There is no evidence it is actually coming from Meta. The Reddit researcher the article cites generated their entire "analysis" in three days using Claude: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47659552

Their website also added this page since I posted that comment: https://web.archive.org/web/20260411112604/https://tboteproj... where they claim their website is under "surveillance" because it got a few thousand requests from Google Cloud et al, most of them to a single page. This shows how low their standards are.

▲

Aurornis 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The way that Reddit "researcher" had Claude bang out a GitHub repo in a couple days and single-handedly established the narrative throughout the internet is scary.

When it was released I read a few of the reports in this repo and they didn't even support the claims made. Claude was admitting it couldn't find the evidence.

It's terrifying how easily this misinfo operation established itself as fact on websites where users view themselves as being more informed than average on these topics, like Hacker News.

	▲	homtanks 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The users here are probably more misinformed than average on several topics, including this one, due to community flagging and downvoting behavior which has the effect of filtering out reasonable criticism, and restricting discussion to a narrow range of viewpoints.

▲

JumpCrisscross 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> There is no evidence it is actually coming from Meta

My personal view that social media should be age gated is caused by Meta. But broadly, polling shows a commanding majority (60+ percent) of Americans believe in restrictions for under 14s.

▲

davkan 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Is there broad support for digital ID, age verification, etc? Or is it a broad sentiment that kids shouldn’t be on social media. Everyone I know agrees with latter but almost no one supports the former.

▲

Avicebron 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The parent commenter is conflating two things. Your right, there can be broad general sentiment that "kids probably shouldn't on social media, or better framed, social media in it's current iteration isn't healthy for people especially kids" but that doesn't imply people are asking for intrusive surveillance or to be monitored at all times when they are online.

	▲	JumpCrisscross 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> that doesn't imply people are asking for intrusive surveillance or to be monitored at all times when they are online There is strong demand for regulation and low awareness of the surveillance consequences. We don’t have anyone advocating for a privacy-preserving solution, not effectively at least. Given the demand for something to be done, each jurisdiction is basically taking from the first available option.
	▲	davkan 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yes, i was asking which one the polling they were citing was about.

▲

JumpCrisscross 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Two thirds of Americans believe in "setting limits on how much time minors can spend on social media" [1]. Where we have limited polling, a similar fraction support "banning social media use for all kids under 14" [2].

These are policy polls. The sentiment has moved beyond vague notions that kids should be entrusted to Meta less.

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/10/31/81-of-us-...

[2] https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/poll-most-mass-voters-su...

▲

tardedmeme 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Everyone agrees kids shouldn't be on social media. Some people think this should be done by your phone asking if you're over 18 when you set it up, which is one way to go about it. Some other people hijacked this proposal to make your phone verify if you're over 18 because they want your identification.

	▲	JumpCrisscross 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		And then most people just want a ban. So politicians, working as they often do in a technical vacuum, treat it like the other things we age gate.

▲

mc32 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There seems to be a growing movement worldwide to restrict social media to under (some teenage range). I understand some of frustration. It comes from the increase in mental health issues with minors… but they are using that as cover to overreach and impose censorship for many. An alternate method is stop social media etc from abusing their users with algorithms favoring “engament”.

	▲	AngryData 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It is also convient for people to have a single outside source to blame their and their children's problems on. Rather than admit their poltical and economic policies and cultural expectations might all be a bigger problem.

▲

kmeisthax 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

In the interest of removing TBOTE Project from the discussion, I found this press release from the office of Buffy Wicks, saying Google and Facebook[0] support AB 1043: https://wicks.asmdc.org/press-releases/20250909-google-meta-...

Ironically I had to go into Google's AI mode and ask it three times not to use any TBOTE Project sources before it would give me the actual original source on this. But the article has a bunch of quotes from big tech lobbyists in support of California's age surveillance bills. Whether or not it was originally their idea is still up in the air, but given that the California, Colorado, and New York bills were largely identical, it's not crazy to say "maybe these were all Big Tech's idea".

I also have this Bloomberg article from 2025 (a year ago) claiming Meta funds the Digital Childhood Alliance[1], which has been pushing for "App Store Accountability Acts" that would mandate app stores do all the age verification (conveniently for Facebook).

Or maybe it was ALEC. :P

[0] It is always ethical to deadname corporations.

[1] https://archive.is/7vqL6