4 ms·

Social media age verification is like none of those - social media is the modern public square and age verification is asking everybody to show their papers bef

by dv_dt 4mo ago

Social media age verification is like none of those - social media is the modern public square and age verification is asking everybody to show their papers before participating in free speech in the public. It will have a chilling effect on free speech and will be a tool for authoritarian control

Nursie 4mo ago
Social media as it has become now is a shitshow where a minority of angry and/or disingenuous posters dominate discourse. Twitter (X) was never the public square, and now it's little more than a playground for propagandists. The rest of us do well to ignore it, and it seems that even the 'legacy' media are starting to realise the days of breathlessly reporting on tweet-storms weren't great for anyone.
- hparadiz 4mo ago
  In a recent survey of under sixteen year olds in a place where an under sixteen social media ban exists asked how many of them used social media found that 80% were still using it. Do you actually need a login to consume social media? The answer to that is no. You can doom scroll all you want on sites like Reddit with no account whatsoever.
simondotau 4mo ago
A poor analogy. The public square has never been properly anonymous. If you start saying things which contravene laws or the rights of others, the police have been able to capture you and unmask your identity, if concealed.
- hparadiz 4mo ago
  People publish entire books anonymously.
  - simondotau 4mo ago
    Yes, and plenty of people have spoken in the public square anonymously too, because the police didn't feel the need to arrest them. Publishing a book anonymously in the public square still means someone has to physically manufacture it, distribute it, convince you to read it, and pay for all of this. All these steps are subject to interdiction by the police.
- dv_dt 4mo ago
  So the solution for criminals in the public is for everybody to show their papers walking into a public square? It is not, we have requirements for police process like warrants and a process for determining the requirements for urgent conditions of arrest.
  - bluegatty 4mo ago
    No, obviously not, and this is a completely glib argument. Who is suggesting people 'show their papers' to go into a public square? Literally nobody. It really demonstrates how bad the analogy is - so much so that it's not even analogy. The 'social controls' on the 'public square' are limited by a few laws (aka directed violence) but apart from that you can say as you like, kids can as well - it's where parents can be parents. And - don't have problem with kids in the public square. We have a very real problem with kids on social media, verifiable, scientific. Kids are depressed, distracted, they bully each other, they're creeped on, and they're not yet in the business having serious discussions about 'Mein Kampf' - they're kids. Everything in kids lives is introduced in an 'age appropriate' fashion - literally everything. Given the toxicity of social media, it's a 'primary concern' for one of those gated things. This is not even an argument - the only argument is 'the slippery slope'.
    - dv_dt 4mo ago
      The science for age bans on social media is weak at best. There were pretty much terrible studies done during Covid and did not attribute all sorts of uncertainty going on at the same time. If the point were to improve on the mental health of kids there are countless underfunded public programs. Especially in the US, social support programs like food, healthcare basic and mental, actual physical public spaces for kids, arts in curriculum, etc.
      - simondotau 4mo ago
        For what it’s worth, as an Australian, and as the operator of an online community, I unreservedly approve of the social media ban enforced by our government. Conversely, I don’t agree with the way some other countries are going about it. Especially the UK with the abysmal way they have physically policed online speech by adults. Incredibly sad to see police prioritise non-violent “speech crimes” because they’re too scaredy-cat to tackle actual violent crime. There is a reasonable answer to be found, if we're willing to be inventive. It shouldn’t be beyond the imagination of cryptography experts to design a system where only governments can issue an age identification certificate, which individuals can use to generate verifiable proof of age tokens. But where the tokens can’t be used by the government to identify the individual.
pavlov 4mo ago
Was there ever a public square where children could participate anonymously among adults? (I’m imagining three Dickensian urchins in a trench coat giving a speech in Hyde Park.)
bluegatty 4mo ago
Your local library has age and ID requirements. Your local 'town square' has 'some rules'. Parents are entirely able to overcome any of this if they so choose - including feeding their kids alcohol, guns etc. - and so the freedom does materially exist. Social Media isn't a place for free expression - it's mostly toxic - like exposing your children to the most vile, inauthentic people. The more genteel places, frankly, won't have much in the way of age restrictions. Entire nations are banning social media for kids because it's just not healthy - the teachers want it, the parents want it, the data seems to support it. I think you're right to be (very concerned) but this is a necessary discussion. As a teacher.
- dv_dt 4mo ago
  My local librarian did not restrict my books to the kids section when I was a kid. Also librarians have fought civil legal battles to keep reading activities anonymous. Libraries are unlike the restrictions and risks of the proposed legislation being discussed for social media
  - bluegatty 4mo ago
    ? --> Your local library fought for your right to read literature of some kind. ---> They did not fight for your right to gang up on others and call them the n-word, to spread lies and slander about people, to harass children and expose them to creeps and pedophiles, to inundate children with hyper-targeted advertising, or 'Andrew Tate 'how to beat women' seminars'. Nobody is pushing for a ban on social media so that the kids will be stopped from reading 'Judy Bloom' stories about a girl's 'first period'. It's disingenuous to suggest that this has anything to do with the causes your librarians stand for. Literally the opposite - your librarians are creating essentially 'safe spaces' for kids so they can read and be civil.
    - dv_dt 4mo ago
      Im not sure of your direction as the age verification legislation also does not address this: | They did not fight for your right to gang up on others and call them the n-word, to spread lies and slander about people, to harass children and expose them to creeps and pedophiles, to inundate children with hyper-targeted advertising, or 'Andrew Tate 'how to beat women' seminars'. I think existing laws should be engaged to address pedophiles and incitement of violence in public spaces and social media - no new legislation is really needed. Barring potential victims from a place instead of prosecuting the noxious behavior from the public place seems like an odd approach indeed. As for libraries - libraries are curated spaces of freedom that are obviously under assault by right wing parties to ban books that support cultural and personal acceptance for other societies as well as out groups like lgbt information, and even basic women's health information. The problem for authoritarians is libraries are too free - not that they are "curated".
TFNA 4mo ago
The public square was in communities small enough where townspeople knew each other, and so speech was not anonymous besides those who penned (but not those who distributed) unattributed pamphlets. Moreover, if the speech you were pronouncing was beyond the pale of the community’s values, you could face retribution for it, whether judicial or extra-judicial like tarring and feathering. Even in the nascent USA whose political elite was high on Lockean ideas of natural rights and freedom of speech, the public square was never a free-for-all.
- raxxorraxor 4mo ago
  My supposedly modern government has problems with all kinds of speech and this is a lazy excuse. Government needs really hard boundaries and not being able to identify someone who perhaps said something controversial is a pretty good one. You are right about the public square. That is pretty much what governments want to enforce. To silence everyone not in line, like in medieval towns.
gherkinnn 4mo ago
Social media, as we have it today, has nothing to do with a public square. A public square does not have trolls and bots from across the globe teleporting in and out. A public square does not amplify the most divisive comments and drown out your friends's holiday photos because the former makes the ad space more profitable.

