Do you want to renew your car papers? E-ID is there (or whatever existing alternative). Bank? The same. In Germany the government[s] are pushing for Digitalization since years, which many laugh at as "ahah, what a joke, it's just filling an online module and sending a fax". It was true 5 years ago. Now I was super surprised because I recently had to do some bureaucratic BS and it's like any "normal" internet service that would require an identification (which is not just via a credit card or so). It's still not 100% accurate or "frictionless" but they're seriously getting there, which is super hard in a country where govt office A won't share data with govt office B. Compared to standing 1 hour in line to get just a stamp on a paper this is light years ahead. The same will happen to these platforms, because that's the only solution we can think of, as of today. We all stand and watch Facebook making profits off our kids, making them depressed, etc. If you fine them, you're a communist, if you block them, you're a Nazi. This is the most balanced alternative: you can still run your business here, people can still use social media, but let's not fuck up anymore our new generations, children, teenagers. They are the grownups of tomorrow. Also, as some other comments mentioned elsewhere on HN: assume your data is already stolen or "publicly" available (maybe hidden somewhere).
somenameforme 11mo ago
> a small fraction of kids branching off into fringe networks that are off the radar and will take them to very dark places very quickly. I don't think this is much of an issue at all. The path of least resistance, by an overwhelmingly wide margin, is just using a proxy, TOR, or whatever else to bypass the filtering. Sites will be doing the bare minimum for legal compliance, and so it won't be particularly difficult. Beyond that I'd also add that for those of us that were children during the early days of the internet, "we" were always one click away from just about anything you could imagine in newsgroups, IRC, and so on. It never really seems to have had much of any negative effect, let alone when contrasted against the overwhelmingly negative effect of social media. I don't really know why that is, and I half suspect nobody really does. You can come up with lots of clever hypotheses that are all probably at least partially true, but on a fundamental level it's quite surprising how destructive 'everybody' communicating online turned out to be. And that obviously doesn't end just because somebody turns 18.
- CalRobert 11mo ago
  I think one difference from how we grew up (remember bbs’es?) is that it was something in your desktop, not an omnipresent force in your pocket
  - kakacik 11mo ago
    And here lies the actual fix unless you just want to sit back and wait for regulators to pick it up - phones should be the means of communication, not consumption. Remove those apps that make you do so, and the world becomes a little bit brighter over time. I did it years ago with FB apps (which was draining battery while unused, typical fb crappy engineering when they can't even snoop on you in more subtle ways) and have 0 need to put anything there. I can check FB on desktop if I need to, and do so rarely due to lack of any actually interesting stuff there. Same can go for any other social cancer out there.
    - CalRobert 11mo ago
      Yeah the current situation is akin to having to open a pack of cigarettes every time you wanted to check the weather or use satnav.
mgh2 11mo ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkDAXsF4oXA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkDAXsF4oXA
eigenspace 11mo ago
> normalising people uploading identification documents and hence lead to people becoming victims of scams. This law in Australia explicitly prohibits companies from using ID document verification for their age gating specifically because of concerns like this
bigB 11mo ago
The criticism is not that it wont be watertight, its that it will be ineffective in achieving what they say the reasoning is. 1. Kids are already moving to platforms that are not included in the ban, groups of friends will choose their own apps to make their group home, including Russian and Chinese apps ( already happening now) 2. Some kids have found ways around the included platforms...not surprising 3. One of the reasons they are spruiking is to stop Cyberbullying. Its ironic then that a big problem in schools across the country is physical bullying in the school grounds, with the educational authorities doing nothing about it. I know this one to be fact and have multiple instances that I personally know of where it happens and no action is taken. Our Government doesnt want to know about this at all 4. The platforms that have been banned are mostly "Big Tech" something that our Government hates with a passion, while many others go untouched. Discord is not included nor Telegram (how are these not social media, they literally allow people to socialise). I feel this is more of a weakening jab at Big Tech by our government to "stick it to them" 5. Day 3 and its pretty ineffective so far. There are many under 16's still have accounts on the blocked socials, and within the Family circle the only one that has been banned is actually 17, having her Instagram blocked ??? so not an awesome start at all.
