I understand the concern but then to make this available for adults you now have to provide proof of age to companies, which opens up another can of privacy worms.

▲

skybrian a day ago | parent | next [-]

Theoretically we don't actually need proof of age. Websites need to know when the user is attempting to create an account or log in from a child-locked device. Parents need to make sure their kids only have child-locked devices. Vendors need to make sure they don't sell unlocked devices to kids.

▲

seanmcdirmid 41 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> Theoretically we don't actually need proof of age. Websites need to know when the user is attempting to create an account or log in from a child-locked device. Parents need to make sure their kids only have child-locked devices. Vendors need to make sure they don't sell unlocked devices to kids.

Given how current parental controls work, kids are not getting access if their device is under parental control (the default for open web access is off). So Facebook still won't see any child-locked devices, even before this ruling. My guess is that this ruling applies to parents who aren't making sure their kids get access only via child locked devices.

▲

itissid 32 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Theoretically only

> Surveys by Britain’s tech regulator, Ofcom, find that among children aged 10-12, over half use Snapchat, more than 60% TikTok and more than 70% WhatsApp. All three apps have a notional minimum age of 13.

https://archive.ph/y3pQO

▲

polyomino a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Children do not want child locked devices and they will find alternatives

▲

itissid 16 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

The issue is not just age verification but also device pinning.

I think the framework here is to have community driven age verifiers( i recall there is an EU effort for digital wallets which besides it's bad parts has some of these good parts) which can verify ages for people and link them to( local biometrically encrypted) devices for pinning. This would be privacy preserving. The only downside is a mandate for all devices have a built-in hardware biometric encryption like a finger/face print so phones can't be just(used) with these apps installed.

The verification part is a job that could be done by all the teachers and coaches and ofc parents. Any one verifying identities would be cryptographically nominated/revoked by a number of more senior members of the community. A prent always get the right to say ok for their kid ofc but so could teachers or legal guardians..

We(legally) need a mandate for smart devices to have local device only biometric verification. The law should be to have these apps follow device app store protocols.

▲

sixsevenrot 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As with smoking, alcohol, sex, drugs etc

Children who are smart enough to get access to a given vice without getting caught are more likely to be mature enough to be able to cope with that vice.

	▲	cr125rider 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I think we’re going to see how that plays out with gambling. It seems a bit silly to think security abstinence is the solution.

▲

skybrian a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

True, it's never going to be 100%, but at least it's a tractable problem for parents. Enough to change what the culture considers "normal," anyway.

▲

IAmBroom 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Imperfect solutions are still called "solutions".

▲

kakacik 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Well then don't give them money to do so, its not like phones grow on trees. If you make selling phone/internet device to a minor under certain threshold an illegal act severely punished by law in same way alcohol and cigarettes are, many cases of access are solved. Also, paid internet subscription doesn't grow on the trees even though there are free wifi networks.

All imperfect solutions, but they slice original huge problem into much smaller chunks which are easier to tackle with next approach.

▲

kelseyfrog a day ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

genthree a day ago | parent | next [-]

I believe Zuckerberg has a term for people who willingly break online anonymity because someone with a domain name and website asks them to.

▲

throwaway27727 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Establishments don't record my data or even take down my name. They take a look at the birthdate and wave me forward.

▲

triceratops a day ago | parent | next [-]

We need a way to do this online.

▲

kelseyfrog a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> Establishments don't record my data or even take down my name.

What are you talking about. Have you really never rented a car before?

Some establishments, as part of their business practice, require identification.

▲

triceratops a day ago | parent [-]

And many don't. Bars, nightclubs, liquor stores, tobacconists, R-rated movies.

▲

kelseyfrog a day ago | parent [-]

We don't see people worried that bars, nightclubs, liquor stores, tobacconists, R-rated movies asking for age verification will slip into requiring names too.

It honestly looks like an emotional panic. People who take seriously slippery slopes aren't to be taken seriously themselves.

Social media is like e-cigarettes in the sense that the shift toward nicotine salts (think Juul) around 2015 resulted in e-cigarettes becoming more dangerous and thus more age-restricted.

It's also like consumer credit cards. Remember that in 1985 Bank of America just mailed out 60,000 unsolicited credit cards to residents of Fresno, CA without application, age verification, or identity check. They just landed in people's mailboxes, including those of minors. Eventually a predatory lending industry developed and we increased the age and ID requirements. My point is that systems can, and do become more dangerous overtime. Not all, but not none.

Algorithmic feeds, online advertising, and attention engineering are the nicotine salts of social media. The product's changed, so should the access.

▲

duskdozer 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>We don't see people worried that bars, nightclubs, liquor stores, tobacconists, R-rated movies asking for age verification will slip into requiring names too.

Do we not? Sellers often don't just look at IDs now, they scan them into their system, and naturally, keep and sell your identity info, purchase data, and anything else they have access to.

>Algorithmic feeds, online advertising, and attention engineering are the nicotine salts of social media. The product's changed, so should the access.

This basically makes it clear. The problem is not that children are on social media. The problem is that "social media" has been allowed to become a platform for exploitation and manipulation by their owners. Adults aren't free from this either.

▲

ndriscoll a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Digital age verification laws I've read also literally specifically ban recording that information, unlike in person. People were arguing with me that companies would decide they need to retain that info for audit purposes when there are no audit requirements and when it's illegal to store it for any reason.

▲

triceratops a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> People who take seriously slippery slopes aren't to be taken seriously themselves

> Eventually a predatory lending industry developed and we increased the age and ID requirements

I have no idea if you're arguing for or against verification. You dismissed the idea that age verification is a slipper slope to more stringent ID requirements. Then provided an example where the exact opposite happened.

	▲	kelseyfrog a day ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not arguing that social media will get worse, I'm arguing that it has gotten worse. A slippery slope argues that something will happen. I'm pointing out that it has happened. Huge difference. Even more, my point is that rules, regulations, and requirements adapt when these changes become unbearable. That has happened with social media, therefore a change in rules, regulations, and requirements is deserved.