5 ms·

Congress wants to hand your parenting to big tech

88 points by hn_acker 9mo ago

sdoering 9mo ago
I am always wondering, if initiatives like these are a way to get a system in place that enables governments (by proxy of these platforms) a way to ensure any online activity is tied to a governmental id. Because if you want to use these platforms this would mean you would have to prove your age. Then I ask myself if I am wearing my tinfoil hat? Sadly, nowadays, I am just not sure anymore.
- V__ 9mo ago
  I am more and more sure that isn't the case. That would imply long term planning, strategy and intelligence. Which is obviously missing nowadays. It's just bribery, sorry I mean lobbying. Push this through, we make money and will fund your reelection.
- analog31 9mo ago
  Let the industry regulate itself until people get angry enough. Keep pumping out addictive, manipulative content that's targeted at kids. Then we can see what the political reaction will be. That's assuming the industry hasn't already blown its chances. If it has, then it can hang on for a few more years by buying favoritism from the regime in power.
- iLoveOncall 9mo ago
  This is obviously the case, and I don't understand why anybody falls even a second for "it's for the children". They don't give a flying fuck about the children, they want to have total control over the citizens because all westerns countries are more or less slowly slipping towards authoritarianism. Dictatorships in 21st century first world country will be impossible to topple, once the government can reliably link your ID to your online activity, you'll be arrested before you even know you'll commit an anti-governmental act.
- seneca 9mo ago
  I genuinely don't understand how anyone can think it's anything other than governments trying to destroy online anonymity. "Think of the children" is a cliche for a reason.
  - ocdtrekkie 9mo ago
    CSAM is not an overstated problem. If anything the amount of child abuse behavior online is an epidemic. The world's richest man sells a CSAM generator, the most popular game for kids under 12, Roblox, is besieged with predators. Are governments good at regulating technology? Generally no. Is there a real problem that needs to be regulated: Oh my God, yes.
- jauntywundrkind 9mo ago
  Our choices seem to either be getting tracked by everyone & the likely government to get through age gates (see recent EFF on the ad-tracking infecting age-gates, https://bsky.app/profile/eff.org/post/3mciort6sir2p https://bsky.app/profile/eff.org/post/3mciort6sir2p ), or perhaps only being able to use a small number of approved browsers that supports a nea Digital Credential API, that can maintain our security somewhat but which restricted browser choice heavily & cuts out open source offerings (not necessarily but likely). https://developer.chrome.com/blog/digital-credentials-api-origin-trial https://developer.chrome.com/blog/digital-credentials-api-or...
notatoad 9mo ago
>Big Tech is somehow both the problem and the solution not sure why they're framing this like it doesn't make sense. of course the people who've created the problem would be in a position to solve it.
altacc 9mo ago
The problem with "let the parents decide" is that so many parents take the option of least resistance and currently that's a terrible option. From what I see of my childrens' peers, it's not parents are deciding to let their children run wild on social media, it's that they don't even think about it, they just hand over a phone or tablet, often with their own login, and don't think much about it. One way of solving this is if the default was everything locked down, then effort needed to give the children anything, forcing parents to consider each permission. However I also see that parents are addicted to their devices and social media, so don't see the problem.
- ls612 9mo ago
  I’m still not convinced what is fundamentally different today about social media compared to violent video games which were the supposed evil my parents obsessed about when I was a kid. This is just the “sex drugs and rock & roll” for the 21st century’s control freaks.
  - zugi 9mo ago
    And before sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll it was that sinful Lindy Hop those kids were doing.
  - michaelmrose 9mo ago
    I don't think rock and roll taught fundamentally bad values nor did playing mario or doom. Social media is by contrast fairly designed to spread 17 different kinds of poisonous stupidity. So you liked $conspiracy_theory... how about 10 more 3 of which suggest genocide!
    - verdverm 9mo ago
      Disney is worse in ways, subtle sexual imagery in their cartoons and interpersonal drama in their teen shows. Kids are learning these patterns before they even get to social media
      - 9mo ago
skybrian 9mo ago
If there were a store selling cigarettes to children, then naturally you'd want the store to stop doing it. It's their responsibility. But they do need information about who they're serving. (Just enough information.) Making a website adults-only should be as easy as setting a web server's config parameter. The fact that the industry has taken so long to come up with a decent Internet standard for this is pretty ludicrous. It doesn't have to be perfect. Even just a minimal implementation like requiring an "X-adult: yes" HTTP header from the browser would work for a locked-down client like an iPhone. Sure, older kids will get around it but that's okay; they probably learned something.