- BlueTemplar 11mo ago
  Discord might not be officially included, but they still complied. «Big Tech» is a bad term to use IMHO, but if you do, why wouldn't it cover Discord(/Tencent) or even Telegram ?
  - bigB 11mo ago
    Going to say Nope there....I know a lot of kids using discord, they do not have age checks in Australia.
    - BlueTemplar 11mo ago
      Seems like it was only newly introduced for Australians wanting to access Discord (not-)servers (and/or channels) declaring themselves 18+ only.
scotty79 11mo ago
> normalising people uploading identification documents It's also important uploading to where. To Facebook. And the bulk of advertisements Facebook runs are literal (with literal meaning of the word literal) scams. And they are powerless[1] to stop it. [1] not incentivised
jjcob 11mo ago
> fringe networks that are off the radar and will take them to very dark places very quickly Soo... we already have a problem with some youths running into extremist content on Facebook, TikTok, Telegram ... no "fringe" network needed.
SecretDreams 11mo ago
> Because it's politically unattractive, I don't think enough attention has been given to the harms that will flow from these laws. I ask if those harms are worse than what social media has done to a generation of young people? I fully support this ban and even restricting online time marginally, tbh, until they're adults. The internet is not the place it once was. The primary focus of the internet today is to entrap you and monetize you at any cost. Social media is absolutely vile and ruinous for the development of young people (it's not helping adults either, mind you).
BlueTemplar 11mo ago
Normalizing ID and ID uploading (instead of banning it) is really what makes this bad. A good law would just have completely banned these platforms from the country. (Even the Canadian Kik, because freeware, therefore closed source, therefore a platform. EDIT : Looks like it's instead the Australian Kick, The Register had it wrong ? Same deal. (Especially with its owners having a gambling background.)) I wish the EU would be bold enough to do this, especially with Trump's bullying, but I have already been disappointed in the past, despite the situation clearly calling for strong actions like these...
retube 11mo ago
Yeah I never understood the watertight arguments. Just about any law can be circumvented or violated, that doesn't invalid having the law.
superxpro12 11mo ago
herd immunity, but for social media
shevy-java 11mo ago
But you have not addressed the problem that governments control the flow of information in this case here. The antisocial media may be irrelevant, but I still fail to see why a government should be able to proxy-control the flow of information. So I am totally against this. I am also against antisocial media, but I don't see why a government actor should filter and censor information here.
j45 11mo ago
Some fair points to consider. Consistency at school means more and more parents and families are practicing their internet exposure the same way as well. How this is being done might not be the greatest, and it might change how social media is used, or invite the next thing after social media. Most platforms have dreamt of being a users core identity service as well and that might be it. The multiple independent studies that show the effect on children developing brains from scrolling and screens alone, let alone the content (be it social media etc) is something worth offering an approach to as well, parents can't be expected to be DIY and self-educate against the types of software that are so optimized to achieve their independent objective of the software - keep us using them.
nicolas_t 11mo ago
My concern is very much those two concerns plus the fact that I value being able to be anonymous. We're increasingly losing that in the real world with CCTV and AI that would eventually allow people to be tracked (like in China), I do want to have one last bastion of privacy. That said, I fully support laws that ban phones at school, I chose my kid's school because they do not allow any electronic devices on campus outside the computer lab where kids can go to to do research. Every day when I bring my kid to the school bus, I see that children say hello to each other and start chatting. There's another very well ranked school that picks up kids in front of my apartment and they allow phones. The kids all stare fixedly on their phones as soon as they sit on the bus. Having a country wide ban of mobile devices in all schools would I think serve most of the same purpose as the social media ban while having a lot less externalities.

