Seems entirely reasonable to me. Make an app you market as suitable for teens, show your working that led you to decide that suitability.
Requiring every company to prove why something us suitable for their market also means the government has absolute control over what is and isn't acceptable for any citizen to have access to. That's some seriously distopian shit in my opinion.
they dont require every company. Just the largest in this segment.
Short of that its just a current norm for how the law is enforced. Nothing stops the next regulator from expanding that power.
That said, this app, like so many other social media apps, is trash. People should be choosing not to use it regardless of regulations.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
1. Providers of online platforms accessible to minors shall put in place appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure a high level of privacy, safety, and security of minors, on their service.
That's a heavy burden that we enforce on many other consumer products. That's why we have certification processes in place, quality testing and compliance testing. From airplanes, to cars, to bikes, to helmets, to food, to medication, to toys, to appliances, to paints and chemicals, etc.
Regulations evolve because societies evolve.
In this case, it would appear that enforcement is evolving while regulations aren't being changed.
That said, this app and so many other social media apps are trash. People should be choosing not to use them regardless of regulations.
We have just sent a request for information regarding the launch of #TikTokLite.
We will spare no effort to protect minors under the #DSA.
'Is social media "lite" as addictive and toxic as cigarettes "light"?
We have just sent a request for information regarding the launch of #TikTokLite.
We will spare no effort to protect minors under the #DSA.'
My reading of the DSA is that is is primarily about disclosure of how content algorithms work, not the impact on users. I could very well be wrong there, but a tweet claiming they want to use the DSA as enforcement there doesn't really clarify anything unfortunately.
Isn't it what the CE marking means on physical products though? It means the manufacturer claims the product is conform to regulation, which presumably includes "not harmful to the intended users".
While CE marking can be a self-declaration depending on the type of product (some products require third-party control) at any moment each EU state can check it, and in any case a control process has to be documented.
The parent comment just wishes to apply the same to non-physical products, which doesn't strike me as extremely heavy or unreasonable.
It's so dystopian that people can't access weapons or poison from their local shop, with no limitations.
We absolutely have regulations like this already. I’d almost argue there are more consumer products subject to regulation than not.
For a more specific example, teens are not allowed to use gambling apps. I don’t see many people arguing that is tyrannical government overreach. Here, TikTok is creating an addictive app that offers you monetary rewards for watching videos and completing menial tasks. It sounds more like employment than leisure activity, why shouldn’t we interrogate the suitability of something like that? Why give these social media companies, which have proven themselves untrustworthy time and time again, the benefit of the doubt?
We can always add more regulations, though there's an official process to it. There is a line though, and while I absolutely see value in some regulations given how complex we've made society, a government with full authority to deem what is and is not appropriate for any specific group of people is extremely heavy handed.
I don't actually want to give social media companies the benefit of the doubt. People shouldn't use that trash and parents should be helping their kids decide if those apps are actually something they want to use. If people really see the value in that kind if app, though, we only avoid the problem rather than fix it by banning apps or limiting access from the top down.
Right, I feel like ultimately this is a debate about what happens in that window.
“There is no regulation in this potentially dangerous area, companies should be free to do what they wish while we craft regulation”
vs
“There is no regulation in this potentially dangerous area, we should heavily limit what companies can do while we craft regulation”
In this case, it seems like having regulations is a horse and pony show if the government can enforce regulations that don't yet exist. In the most kind view, writing regulations is helpful so we at least know what they already plan to enforce. In a pessimistic view, writing regulations is only done to help the public think that everything is above board and that power isn't, and won't, be abused.
"EXPLAIN THIS FUN GAME!"
"Well we wanted to make a fun game, so we made it fun."
"THAT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL!!"
And besides:
> The app is called TikTok Lite and offers the chance to "to complete challenging tasks and earn great rewards!"
> Tasks include watching vids, liking content, or following other users. Rewards include Amazon vouchers, PayPal gift cards, or TikTok's in-app currency that can be used to tip other members.
Is this a “game”? Really?
"explain this non-fun, stress-inducing addiction generator"
"well, we wanted to make a lot of money with incredibly low effort, so we just found out how to best psychologically manipulate users into being unable to leave and stress them into giving us money while they're there in various ways."
"wait why was this not already illegal"
The difference to a game is that a game is first and foremost designed to be entertaining and the user starts playing and stick around with it because they like the entertainment. An addiction to a non-malicious game could be considered like an addiction to good food. Not great, but you're addicted to what you like. Some games (and foods) are more addictive than others, and some games are particularly malicious and are occasionally struck down against or hung out for their methods, but it's overall seen as okay.
These apps are not meant to be entertaining. They use stress, FOMO or outright manipulation to make you return. This addiction is more like being addicted to cigarettes. One can argue whether even self-harm should be up to the individual, but no sane individual would argue that cigarettes are good or that tobacco companies are anything other than evil. If the cigarette was invented now, would we have allowed them to proliferate?
Drawing the line is hard, and I don't like others making decisions for me, but I also don't like society forcing you to join an abusive platform as you'd otherwise miss out on whatever basic societal functions people put there, so enforcing that platforms play nice seems fair.