- hypeatei 9mo ago
  I don't think it's that simple. Since the header mechanism is easy to bypass, there would be: 1) software that makes it easy to do for the layman (browser extensions etc.), and 2) scams and malware that target children offering a "bypass" to access adult websites Then parents, teachers, and administrators need to be aware of the latest bypass mechanism thus sending them on a wild goose chase. I think this would end up similar to the Do Not Track header which ultimately no one cared about or took seriously.
  - gjsman-1000 9mo ago
    Also it already exists. It's called the RTA header; and it was invented by the porn industry decades ago to try and appear as a responsible self-regulating industry. (Total failure at that.)
    - Retr0id 9mo ago
      RTA seems reasonable to me, on a technical level. But the porn industry can't force anyone to implement the client side of it. Legislators itching to "do something" should've focused on that.
  - goalieca 9mo ago
    In a case like this, perfect is the enemy of good. A locked down iPhone or Chromebook is going to thwart everyone but the most determined without compromising any privacy.
lateforwork 9mo ago
The problem with "let the parents decide" is that if all other kids in the neighborhood have phones and are on social media then unless you want your kid to grow up with no friends you don't have a choice but to let your kid also use social media. The government makes many basic restrictions for protecting children: parents can't give their children drugs or alcohol, porn, guns etc. Social media definitely fits in this category because it has been shown to cause mental harm.
- michaelmrose 9mo ago
  In the US parents can mostly give their kids porn, guns, and alcohol at home. Wherein the drug isn't itself illegal you are for practical purposes also able to give your kids drugs. Being shown to cause harm is also a meaninglessly low standard. Bathtubs, pools, and bikes can cause harm. You would need to show an actually useful standard. Lets propose will cause an unacceptable level of harmn that cannot be mitigated by less restrictive means. I don't buy the argument that you are unacceptably harmed because you aren't capable of denying your kid social media nor do I buy the idea that social media couldn't be regulated to be less shitty and harmful.
  - lateforwork 9mo ago
    Exposing children to pornography is illegal federally and in all states, treated as distribution of obscene material or child exploitation with no parental exemptions. Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2252) prohibits such exhibition to minors under 18, carrying severe penalties like imprisonment. So precedent exists. Social media is at least as harmful as porn.
    - michaelmrose 9mo ago
      Has anyone ever in life been prosecuted for allowing their teen watch boobs on the internet? I mean if you at any time prior to 18 have a computer in their room you absolutely know that you basically provided an adult portal. Before the internet as I kid I rewired our houses cable wiring and stole my dad's dirty magazines. Pretty sure damn near everyone saw adult material prior to 18.
periodjet 9mo ago
Would it be preferable if Congress wanted us to hand our parenting to the state?
RyanHamilton 9mo ago
The article is ignorant of reality. "The typical under-13 social media user is not a sneaky kid. It’s a family making a decision together. " No, every other kid had it and the parent had no choice else their child would be ostracised. Their example of kids learning about volcanoes in youtube. Ha! Go look at the view number for mindless nonsense... Minecraft blabbering then find me a volcano with more child views.
- wrxd 9mo ago
  I wouldn’t mind YouTube if my kids asked to watch videos of volcanoes. Instead they always end up trying to watch the most annoying people possible playing video games for a few minutes before we ask them to switch it off. If YouTube really cared about kids they should allow users to pick a subset of channels and never ever mention again anything else. Alas, we all know this will never happen because YouTube doesn’t care about what people watch as long as they come back watching some more
novok 9mo ago
IMO I think the better solution is to make a full feature smartphone an 18+ item, much like beer. If you are under 18 you only get a very limited 'call mom' phone with no video camera, chat limited to your family, maps to find your way home with and an otherwise very restricted set of apps. Police can take contraband phones from teens much like they can take contraband beer. They would have a distinct design so the types are identifiable. No identity checking system needed for using the general internet as a result. You can still have a family ipad, TV, xbox, switch, laptop, school chromebook, large clunky semi-pro digital camera for movie club, a separate dedicated audio recorder, etc but the key is to stop gossip networks with video recordings / snapchat and make the digital experience similar to what millenials grew up with, the last generation who didn't get a huge spike in anxiety and depression. Yes many teens will still get around it, but the idea is to add a lot of friction so you stop the network effects that are causing this in the first place.