by zmmmmm 11mo ago

deleted 11mo ago

[deleted]

spullara 11mo ago

very few laws and law makers take into consideration secondary (and beyond) effects.

ruthie_cohen 11mo ago

[dead]

downsocialmedia 11mo ago

b) This was always the case in past too, but I think this is handleable. But most importantly, there's no expectation of kid to be on social media anymore, which is much more important than whether they are actually there or not.

basisword 11mo ago

Curious about your thoughts on (a). I understand privacy concerns but not your point about scams. How are people going to lose their life savings? A photo ID is useful because you can compare the photo on it to someone human. Passports contain mirochips. If losing your ID was so dangerous people would be in trouble all the time, because people lose them all the time.

zmmmmm 11mo ago
I guess it comes back to again not whether things are technically watertight, but how socially normalised something is. People are used to giving their ID out for significant transactions. This law says now that pretty much any random website has a good reason to ask you for ID documents. So when someone seeking to steal your identity already has two forms and is just trying to fill in that 3rd document to get over the line to where they can call up the bank to reset your password - the bar just got lowered. They no longer have to trick you into thinking it's a message from your bank or anything else significant. It can literally be "oh my cousin sent me pictures of their grand kids, let me just get my passport to upload so I can see them".

ivan_gammel 11mo ago

> a) normalising people uploading identification documents and hence lead to people becoming victims of scams The reasonable approach to solve this problem is verification protocol that mandates integration with the apps chosen by users. You have your wallet with digital ID and you use only it on any website, sharing the bare minimum of details. No uploads of anything anywhere. Independent wallet providers ensure privacy and prevent state overreach. > (b) a small fraction of kids branching off into fringe networks that are off the radar and will take them to very dark places very quickly. Unfortunately dark places existed in mainstream social media too. It’s something that should receive sufficient attention from law enforcement, nothing has changed here.

pajamasam 11mo ago
> sharing the bare minimum of details The reasonable approach, yes, but the approach most in the interest of the governments and corporate players driving these laws...?
- rtpg 11mo ago
  I think people are overindexing on how much of this is "get more data on users". I don't get why people believe there's a conspiracy here. There's perhaps a large tent, but "social media bad" is not a controversial opinion! "The gov't should do something about it" is more controversial, though I think the controversiality is less heavy in spaces with parents, teachers, places where people have to deal with kids. Not that this is how things should be determined, but... I think reading this as a "get more data and track people" play feels like giving everyone involved too much credit. It really just feels like what it says on the tin here.

wrxd 11mo ago

a) is solvable by a system that instead of collecting IDs reveals only the single bit of information required b) parents still need to do their job Arguably parental control should have been enough to avoid all of this but the regulation still helps parents. It’s way more difficult to ask kids not to have social media when all of their friends have it. I would have preferred stricter social media platform regulation for everyone forcing tech companies to take responsibility for what happens on their platforms. It’s not that they are dangerously only for kids

anon84873628 11mo ago
In other words it solved the multi-agent coordination problem amongst parents, which otherwise would require the majority of them to be rational and good (a tall order).

yladiz 11mo ago

In the EU you don’t need to upload your ID anywhere, the service can use the government’s portal for ID verification. In the case of age verification they can get a yes/no response if the age is above some threshold. This is opaque to the service so they wouldn’t get any additional ID details.

petcat 11mo ago
> This is opaque to the service The "service" is irrelevant. I think most people would trust Porno Hub to be discreet about their visits. That's in their business interest. But now they have to tell your government about all the times you're visiting Porno Hub. And nobody should trust their government. Also, keep in mind that western governments share with each other. There will come a time when Australians will try to enter USA but they'll get flagged at the border because the AUS government shared that this particular individual visited Porno Hub and a few other age-restricted websites 7,000 times in the last 30 days. Red Flag!
- Tadpole9181 11mo ago
  To be entirely fair, a government that would abuse your vague "am I allowed to access porn" history seems well into the territory of a government that would just make it up. A nefarious, powerful entity has no real requirement to be honest in their maliciousness. They also have more direct means of accessing more specific data via ISPs, audits, banks, etc.
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
  - nrhrjrjrjtntbt 11mo ago
    That is an assumption. The games the powerful play leverage truth and provable things. I think there is a lot of need for privacy and abuse of dragnet information before you get to the government framing people.
    - 11mo ago

hintymad 11mo ago

I'd even go one step further: it does not have to be enforceable at all. This has to do with teen's psychology. For whatever reason, kids just fight their parents but listen to their schools and government a lot more. Of course, there are exceptions, but I'm talking about trend. The kids in my school district were generally angry towards their parents when they couldn't get a smartphone when their peers did. However, when my school district introduced the strict ban of electronic devices in school, the kids quieted down and even bought the same reasons that their parents were saying: attention is the most precious assets one should cherish. Kids complained that the problem sets by RSM (Russian School of Mathematics) are too hard and unnecessary (they are not by the standard of any Asian or East European country), yet they stopped complaining when the school teacher ramped up the difficulty of the homework. So, when the government issues this ban, the kids would listen to their parents a lot more easily.

