• chuckleslord
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Yep, hold the victims responsible, let the criminals get even more data. Brilliant!

      • [object Object]@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        There exists an obvious safe and private way to protect kids, yet every government has chosen to pursue the one that requires violating privacy with age verification instead of on-device parental controls.

        • lightsblinken
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          doesnt seem that obvious. on device controls are pretty fractured and dont engage with the social media companies specifically, who typically just say “but you should have done something yourself, we surely cant do it for you!” or some other disingenious flippery.

  • rollerbang
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 month ago

    I couldn’t quite decide for quite a while about this. Always leaning against the ban though. Now I’m completely set that it’s a dreadful idea. Just building a database of everybody over a couple of generations.

    Let parents parent their children. Teach them to parent their children. The government is NOT a parent.

  • TeaWithDani
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    Why don’t we just ban Meta from operating? Why can’t every democracy just recognize that Meta is 99% the problem with “social media” and just ban that shit.

    They promote misinformation and actively subvert democracies. They show adverts of scams and csam. They do nothing to enforce any rules and regulations when scams or csam is flagged.

    Just ban Meta. Make an example of them, and watch all the other competitors make their platforms really safe, really fast.

  • Supercrunchy@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    There is some research proving that there are harmful effects in social media, so the proposal is not completely without merits, but I think it negatively affects both teenagers and adults alike.

    IMHO they should have banned social media but not social networks. A lot of harm is coming from the algorithmic content pushed on people and social feeds are now 90% ads and shills pushing an agenda, while people are there mostly to “not miss out” the friends’ activities.

    They could have fixed the problem at the root and tampered the propaganda machine, instead this proposal is likely going to force a terrible implementation of age or identity verification. It might not be too bad if they standardize on some privacy-preserving zero-knowledge-proof solution, but I find that somewhat unlikely.

    Another problem with the current proposal is that, if they really wanted to make it age-restricted, a more sensible option would have been to start the ban from a much younger age (I don’t know - 5? 8?) increasing it 1 year per year indefinitely, instead of suddenly removing access from people that already have all their friends there. The current implementation will make the EU very unpopular with all the teenagers, and they’ll likely still find ways to access it anyway.

    • Honytawk@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Why? So Russia can invade whatever country they desire?

      The EU is one of the best things to come out of Europe. It has put many small countries on the map that would otherwise be dumped by big corporations when they require to follow their laws.

      It also has prevented world wars in Europe for over 75 years.

      And the border between Eu countries being open has brought all of us closer together. There are plenty of people who live in one country but work in an other, and make a border trip twice a day.

      The EU isn’t perfect, but it is a hell of a lot better than no EU. Just ask the Brits.

  • abc@suppo.fi
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    Good idea. So much psychological damage could’ve been prevented in the last few generations if this had been in place already 6 years ago.

    I think it would be easier and more effective to just ban the personal devices though.

    • Grainne@lemmy.dbzer0.comOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      It’s a terrible idea. If they want to stop the content, go after the corporations who are running platforms of hate and not moderating them.

      All this does is marginalised children and disconnect them from other minorities and ideas. It’s a response to children valuing Palestine or becoming LGBT from seeing others like them.

    • Railcar8095
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Isn’t it curious, that the worse takes always come from new accounts? Could it be ban evasion…?