This concerted global effort is more about building the surveillance infrastructure for the web that will be required given AI's takeoff, and less-so about the well being of children.

▲

pjc50 25 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Does take a rather different tone when you consider the FB whistleblower: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48353965

But I think the conversation people aren't having is the reverse of this: when is it time to ban people over, say, 65 from social media? They're often victims of scams and propaganda bot farms.

What do we do about adult radicalization on the Internet?

▲

somenameforme 43 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm about as cynical and open to conspiracy as anybody, but I strongly disagree on this one. Social media is a cancer on society as a whole, let alone children who are still trying to figure out who they are. It serves absolutely no positive purpose that couldn't be done at least as well through private chat groups and the like.

I will absolutely be barring my children from social media. I fully expect them to use it or similar sorts of stuff behind my back, but that's okay. It will then be hidden and scarce, which limits the overall negative consequences it can have. Being in a country where this is enforced at a national level is extremely appealing to me.

▲

applfanboysbgon 28 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> I will absolutely be barring my children from [drugs]. I fully expect them to use it or similar sorts of stuff behind my back, but that's okay. It will then be hidden and scarce, which limits the overall negative consequences it can have.

If you make a simple substitution, it becomes clear that "limits the overall negative consequences it can have" in no way logically follows from "behind my back" and "it will then be hidden". Draconian bans are, simply put, extremely lazy parenting, and not only lazy, but ineffectual. All the more so when it's something as relatively innocuous as social media, where your children will be actively shunned by their peers and come to resent you while still finding ways to use it. If you want good outcomes for your children, play an active role in their life and guide them positively instead of thinking you can just say "don't do X" and that will magically be the end of all problems.

▲

AnonymousPlanet 25 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Just because you have a reason to agree with something doesn't mean there's no other intention for it.

Actually, the more emotionally invested you are in it, the less likely it is for you to question the motives behind it.

▲

dv_dt 31 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What is it about magically turning 17 that makes social media "safe"?

If these laws were about integrity in social media, there would be disclosure laws for paid time or content creation, disclosure of who pays for ads or time of creators. This would equally protect adults and kids instead of dubious age laws

▲

leonidasrup 30 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Social media now is very different from social media 10 years ago. Back then it was about social interaction with friend, peers, now it's about advertisement, maximizing engagement.

"Algorithms that track user engagement to prioritize what is shown tend to favor content that spurs negative emotions like anger and outrage. Overall, most online misinformation originates from a small minority of “superspreaders,” but social media amplifies their reach and influence."

https://www.apa.org/topics/journalism-facts/how-why-misinfor...

▲

logicchains 34 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

>Social media is a cancer on society as a whole, let alone children who are still trying to figure out who they are. It serves absolutely no positive purpose that couldn't be done at least as well through private chat groups and the like.

Social media provides decentralized information transmission, so people (kids are people) are able to obtain information without it first being filtered through a small cabal of self-interested media corporations and governments. If there was no social media, the Iran war would probably have overwhelming popular support like the Iraq one and there'd already be US boots on the ground.

	▲	10xDev 8 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		There isn't US boots on the ground because that would be absolute suicide, have you followed anything that's been going on? It is an asymmetric war they cannot win. And yes "decentralised" meaning we have personal echo-chambers or a swarm of Elon sycophant accounts with inflated number of views and bots mass liking each extremist post. LLMs are going to put astroturfing campaigns on steroids.
	▲	matips 26 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		The way how corporations like Meta implemented modern social medias filter information as well. It does it in a different way than TV, but personalized information bubbles are important arguments again using "social" medias.
	▲	ShinTakuya 25 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Except all major social media sites are also corporations with their own interests. I'd rather the business model of traditional media that rides on journalistic reputation to a recommendation feed where the only job of it is to keep you on the site, especially when said feed can easily be manipulated. No media organisation is perfect but your description of social media as some nirvana of decentralised truth is very questionable.
	▲	pjc50 24 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		On the other hand, without social media, there might not be a Trump government in the first place.

▲

SilverElfin 19 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In many countries, targeted ads aren’t allowed for kids. By forcing age verification, companies in the targeted ads business (like Meta) can shift liability away from themselves and rely on forced identity verification done by someone else. It means they get to advertise a whole lot more, since they can blindly trust the verification instead of having to be on the side of caution and advertise less.

This is why they have lobbied many states in America for age verification laws, and are the alleged main funding source for the campaigns trying to make this about child safety when it’s about their profits. And the governments support it because it means they can identify people online and suppress speech. It’s literally the fascist notion of merging corporate power and authoritarian government power.

▲

kungito 39 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean none of the big social networks have any privacy anyways, they can exactly pinpoint who you are. I'm ok with this additional verification since no privacy is being lost really. No real politically endangered group is going to communicate via these networks anyways.

	▲	ruszki 32 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		But this further ensures that that cannot be changed in the future. I think we lost this fight about 2-3 decades ago, when we sacrificed privacy for free stuff, mainly because the environment wasn’t this hostile yet. However, these additional steps in the wrong direction doesn’t help at all, but I also think that nobody will get any new information with these nowadays.