It is really disheartening to see the sentiment around privacy erode like this. Fifteen or even ten years ago this would have been unanimously and vehemently opposed, but now it is somehow up for debate?
Though I think banning it for children is the wrong approach. Ban the addictive and dangerous features for everyone, adults included — no more infinite scroll, and no more feeds showing content from outside social connections.
So, kill all news agencies and reporters I guess? or would there be a carve out for incumbents so they can cement their market share? who controls the approval list?
That alone is a value add people don't realize even as they're losing it: it created a shared reality you and locals inhabited, that you could have a conversation about.
Even if you want expand from social and allow commercial activity on them, it should still only be whoever you actually chose. It's not like Fox News can interrupt a BBC News broadcast on TV, or The New York Times can substitute itself for your normal copy of The Cambridge News: you chose what source you get, not an algorithm. (And there is a specific named editor to blame if some false story gets in that wasn't checked first for actually being true).
Australia did this, now everything is worse with no tangible improvement to "child safety" or protection from brainrot.
Except this has nothing to do with social media nor with children nor with addiction.
We've had time to witness the damage of a dopamine-doomscroll. I personally know children who've posted too much, and children who've been solicited directly by adults, both to try and meet and for nudes. And we've seen the complete lack of positive action from platforms. Roblox is full of paedophiles and Grok was letting you nudify your classmates just a few months ago. These places aren't suitable for kids.
I don't want a ban on VPNs. That isn't being suggested, just making sure they're also age-checked. But some inconvenience is a price worth considering.
I'm trying to discuss this in good faith but that wasn't even an argument. A bland accusation wearing a tin foil hat.
You could argue the benefit to children in repealing it.
Sure, whatever. Maybe in some ways.
> I personally know children who've posted too much, and children who've been solicited directly by adults, both to try and meet and for nudes.
... but not in that way.
I personally knew children who'd been solicited directly by adults before there was even an Internet. Including me, if you use the definition of "child" that seems to be popular in this sort of debate (and, by the way, it wasn't a big deal).
We did not shut down the world because of it.
I'd be surprised if the law requires much beyond a vague best effort from service providers, but many already block connections from known server hosts and some even VPNs.
An airtight block is not what's required; stopping social media being mainstream for kids is.
You're trying to frame it as an "inconvenience" and not a blatant attack on the fundamental freedom of expression. I get that social media is bad, but sometimes (often) the cure is worse than the illness.
These "platform design problems" are features for some adults. If they want to pour their life into being radicalised by a neverending, bias-confirming, slop-filled doom scroll, that's their choice, isn't it? Outright prohibition is far more fraught both politically and technically.
Blocking 100% of kids isn't required to prevent harm. The key is finding the optimum balance.
Services that enable circumvention is a natural extension. Yes that means going through the same verification process you do with pornhub with your VPN host.
Completely by-the-by, your school networking experience is notably different from mine. Ours are locked down. Kids don't get access on their own devices. They whitelist domains, Google has educational filters, etc, etc. Could somebody red team their way through it? Maybe. Kids aren't.
And thanks for confirming kids can absolutely get around your locked down network, you're just betting they won't bother. So the actual plan is "trust kids not to circumvent it" for school wifi but "can't trust adults not to circumvent it" for VPNs. Pick a level of trust and stick with it.
I have a Facebook account primarily for Market Place under a completely fake name. I very rarely comment on things on Facebook, but it feels good knowing that my real name is not being posted. From a glance, Meta cannot confirm this account is owed by Joe Blogs.
Not every country that exists is like that. People aren’t inherently “dumb”. Uneducated, sure.
- totally benign film set in the UK
Coders went from being civically active—calling their electeds and showing up to events to defend privacy in the 90s—to being comfortably rich and content with maybe voting in generals. That’s had a direct effect on policy quality.