NoPicklez 11mo ago
That's exactly what its part of it. So many people are looking at this from a technical stand point and how water tight or perfect its going to be. But there is a large psychological part of this that helps parents and I know that part of it is what a number of parents I've spoken to like about it. Its not just about the current generation, but the next wave of kids who have grown up under these laws, the psychology of it will have changed.
amelius 11mo ago
Yes, there is a normative aspect to it. This also works with other things such as alcohol and (old school) smoking (neither of which has watertight control, but the control is still very effective).
codebje 11mo ago
Absolutely this. We have limits in place for usage of a bunch of this sort of stuff, from not at all to up to an hour, and we'd be constantly tested and pushed on these limits. Constantly. "But my friends are..." is the usual start to it. Government says you can't chat with just anyone in Roblox, and suddenly it's accepted that this is just what it is. Not only that, but limits and rules on how much and when you can watch YouTube and the like are also suddenly more acceptable. So far what my kids are saying is that this is broadly true across their peer groups. The exceptions are just that, exceptions. The peer pressure to be in on it all is lessened. And in turn, that means less push-back on boundaries set by us, because it's less of a big deal. (And I face less of a dilemma of how much to allow to balance out the harm of not being part of the zeitgeist vs. the harm of short form, mega-corporation curated content).

jen729w 11mo ago

> normalising people uploading identification documents and hence lead to people becoming victims of scams We've long lost this war. I'm in Italy, staying at my 3rd Airbnb. I was surprised when the first asked me, casually, to drop a photograph of my passport in the chat. I checked with Claude: yep, that's the law. (I'll remind you that Italy is in the EU.) On checking into this place last week, the guy just took a photo of our passports on his phone. At this point I'm too weak to argue. And what's the point? That is no longer private data and if I pretend that it is, I'm the fool.

zmmmmm 11mo ago
Well, even there, you're doing a transaction worth hundreds to thousands of dollars probably. This pretty much lowers the bar to any random website on the internet can ask for ID to do something as trivial as look at a photo. In a world where social engineering is the last unsolvable security vector, this is significant even if it is just a matter of degree.
rtpg 11mo ago
I'm pretty sure in most places in the world if you are travelling from abroad you are asked to share your passport, and have been for a very very very very long time. The difference between sending it over a chat and handing it over to a clerk (who then photocopies it or types in the data into the computer) feels almost academic. Though at least "Typing it into the computer" doesn't leave them with a picture, just most of the data.
- fn-mote 11mo ago
  > The difference between sending it over a chat and handing it over to a clerk (who then photocopies it [...] The difference is that the paper copy is local and only accessible to the hotel (and any government employee that might come knocking). The digital version is accessible to anyone who has access to the system, which as we know well on HN includes bureaucrats (or police) with a vendetta against you and any hacker that can manage to breach the feeble defenses of the computer storing the data. That computer isn't locked down because the information is not valuable to the person who holds it; they're paid to satisfy a record-keeping law, not maintain system security. > at least "Typing it into the computer" doesn't leave them with a picture, just most of the data. Agreed, except now uploading a scan is the easiest way to file the data.

roenxi 11mo ago

Well, yes but the other problem is this is putting authoritarians in charge of more stuff. I had a comment comparing this to allowing people to eat too much food and that is literally where the logical outcome of this sort of thinking goes - it happens in practice, that isn't some sort of theoretical risk. The more the government decides what people can and can't want to do the worse the potential gets when they make mistakes. And this is further normalising the government making decisions about speech where they have every incentive and tendency to shut down people who tell inconvenient and important truths. The risks are not worth the rewards of half-heatedly trying to stop kids communicating with other kids. They're still going to bully each other and what have you. They're still going to develop unrealistic expectations. They're probably even still going to use social media in practice.

