5 ms·
The EFF is very wrong on this one. Some things are bad and we should keep children away from them.
by ungreased0675 4mo ago
The EFF is very wrong on this one. Some things are bad and we should keep children away from them.
- cebert 4mo agoParents are there to protect their children. The potential harm caused by eroded privacy and reduced control over our devices is not worth the perceived benefits of this policy in ensuring children’s safety.
- dreambuffer 4mo agoUnpopular to say, but the government is just better at deciding what's good for most children than their parents when it comes to matters of health. Unfortunately most parents are just very uneducated or lacking in discipline, and no child should be punished in the name of freedom. That being said, age verification laws are obviously a bad way to do that. They should just ban specific categories of social media outright.
- inigyou 4mo agoRight. Cigarette bans for children are unconstitutional.
- applfanboysbgon 4mo agoGreat, you do your job as a parent and keep your children away from them while leaving the rest of us free from your envisioned surveillance state.
- 4ndrewl 4mo agoHe says clicking "accept" to tracking cookies and their 762 "partners"
- 3997531578 4mo agoNot surpised supporters of the regime don't know about tracking protection. It's always the tech illiterates cheering on the surveillance.
- 4ndrewl 4mo agoWeird take. And brutally, if predictably, wrong (client ad-blockers, pihole, wireguard if you must know).
- applfanboysbgon 4mo agoUh, speak for yourself, guy.
- anthk 4mo agoI have no messages for these under Dillo, nor in most browsers with UBo or a global hosts file.
- odiroot 4mo agoSome things, like invasion of privacy, are bad enough, that we should protect all citizens from it, independent of age.
- CuriouslyC 4mo agoI'm all for protecting kids from facebook/insta/snap/etc, they have love hate relationships with all of those, but YT is a bridge too far, is's more a knowledge sharing platform than a social network.
- bob001 4mo agoThen it can separate the two separate components easily to satisfy whatever the law is. If it can’t then it is social media. A lot of YouTube is not knowledge sharing unless you view MrBeast as a sharer of knowledge.
- infotainment 4mo agoIf you primarily choose to watch educational videos sure, but YouTube can give you just as much brainrot as TikTok, depending on what the recommendation engine decides you might like.
- ndngmfksk 4mo agoI think the personalised content and advertising puts it into the same category. At least, I think it has the same problematic incentives.
- infotainment 4mo agoThe answer, IMO, is simply banning all algorithm-driven social media, for everyone and not just kids. This conveniently sidesteps the identity/privacy arguments, makes it much easier to enforce, and would present an even greater net benefit. There is no benefit to algorithmic social media at all, and everyone would be better off without it.
- ungreased0675 4mo agoI’d support that too, unless someone can make a case for the individual or societal benefits of an infinite feed?
- big85 4mo agoWe have parental controls on devices. The change forced by the UK government is to give control to corporations, instead of the parents. Parents are much better at knowing their own kid's age than corporations are. Teens keep fooling the age verification (pointing the camera at a video game character, using fake ID, even drawing beards on their face with a pen). But they aren't going to fool their own mother, and they don't need to trust ID verification startup with photographs of everbody's teenage kids to do it.
- Barrin92 4mo ago>We have parental controls on devices That's irrelevant because social media regulation is a collective action problem. No individual parent can restrict their kids access to social media without ostracizing it, it only makes sense if all parents together get their kids off these platforms.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- joe_mamba 4mo ago>it only makes sense if all parents together get their kids off these platforms Yes, and the wishes of all parents together != the wishes of the UK government which has its own agenda at play in which to weaponize this public outrage for their own benefit(mass surveillance and mass censorship). The UK government doesn't actually want what's best for all the children of all the parents, otherwise it wouldn't have allowed and even enabled the rape gangs and sweep the issue under the rug in a massive coverup.
- Barrin92 4mo ago>Yes, and the wishes of all parents together != the wishes of the UK government This legislation has widespread support among British parents across the political spectrum[1] "As YouGov has shown previously, such a policy would be widely popular with the general public. In our latest survey, looking more specifically at the views of parents, we find that 77% of those with children under the age of 18 would support a ban, compared to only 14% who are opposed.[...] Likewise, 76% of parents think the government needs to kick up their activity on this issue, although a much lower rate of 43% think they need to be doing “much more”." I don't even have any idea what the last paragraph, other than being some generic twitter rant has to do with the topic of the thread [1]https://yougov.com/en-gb/articles/54969-eight-in-ten-parents-say-social-media-use-has-a-negative-impact-on-children https://yougov.com/en-gb/articles/54969-eight-in-ten-parents...
- hactually 4mo agoSo just DNS block them in the UK. They don't need YouTube
- sunaookami 4mo agoThis is not about protecting kids, when will you finally understand?
- inigyou 4mo agoIt's both. Everyone except libertarians wants kids to be protected because right now we're harming them incredibly quickly. Also, Facebook wants that to be implemented by ID scans.
- cindyllm 4mo ago[dead]
- sunaookami 4mo agoNo it's not both. It's an excuse for mass surveillance.
- inigyou 4mo agoSo you think the children aren't being harmed? Or they are being harmed but we shouldn't make it illegal?
- sunaookami 4mo agoYou are still pretending it's about children when it's not.
- inigyou 4mo agoYou are ignoring the question I directly asked you.
- DonHopkins 4mo agoAs long as you're hysterically foaming at the mouth with enraged performative moral panic, then start with keeping kids away from Priests instead of Drag Queens.