by dv_dt 4mo ago

Nursie 4mo ago

Social media as it has become now is a shitshow where a minority of angry and/or disingenuous posters dominate discourse. Twitter (X) was never the public square, and now it's little more than a playground for propagandists. The rest of us do well to ignore it, and it seems that even the 'legacy' media are starting to realise the days of breathlessly reporting on tweet-storms weren't great for anyone.

hparadiz 4mo ago
In a recent survey of under sixteen year olds in a place where an under sixteen social media ban exists asked how many of them used social media found that 80% were still using it. Do you actually need a login to consume social media? The answer to that is no. You can doom scroll all you want on sites like Reddit with no account whatsoever.

simondotau 4mo ago

A poor analogy. The public square has never been properly anonymous. If you start saying things which contravene laws or the rights of others, the police have been able to capture you and unmask your identity, if concealed.

hparadiz 4mo ago
People publish entire books anonymously.
- simondotau 4mo ago
  Yes, and plenty of people have spoken in the public square anonymously too, because the police didn't feel the need to arrest them. Publishing a book anonymously in the public square still means someone has to physically manufacture it, distribute it, convince you to read it, and pay for all of this. All these steps are subject to interdiction by the police.
dv_dt 4mo ago
So the solution for criminals in the public is for everybody to show their papers walking into a public square? It is not, we have requirements for police process like warrants and a process for determining the requirements for urgent conditions of arrest.
- bluegatty 4mo ago
  No, obviously not, and this is a completely glib argument. Who is suggesting people 'show their papers' to go into a public square? Literally nobody. It really demonstrates how bad the analogy is - so much so that it's not even analogy. The 'social controls' on the 'public square' are limited by a few laws (aka directed violence) but apart from that you can say as you like, kids can as well - it's where parents can be parents. And - don't have problem with kids in the public square. We have a very real problem with kids on social media, verifiable, scientific. Kids are depressed, distracted, they bully each other, they're creeped on, and they're not yet in the business having serious discussions about 'Mein Kampf' - they're kids. Everything in kids lives is introduced in an 'age appropriate' fashion - literally everything. Given the toxicity of social media, it's a 'primary concern' for one of those gated things. This is not even an argument - the only argument is 'the slippery slope'.
  - dv_dt 4mo ago
    The science for age bans on social media is weak at best. There were pretty much terrible studies done during Covid and did not attribute all sorts of uncertainty going on at the same time. If the point were to improve on the mental health of kids there are countless underfunded public programs. Especially in the US, social support programs like food, healthcare basic and mental, actual physical public spaces for kids, arts in curriculum, etc.
    - simondotau 4mo ago
      For what it’s worth, as an Australian, and as the operator of an online community, I unreservedly approve of the social media ban enforced by our government. Conversely, I don’t agree with the way some other countries are going about it. Especially the UK with the abysmal way they have physically policed online speech by adults. Incredibly sad to see police prioritise non-violent “speech crimes” because they’re too scaredy-cat to tackle actual violent crime. There is a reasonable answer to be found, if we're willing to be inventive. It shouldn’t be beyond the imagination of cryptography experts to design a system where only governments can issue an age identification certificate, which individuals can use to generate verifiable proof of age tokens. But where the tokens can’t be used by the government to identify the individual.