bigfudge 11mo ago
The attempt is to remove the market do exploiting the attention of children for profit. This doesn’t have to be perfect to be worth it. What’s more, the idea that this puts children at the mercy of authoritarians is laughable. The US tech industry has shown us beyond doubt that they are perfectly ok with genuine authoritarians in charge, provided the dollars keep rolling. Fuck them, and good on ya Australia.
- fnikacevic 11mo ago
  So are we banning all advertising to children? Or only banning them from communicating and posting with each other? If it's about monetizing child attention not about speech control why isn't every single toy ad, food ad, movie ad, also banned?
  - hshdhdhj4444 11mo ago
    Because all those aren’t close to being as harmful as social media is. We do ban the things that consume children the way social media does. Alcohol, addictive drugs, etc.
    - 11mo ago

jmward01 11mo ago

These are exactly my thoughts as well, both the positives (it doesn't need to be air-tight) and the negatives (providing documentation). I don't know that there is a great system here. The best I can think of is having independent third parties that people can register with and that can provide a 'proof of eligibility' token tied to an e-mail address or something similar with the explicit, backed by law, understanding that sharing more than that proof of eligibility with a third party is a criminal offense. The money side of things would be that FB and the like would pay the proof company a service fee so they make money and FB gets the proof without getting access to your documents. Just a thought.

freefaler 11mo ago

Social networks aren't that social anymore. Around 65% of the facebook content is not shared/generated by your friends in your social graph. So they're all just a Tik-Tok clones basically. Short dopamine addiction info-snacks with more and more AI generated slop. (and some of the slop is interesting like Cold War military tech stories from books read and visualized by AI). The network effects doesn't matter that much for the Tiktok's of the world.

chillfox 11mo ago

Australia has APIs that can be used to verify ID without uploading them, but American tech companies has always refused to use them.

NoPicklez 11mo ago

"the Social Media Minimum Age legislation specifically prohibits platforms from compelling Australians to provide a government-issued ID or use an Australian Government accredited digital ID service to prove their age. Platforms may offer it as an option but must also offer a reasonable alternative, so no one who is 16 or older is prevented from having a social media account because they choose not to provide government ID. This includes situations where other age check methods return a result the user does not accept."

steve_taylor 11mo ago
Digital ID is optional by default. Service providers that integrate with the Digital ID can apply for an exemption to make it mandatory. Given the mandatory nature of age verification checks for social media, the fact that social media is typically free to use and ad-supported and the cost of age verification would be prohibitive for smaller apps without significant VC backing, an argument for exemption could be made on the basis that their legal obligation can't otherwise be fulfilled without a prohibitive upfront cost.

aetherspawn 11mo ago

Australia already has a government digital ID verification service, so this social media ban is just a first step towards legislators realising they can force people to just integrate and use that, then there is no user data changing hands. Edit: > or use an Australian Government accredited digital ID service to prove their age Here you go. If you’re concerned about your personal data, only use platforms that integrate and use this.

steve_taylor 11mo ago
There has only been one accredited Digital ID that sort of isn't government and that's Australia Post's Digital ID which they're now winding down in favour of the government's. While the Digital ID act does allow for these third-party accredited providers, I think we can realistically expect that the only one that will be in use will be the federal government's.
- aetherspawn 11mo ago
  It’s called “myID” https://www.myid.gov.au/ https://www.myid.gov.au/
protocolture 11mo ago
>Here you go. If you’re concerned about your personal data, only use platforms that integrate and use this. The Australian Governments IT Security is a joke.

voxleone 11mo ago

I’d say you made a good risk-benefit analysis, recognizing the potential upside of the ban (breaking the network effect, reducing social pressure) while raising important concerns about security, privacy, and a possible migration to more dangerous online spaces. That kind of debate is essential. But I also think some of the consequences you fear (widespread scams, a mass shift to “dark” networks, extreme social isolation) are not guaranteed. They will depend heavily on how the law is implemented, how platforms handle age verification, and what healthy social alternatives (offline or moderated) are offered. I do believe it’s possible to design a safe system. Personally, having seen many dire predictions fail to materialize in the past, I don’t view this as either a “clear net benefit” or an “inevitable disaster,” but rather as a social experiment with real potential for success as well as serious unintended consequences. I support the Australian law and would like to see something similar in my own country. We can’t simply assume an invisible hand will resolve this issue for the better. Still, it’s worth watching closely and following the empirical data over the coming months.

