why 'silly' conspiracy? Many cases of documented conspiracy in the past anyway.

Being on this social media (YC) people aware it's all about implementation and we should at least demanding better solutions. If you want to regulate/limit access of kids to social media just make that you have to be 16 years old to buy simcard - in many places in EU you already have to show ID to seller.

Allow parent to buy simcard to their under 16 year old children if thats what they want to and allow parents to decide at their home wifi if kid should have access to social media or not.

▲

andrewla 5 hours ago | parent [-]

For the first part -- silly because there's literally no evidence presented of a conspiracy. No connection between the individual agents and actors. No motivation given for the underlying commonalities. And most importantly, for this "scale" of conspiracy, there's no suggestion that other avenues towards the same nefarious ends are in progress. It's just a bunch of countries and organizations proposing similar laws based on concerns, that while (at least to me) are exaggerated and overstated, are nonetheless well-documented, reported, and widely believed in good faith.

As for finding a technical solution, jury is still out but I am unconvinced that it is possible to have a solution that a) prevents children from using an online service, b) allows adults to use the service, and c) does not identify the specific adult who is using the service. You proposed solution is no exception.

▲

fc417fc802 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> silly because there's literally no evidence

The evidence is the part where it very obviously isn't organic. The behavior is clearly too coordinated when compared to past global changes in regulation.

> People and lawmakers are just not thinking through the privacy implications ...

It seems much more likely to me that they are thinking them through and that they have ulterior motives.

BTW "violent agreement" refers to when two parties are arguing because they mistakenly believe that they disagree. A sort of friendly fire if you will. The term you were looking for was something like enthusiastic or similar.

▲

Supermancho 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> The evidence is the part where it very obviously isn't organic.

Global Context: Norway joins France, Spain, and Denmark, which are considering similar measures, while Australia and Turkey (which bans users under 15) have already implemented restrictions. The UK recently rejected a similar under-16 ban.

I think it obviously is. Just as much as the migration to solar is organic. There are foils, but there is also an underpinning concerns fueling the global momentum. It's very likely that the functioning western governments (ie still representing the public's interests) are doing just that. These foils include the public service who work with children, who have been sounding the alarm for years being heard and the population that grew up with social media, are now old enough to do something about what they perceive as damaging.

	▲	fc417fc802 44 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Where have you provided anything to refute the observation that this bears the hallmark of being centrally orchestrated? The context you cite appears to trivially restate my own observations rather than support a counterargument. International laws never proceed in such a uniform manner all at once like this without external coordination. Of course the lobbyists are playing off of public sentiment and almost certainly working to actively fan those same flames. Notice that the laws aren't the most sensible or least intrusive but rather just about the minimally privacy preserving and maximally authoritarian enabling "solution" that you could possibly come up with. Also notice the convenient alignment of this outcome with various well established ulterior motives of existing actors.

▲

pzo 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

the solution is parents doing their parenting - government should if necessary only help educate them about existing tools + enforce no phones in basic school. I don't think any solution will prevent children from using an online service if very determined - they will commit identity fraud.

▲

pessimizer 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> No connection between the individual agents and actors.

This is obviously untrue. They all know each other and communicate. This would be true even if it were something more anodyne like antismoking regulation (that governments maybe don't have a particular stake in.) They coordinate their messaging, they use the same publicity agencies, they apply for the same financing, they cosponsor and circulate the same studies and thinktank output. Why would you just say that there is no connection between them?

What I think you've done is silently dismissed the open connections as harmless. It's really a "no true connection." The evidence would have to be a bunch of connected organizations with Snidely Whiplash mustaches, or an explicit declaration of conspiratorial intent written down, signed, and published in a newspaper that you approve of.

Although I can't imagine what they could possibly confess to: "We coordinated with national governments to generate studies and messaging, were funded by them directly and indirectly, through foundation grants, lobbied politicians who would support the bans and gave them statements to make, and attacked politicians who were against the bans."

What's wrong with that? You make it sound like some sort of conspiracy.

If we try to argue this case on the merits we've already lost. There's no technical reason to root everyone's computer to keep kids offline. Just put age statements in the protocol, legally make people serving adult material require them, and give people the tools to strip those statements or put them behind passwords at the workstation, server, or even ISP level. Kids would get around it, but they'll certainly get around this, too, unless you're going to require cameras on computers to identify their users at all times.

It's a pretense.