88 points by hn_acker 9mo ago

I am always wondering, if initiatives like these are a way to get a system in place that enables governments (by proxy of these platforms) a way to ensure any online activity is tied to a governmental id. Because if you want to use these platforms this would mean you would have to prove your age. Then I ask myself if I am wearing my tinfoil hat? Sadly, nowadays, I am just not sure anymore.

V__ 9mo ago
I am more and more sure that isn't the case. That would imply long term planning, strategy and intelligence. Which is obviously missing nowadays. It's just bribery, sorry I mean lobbying. Push this through, we make money and will fund your reelection.
analog31 9mo ago
Let the industry regulate itself until people get angry enough. Keep pumping out addictive, manipulative content that's targeted at kids. Then we can see what the political reaction will be. That's assuming the industry hasn't already blown its chances. If it has, then it can hang on for a few more years by buying favoritism from the regime in power.
iLoveOncall 9mo ago
This is obviously the case, and I don't understand why anybody falls even a second for "it's for the children". They don't give a flying fuck about the children, they want to have total control over the citizens because all westerns countries are more or less slowly slipping towards authoritarianism. Dictatorships in 21st century first world country will be impossible to topple, once the government can reliably link your ID to your online activity, you'll be arrested before you even know you'll commit an anti-governmental act.
seneca 9mo ago
I genuinely don't understand how anyone can think it's anything other than governments trying to destroy online anonymity. "Think of the children" is a cliche for a reason.
- ocdtrekkie 9mo ago
  CSAM is not an overstated problem. If anything the amount of child abuse behavior online is an epidemic. The world's richest man sells a CSAM generator, the most popular game for kids under 12, Roblox, is besieged with predators. Are governments good at regulating technology? Generally no. Is there a real problem that needs to be regulated: Oh my God, yes.
jauntywundrkind 9mo ago
Our choices seem to either be getting tracked by everyone & the likely government to get through age gates (see recent EFF on the ad-tracking infecting age-gates, https://bsky.app/profile/eff.org/post/3mciort6sir2p https://bsky.app/profile/eff.org/post/3mciort6sir2p ), or perhaps only being able to use a small number of approved browsers that supports a nea Digital Credential API, that can maintain our security somewhat but which restricted browser choice heavily & cuts out open source offerings (not necessarily but likely). https://developer.chrome.com/blog/digital-credentials-api-origin-trial https://developer.chrome.com/blog/digital-credentials-api-or...

notatoad 9mo ago

>Big Tech is somehow both the problem and the solution not sure why they're framing this like it doesn't make sense. of course the people who've created the problem would be in a position to solve it.

altacc 9mo ago

The problem with "let the parents decide" is that so many parents take the option of least resistance and currently that's a terrible option. From what I see of my childrens' peers, it's not parents are deciding to let their children run wild on social media, it's that they don't even think about it, they just hand over a phone or tablet, often with their own login, and don't think much about it. One way of solving this is if the default was everything locked down, then effort needed to give the children anything, forcing parents to consider each permission. However I also see that parents are addicted to their devices and social media, so don't see the problem.

ls612 9mo ago
I’m still not convinced what is fundamentally different today about social media compared to violent video games which were the supposed evil my parents obsessed about when I was a kid. This is just the “sex drugs and rock & roll” for the 21st century’s control freaks.
- zugi 9mo ago
  And before sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll it was that sinful Lindy Hop those kids were doing.
- michaelmrose 9mo ago
  I don't think rock and roll taught fundamentally bad values nor did playing mario or doom. Social media is by contrast fairly designed to spread 17 different kinds of poisonous stupidity. So you liked $conspiracy_theory... how about 10 more 3 of which suggest genocide!
  - verdverm 9mo ago
    Disney is worse in ways, subtle sexual imagery in their cartoons and interpersonal drama in their teen shows. Kids are learning these patterns before they even get to social media
    - 9mo ago

skybrian 9mo ago

If there were a store selling cigarettes to children, then naturally you'd want the store to stop doing it. It's their responsibility. But they do need information about who they're serving. (Just enough information.) Making a website adults-only should be as easy as setting a web server's config parameter. The fact that the industry has taken so long to come up with a decent Internet standard for this is pretty ludicrous. It doesn't have to be perfect. Even just a minimal implementation like requiring an "X-adult: yes" HTTP header from the browser would work for a locked-down client like an iPhone. Sure, older kids will get around it but that's okay; they probably learned something.