energy123 11mo ago
Like anything it's a matter of magnitudes. My best guess is that any negative side effects are going to be of a trivial magnitude, cancelling out a small amount of the upside on net. At the very least it's an experiment worth running, and if successful, worth extending to further regulations for adults too, especially around mechanics (not the content itself) such as the algorithmic feed.

stephen_g 11mo ago

> If you knock the percentage down far enough, you break the network effect to the point where those who don't want to don't feel pressured to. I've seen this argument a lot, and I don't think it really matches reality - I very much expect that the problem users of social media who are teens will tend to be the ones that will want to get around the ban (and will easily be able to). Kids who just have an account because they are "pressured" to probably aren't actually really using it much or problematically? And the other problem is that everyone knows it's a silly law so I don't think there will be any less pressure to have accounts because enough kids will be evading it. The ban will only motivate many kids (if you know much about how teenagers think)

deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]

heavyset_go 11mo ago

> (b) a small fraction of kids branching off into fringe networks that are off the radar and will take them to very dark places very quickly. Congratulations, Australia, you just drove a ton of kids into the arms of psychopaths like 764. If you think Instagram and even 4chan are bad, that's nothing compared to the groups that sadly, are usually kids that were groomed themselves, who goad other kids into self-harm, violence and suicide through extortion, love bombing and literal cult shit. Instagram might make you feel sad, but it doesn't threaten to kill your family if you don't strangle your pet cat and carve CVLT into your chest for a bunch of organized pedophiles online.

boomlinde 11mo ago
My understanding is that 764 are mostly active on mainstream social media platforms, where most "fringe networks that are off the radar and will take them to very dark places very quickly" tend to operate, contrary to GP's concern.

dclowd9901 11mo ago

On your second point, that might be a little less of a concern. Granted there can be dark places anywhere, they're _so much easier_ to find online, and have to potential to be so much more reinforcing for problematic behavior.

lbrito 11mo ago

(b) a small fraction of kids branching off into fringe networks that are off the radar and will take them to very dark places very quickly. This already happens, and I don't see how a law like this would significantly change the volume of edgelords and incels funneling into imageboards

heavyset_go 11mo ago
There's internet culture precedent for this. 4chan itself has an early history of picking up leftovers from communities that were banned on other sites/forums/platforms. 4chan's origin itself fits that archetype, as well. It was created when a hentai subforum got banned on a larger forum, and the community moved over to the new imageboard. It acts as sponge for more than just edgelords.

stein1946 11mo ago

> A lot of the criticism is based on the concept that it won't be technically watertight Those who do that, are not interested in this ban working, they are the individualists assaulting the community. > a) normalising people uploading identification documents... we have technical measures for which there is no need for the end user to upload anything. With oath you can basically have a simple age check; nothing more. > (b) a small fraction of kids branching off into fringe networks that are off the radar and will take them to very dark places very quickly. You can always minimize the fraction, but you can never make it go away. > Because it's politically unattractive, I don't think enough attention has been given to the harms that will flow from these laws. This was a politically bold move and there will be no harms that will come out of it; especially when compared to the status quo. Those who feign concern about this usually have vested interests into stopping this bill; their "interest" is just another attempt in stopping it albeit with a more "nuanced" approach.

Nursie 11mo ago

> normalising people uploading identification documents This is dependent on implementation. From what I have heard (from ConnectID), some sites are using services like ConnectID as a way to have your bank verify you are of age without releasing any ID or specific details. But I don't think it's all of them, and I agree it's a risk.

de6u99er 11mo ago

It's very simple. Parents can configure parental controls on their children's devices. I personally think, Facebook and Twitter need to be taken down because Zuckerberg and Musk are using the ppatform to interfere with politics.