pavlov 4mo ago

Was there ever a public square where children could participate anonymously among adults? (I’m imagining three Dickensian urchins in a trench coat giving a speech in Hyde Park.)

bluegatty 4mo ago

Your local library has age and ID requirements. Your local 'town square' has 'some rules'. Parents are entirely able to overcome any of this if they so choose - including feeding their kids alcohol, guns etc. - and so the freedom does materially exist. Social Media isn't a place for free expression - it's mostly toxic - like exposing your children to the most vile, inauthentic people. The more genteel places, frankly, won't have much in the way of age restrictions. Entire nations are banning social media for kids because it's just not healthy - the teachers want it, the parents want it, the data seems to support it. I think you're right to be (very concerned) but this is a necessary discussion. As a teacher.

dv_dt 4mo ago
My local librarian did not restrict my books to the kids section when I was a kid. Also librarians have fought civil legal battles to keep reading activities anonymous. Libraries are unlike the restrictions and risks of the proposed legislation being discussed for social media
- bluegatty 4mo ago
  ? --> Your local library fought for your right to read literature of some kind. ---> They did not fight for your right to gang up on others and call them the n-word, to spread lies and slander about people, to harass children and expose them to creeps and pedophiles, to inundate children with hyper-targeted advertising, or 'Andrew Tate 'how to beat women' seminars'. Nobody is pushing for a ban on social media so that the kids will be stopped from reading 'Judy Bloom' stories about a girl's 'first period'. It's disingenuous to suggest that this has anything to do with the causes your librarians stand for. Literally the opposite - your librarians are creating essentially 'safe spaces' for kids so they can read and be civil.
  - dv_dt 4mo ago
    Im not sure of your direction as the age verification legislation also does not address this: | They did not fight for your right to gang up on others and call them the n-word, to spread lies and slander about people, to harass children and expose them to creeps and pedophiles, to inundate children with hyper-targeted advertising, or 'Andrew Tate 'how to beat women' seminars'. I think existing laws should be engaged to address pedophiles and incitement of violence in public spaces and social media - no new legislation is really needed. Barring potential victims from a place instead of prosecuting the noxious behavior from the public place seems like an odd approach indeed. As for libraries - libraries are curated spaces of freedom that are obviously under assault by right wing parties to ban books that support cultural and personal acceptance for other societies as well as out groups like lgbt information, and even basic women's health information. The problem for authoritarians is libraries are too free - not that they are "curated".

TFNA 4mo ago

The public square was in communities small enough where townspeople knew each other, and so speech was not anonymous besides those who penned (but not those who distributed) unattributed pamphlets. Moreover, if the speech you were pronouncing was beyond the pale of the community’s values, you could face retribution for it, whether judicial or extra-judicial like tarring and feathering. Even in the nascent USA whose political elite was high on Lockean ideas of natural rights and freedom of speech, the public square was never a free-for-all.

raxxorraxor 4mo ago
My supposedly modern government has problems with all kinds of speech and this is a lazy excuse. Government needs really hard boundaries and not being able to identify someone who perhaps said something controversial is a pretty good one. You are right about the public square. That is pretty much what governments want to enforce. To silence everyone not in line, like in medieval towns.

gherkinnn 4mo ago

Social media, as we have it today, has nothing to do with a public square. A public square does not have trolls and bots from across the globe teleporting in and out. A public square does not amplify the most divisive comments and drown out your friends's holiday photos because the former makes the ad space more profitable.