4 ms·

French lawmakers approve a social media ban for children under 15

4 points by 1vuio0pswjnm7 3mo ago

JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
Good. The motive makes sense. If more people gave a shit about civically engaging on implementation, we'd be better off. But that isn't happening–there might be too much overlap between the civically disengaged and nihilistic and those who can advise on this. So, for the time being, we're stuck with medicore implementations. In the meantime, Zuckerberg and Mosseri can stop attacking children.
- mytailorisrich 3mo ago
  Cynically, this is another use of "think of the children" to make everyone identify themselves when signing up for anything classed as "social media", bearing in mind that everyone has an ID card in France, which can be used via smartphones to identify yourself online ("your papers always accessible", actually quote). This also comes the same week as a French senatorial report proposes to label and control online speech further against so-called "domestic interference",which sounds rather ominous. Even better, Macron also recently said that he wanted news media to get an official label based on their trustworthyness, which is also ominous.
  - JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
    > this is another use of "think of the children" to make everyone identify themselves when signing up for anything Nope. I'm pretty rabid when it comes to my privacy. But I also don't like Mosseri and Zuckerberg and Altman preying on kids. I'd love a perfect solution. But I'll take a flawed one in its place. I've not seen a lot of productive pushback against these proposals beyond demonising all of the parents and other folks who think social media and its ilk have gone too far, unchecked.
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
rurban 3mo ago
Good? First it doesn't help the kids all as seen in Australia. Circumvented by those who want. And unpunishable. But most importantly it breaks the anonymous net. State actors can now trivially identify everybody, companies will follow. It's probably also against EU law

4 points by 1vuio0pswjnm7 3mo ago

Good. The motive makes sense. If more people gave a shit about civically engaging on implementation, we'd be better off. But that isn't happening–there might be too much overlap between the civically disengaged and nihilistic and those who can advise on this. So, for the time being, we're stuck with medicore implementations. In the meantime, Zuckerberg and Mosseri can stop attacking children.

mytailorisrich 3mo ago
Cynically, this is another use of "think of the children" to make everyone identify themselves when signing up for anything classed as "social media", bearing in mind that everyone has an ID card in France, which can be used via smartphones to identify yourself online ("your papers always accessible", actually quote). This also comes the same week as a French senatorial report proposes to label and control online speech further against so-called "domestic interference",which sounds rather ominous. Even better, Macron also recently said that he wanted news media to get an official label based on their trustworthyness, which is also ominous.
- JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
  > this is another use of "think of the children" to make everyone identify themselves when signing up for anything Nope. I'm pretty rabid when it comes to my privacy. But I also don't like Mosseri and Zuckerberg and Altman preying on kids. I'd love a perfect solution. But I'll take a flawed one in its place. I've not seen a lot of productive pushback against these proposals beyond demonising all of the parents and other folks who think social media and its ilk have gone too far, unchecked.

deleted 3mo ago

[deleted]

rurban 3mo ago

Good? First it doesn't help the kids all as seen in Australia. Circumvented by those who want. And unpunishable. But most importantly it breaks the anonymous net. State actors can now trivially identify everybody, companies will follow. It's probably also against EU law