TacticalCoder 11mo ago
[dead]

lencastre 11mo ago

triggering thoughts… it’s a difficult balancing act, and I tend to agree as blocks are put in place, there are very likely two groups of outcomes: the kid gives up and finds other alternatives which can be healthy or unhealthy, the kid perseveres and bypasses the block both provide good learnings and shape development, but blocking isn’t the answer, communication, understanding, and moderation is the alternative that one could flood the kid with unfettered access till the kid becomes nauseated and desensitised doesn’t really work either because it can be too risky the best solution may be something in between, make it a hinderance more than an inconvenience, like the parent post, and go for the greatest impact on network effects, the evil genie in me would make all these platforms super unreliable, spotty at best but hey, it’s a developmental milestone for the average generation member to rebel against the member’s previous generations

mk89 11mo ago

> (a) normalising people uploading identification documents You might not know it or think too often about it, but most "real life" services we use require online identification, at least in Europe. Even on a simple rental agency portal in Germany it's recommended to "verify" your online identity to get more chances. Which means: just do it. Sure, you're free not to do it, as landlords are free not to care about your application at all. Do you want to renew your car papers? E-ID is there (or whatever existing alternative). Bank? The same. In Germany the government[s] are pushing for Digitalization since years, which many laugh at as "ahah, what a joke, it's just filling an online module and sending a fax". It was true 5 years ago. Now I was super surprised because I recently had to do some bureaucratic BS and it's like any "normal" internet service that would require an identification (which is not just via a credit card or so). It's still not 100% accurate or "frictionless" but they're seriously getting there, which is super hard in a country where govt office A won't share data with govt office B. Compared to standing 1 hour in line to get just a stamp on a paper this is light years ahead. The same will happen to these platforms, because that's the only solution we can think of, as of today. We all stand and watch Facebook making profits off our kids, making them depressed, etc. If you fine them, you're a communist, if you block them, you're a Nazi. This is the most balanced alternative: you can still run your business here, people can still use social media, but let's not fuck up anymore our new generations, children, teenagers. They are the grownups of tomorrow. Also, as some other comments mentioned elsewhere on HN: assume your data is already stolen or "publicly" available (maybe hidden somewhere).

somenameforme 11mo ago

> a small fraction of kids branching off into fringe networks that are off the radar and will take them to very dark places very quickly. I don't think this is much of an issue at all. The path of least resistance, by an overwhelmingly wide margin, is just using a proxy, TOR, or whatever else to bypass the filtering. Sites will be doing the bare minimum for legal compliance, and so it won't be particularly difficult. Beyond that I'd also add that for those of us that were children during the early days of the internet, "we" were always one click away from just about anything you could imagine in newsgroups, IRC, and so on. It never really seems to have had much of any negative effect, let alone when contrasted against the overwhelmingly negative effect of social media. I don't really know why that is, and I half suspect nobody really does. You can come up with lots of clever hypotheses that are all probably at least partially true, but on a fundamental level it's quite surprising how destructive 'everybody' communicating online turned out to be. And that obviously doesn't end just because somebody turns 18.

CalRobert 11mo ago
I think one difference from how we grew up (remember bbs’es?) is that it was something in your desktop, not an omnipresent force in your pocket
- kakacik 11mo ago
  And here lies the actual fix unless you just want to sit back and wait for regulators to pick it up - phones should be the means of communication, not consumption. Remove those apps that make you do so, and the world becomes a little bit brighter over time. I did it years ago with FB apps (which was draining battery while unused, typical fb crappy engineering when they can't even snoop on you in more subtle ways) and have 0 need to put anything there. I can check FB on desktop if I need to, and do so rarely due to lack of any actually interesting stuff there. Same can go for any other social cancer out there.
  - CalRobert 11mo ago
    Yeah the current situation is akin to having to open a pack of cigarettes every time you wanted to check the weather or use satnav.

mgh2 11mo ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkDAXsF4oXA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkDAXsF4oXA

eigenspace 11mo ago

> normalising people uploading identification documents and hence lead to people becoming victims of scams. This law in Australia explicitly prohibits companies from using ID document verification for their age gating specifically because of concerns like this

bigB 11mo ago

The criticism is not that it wont be watertight, its that it will be ineffective in achieving what they say the reasoning is. 1. Kids are already moving to platforms that are not included in the ban, groups of friends will choose their own apps to make their group home, including Russian and Chinese apps ( already happening now) 2. Some kids have found ways around the included platforms...not surprising 3. One of the reasons they are spruiking is to stop Cyberbullying. Its ironic then that a big problem in schools across the country is physical bullying in the school grounds, with the educational authorities doing nothing about it. I know this one to be fact and have multiple instances that I personally know of where it happens and no action is taken. Our Government doesnt want to know about this at all 4. The platforms that have been banned are mostly "Big Tech" something that our Government hates with a passion, while many others go untouched. Discord is not included nor Telegram (how are these not social media, they literally allow people to socialise). I feel this is more of a weakening jab at Big Tech by our government to "stick it to them" 5. Day 3 and its pretty ineffective so far. There are many under 16's still have accounts on the blocked socials, and within the Family circle the only one that has been banned is actually 17, having her Instagram blocked ??? so not an awesome start at all.