hypeatei 9mo ago
I don't think it's that simple. Since the header mechanism is easy to bypass, there would be: 1) software that makes it easy to do for the layman (browser extensions etc.), and 2) scams and malware that target children offering a "bypass" to access adult websites Then parents, teachers, and administrators need to be aware of the latest bypass mechanism thus sending them on a wild goose chase. I think this would end up similar to the Do Not Track header which ultimately no one cared about or took seriously.
- gjsman-1000 9mo ago
  Also it already exists. It's called the RTA header; and it was invented by the porn industry decades ago to try and appear as a responsible self-regulating industry. (Total failure at that.)
  - Retr0id 9mo ago
    RTA seems reasonable to me, on a technical level. But the porn industry can't force anyone to implement the client side of it. Legislators itching to "do something" should've focused on that.
- goalieca 9mo ago
  In a case like this, perfect is the enemy of good. A locked down iPhone or Chromebook is going to thwart everyone but the most determined without compromising any privacy.

lateforwork 9mo ago

The problem with "let the parents decide" is that if all other kids in the neighborhood have phones and are on social media then unless you want your kid to grow up with no friends you don't have a choice but to let your kid also use social media. The government makes many basic restrictions for protecting children: parents can't give their children drugs or alcohol, porn, guns etc. Social media definitely fits in this category because it has been shown to cause mental harm.

michaelmrose 9mo ago
In the US parents can mostly give their kids porn, guns, and alcohol at home. Wherein the drug isn't itself illegal you are for practical purposes also able to give your kids drugs. Being shown to cause harm is also a meaninglessly low standard. Bathtubs, pools, and bikes can cause harm. You would need to show an actually useful standard. Lets propose will cause an unacceptable level of harmn that cannot be mitigated by less restrictive means. I don't buy the argument that you are unacceptably harmed because you aren't capable of denying your kid social media nor do I buy the idea that social media couldn't be regulated to be less shitty and harmful.
- lateforwork 9mo ago
  Exposing children to pornography is illegal federally and in all states, treated as distribution of obscene material or child exploitation with no parental exemptions. Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2252) prohibits such exhibition to minors under 18, carrying severe penalties like imprisonment. So precedent exists. Social media is at least as harmful as porn.
  - michaelmrose 9mo ago
    Has anyone ever in life been prosecuted for allowing their teen watch boobs on the internet? I mean if you at any time prior to 18 have a computer in their room you absolutely know that you basically provided an adult portal. Before the internet as I kid I rewired our houses cable wiring and stole my dad's dirty magazines. Pretty sure damn near everyone saw adult material prior to 18.

periodjet 9mo ago

Would it be preferable if Congress wanted us to hand our parenting to the state?

RyanHamilton 9mo ago

The article is ignorant of reality. "The typical under-13 social media user is not a sneaky kid. It’s a family making a decision together. " No, every other kid had it and the parent had no choice else their child would be ostracised. Their example of kids learning about volcanoes in youtube. Ha! Go look at the view number for mindless nonsense... Minecraft blabbering then find me a volcano with more child views.

wrxd 9mo ago
I wouldn’t mind YouTube if my kids asked to watch videos of volcanoes. Instead they always end up trying to watch the most annoying people possible playing video games for a few minutes before we ask them to switch it off. If YouTube really cared about kids they should allow users to pick a subset of channels and never ever mention again anything else. Alas, we all know this will never happen because YouTube doesn’t care about what people watch as long as they come back watching some more

novok 9mo ago

IMO I think the better solution is to make a full feature smartphone an 18+ item, much like beer. If you are under 18 you only get a very limited 'call mom' phone with no video camera, chat limited to your family, maps to find your way home with and an otherwise very restricted set of apps. Police can take contraband phones from teens much like they can take contraband beer. They would have a distinct design so the types are identifiable. No identity checking system needed for using the general internet as a result. You can still have a family ipad, TV, xbox, switch, laptop, school chromebook, large clunky semi-pro digital camera for movie club, a separate dedicated audio recorder, etc but the key is to stop gossip networks with video recordings / snapchat and make the digital experience similar to what millenials grew up with, the last generation who didn't get a huge spike in anxiety and depression. Yes many teens will still get around it, but the idea is to add a lot of friction so you stop the network effects that are causing this in the first place.