BlueTemplar 11mo ago
Discord might not be officially included, but they still complied. «Big Tech» is a bad term to use IMHO, but if you do, why wouldn't it cover Discord(/Tencent) or even Telegram ?
- bigB 11mo ago
  Going to say Nope there....I know a lot of kids using discord, they do not have age checks in Australia.
  - BlueTemplar 11mo ago
    Seems like it was only newly introduced for Australians wanting to access Discord (not-)servers (and/or channels) declaring themselves 18+ only.

scotty79 11mo ago

> normalising people uploading identification documents It's also important uploading to where. To Facebook. And the bulk of advertisements Facebook runs are literal (with literal meaning of the word literal) scams. And they are powerless[1] to stop it. [1] not incentivised

jjcob 11mo ago

> fringe networks that are off the radar and will take them to very dark places very quickly Soo... we already have a problem with some youths running into extremist content on Facebook, TikTok, Telegram ... no "fringe" network needed.

SecretDreams 11mo ago

> Because it's politically unattractive, I don't think enough attention has been given to the harms that will flow from these laws. I ask if those harms are worse than what social media has done to a generation of young people? I fully support this ban and even restricting online time marginally, tbh, until they're adults. The internet is not the place it once was. The primary focus of the internet today is to entrap you and monetize you at any cost. Social media is absolutely vile and ruinous for the development of young people (it's not helping adults either, mind you).

BlueTemplar 11mo ago

Normalizing ID and ID uploading (instead of banning it) is really what makes this bad. A good law would just have completely banned these platforms from the country. (Even the Canadian Kik, because freeware, therefore closed source, therefore a platform. EDIT : Looks like it's instead the Australian Kick, The Register had it wrong ? Same deal. (Especially with its owners having a gambling background.)) I wish the EU would be bold enough to do this, especially with Trump's bullying, but I have already been disappointed in the past, despite the situation clearly calling for strong actions like these...

retube 11mo ago

Yeah I never understood the watertight arguments. Just about any law can be circumvented or violated, that doesn't invalid having the law.

superxpro12 11mo ago

herd immunity, but for social media

shevy-java 11mo ago

But you have not addressed the problem that governments control the flow of information in this case here. The antisocial media may be irrelevant, but I still fail to see why a government should be able to proxy-control the flow of information. So I am totally against this. I am also against antisocial media, but I don't see why a government actor should filter and censor information here.

j45 11mo ago

Some fair points to consider. Consistency at school means more and more parents and families are practicing their internet exposure the same way as well. How this is being done might not be the greatest, and it might change how social media is used, or invite the next thing after social media. Most platforms have dreamt of being a users core identity service as well and that might be it. The multiple independent studies that show the effect on children developing brains from scrolling and screens alone, let alone the content (be it social media etc) is something worth offering an approach to as well, parents can't be expected to be DIY and self-educate against the types of software that are so optimized to achieve their independent objective of the software - keep us using them.

nicolas_t 11mo ago

My concern is very much those two concerns plus the fact that I value being able to be anonymous. We're increasingly losing that in the real world with CCTV and AI that would eventually allow people to be tracked (like in China), I do want to have one last bastion of privacy. That said, I fully support laws that ban phones at school, I chose my kid's school because they do not allow any electronic devices on campus outside the computer lab where kids can go to to do research. Every day when I bring my kid to the school bus, I see that children say hello to each other and start chatting. There's another very well ranked school that picks up kids in front of my apartment and they allow phones. The kids all stare fixedly on their phones as soon as they sit on the bus. Having a country wide ban of mobile devices in all schools would I think serve most of the same purpose as the social media ban while having a lot less externalities.