| ▲ | ungreased0675 a day ago |
| The EFF is very wrong on this one. Some things are bad and we should keep children away from them. |
|
| ▲ | big85 a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| We have parental controls on devices. The change forced by the UK government is to give control to corporations, instead of the parents. Parents are much better at knowing their own kid's age than corporations are. Teens keep fooling the age verification (pointing the camera at a video game character, using fake ID, even drawing beards on their face with a pen). But they aren't going to fool their own mother, and they don't need to trust ID verification startup with photographs of everbody's teenage kids to do it. |
| |
| ▲ | dreambuffer a day ago | parent | next [-] | | This is a tricky one, but it actually gives control to the government, not corporations. The government now has rules which let them define what social media is and how big its market can be. The government is, frankly, just better at deciding what's good for most children than their parents when it comes to matters of health. That's a controversial statement, but truthfully most parents are just not educated enough or strict enough to decide where the boundaries should be on their children's health. | |
| ▲ | Barrin92 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | >We have parental controls on devices That's irrelevant because social media regulation is a collective action problem. No individual parent can restrict their kids access to social media without ostracizing it, it only makes sense if all parents together get their kids off these platforms. | | |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | joe_mamba a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | >it only makes sense if all parents together get their kids off these platforms Yes, and the wishes of all parents together != the wishes of the UK government which has its own agenda at play in which to weaponize this public outrage for their own benefit(mass surveillance and mass censorship). The UK government doesn't actually want what's best for all the children of all the parents, otherwise it wouldn't have allowed and even enabled the rape gangs and sweep the issue under the rug in a massive coverup. | | |
| ▲ | Barrin92 a day ago | parent [-] | | >Yes, and the wishes of all parents together != the wishes of the UK government This legislation has widespread support among British parents across the political spectrum[1] "As YouGov has shown previously, such a policy would be widely popular with the general public. In our latest survey, looking more specifically at the views of parents, we find that 77% of those with children under the age of 18 would support a ban, compared to only 14% who are opposed.[...] Likewise, 76% of parents think the government needs to kick up their activity on this issue, although a much lower rate of 43% think they need to be doing “much more”." I don't even have any idea what the last paragraph, other than being some generic twitter rant has to do with the topic of the thread [1]https://yougov.com/en-gb/articles/54969-eight-in-ten-parents... | | |
| ▲ | joe_mamba a day ago | parent [-] | | >This legislation has widespread support among British parents across the political spectrum[1] Because parents like most voters, are incredibly stupid, and just want to delegate accountability of their kids to the state, not that they actually understand the repercussions of what they're supporting. Same with brexit. Voters want a scapegoat on why their kids are stupid(er), and the government is happy to offer a monkey paw. | | |
| ▲ | inigyou 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Ah, yes. Whenever a policy that you personally dislike is widely supported, it's because all its supporters are incredibly stupid, because you are always right. | | |
| ▲ | joe_mamba 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's not just because I am right and they're wrong in this case, it's because as the saying goes, "The Best Argument Against Democracy' Is 5-Minute Conversation with Average Voter". And British voters have proven that several times over that they're not good at making decisions which is why their country has been in decline. Again, see their Brexit choice as proof. But sure, you go and personally attack me with no arguments as if that means anything. |
| |
| ▲ | Barrin92 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm sorry to tell you this but you'll have to decide between "The British government is doing terrible things that does not represent the British people" or "people are extremely stupid, democracy is terrible and we must in fact make decisions for them" You can't actually bring up the first one because you disagree with me and then the second one when you realize you also disagree with the British people. Either you like democracy or you don't, you don't get to decide that based on what route you want to take in an internet argument. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | infotainment a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The answer, IMO, is simply banning all algorithm-driven social media, for everyone and not just kids. This conveniently sidesteps the identity/privacy arguments, makes it much easier to enforce, and would present an even greater net benefit. There is no benefit to algorithmic social media at all, and everyone would be better off without it. |
|
| ▲ | cebert a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Parents are there to protect their children. The potential harm caused by eroded privacy and reduced control over our devices is not worth the perceived benefits of this policy in ensuring children’s safety. |
| |
| ▲ | dreambuffer a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Unpopular to say, but the government is just better at deciding what's good for most children than their parents when it comes to matters of health. Unfortunately most parents are just very uneducated or lacking in discipline, and no child should be punished in the name of freedom. That being said, age verification laws are obviously a bad way to do that. They should just ban specific categories of social media outright. | |
| ▲ | inigyou 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Right. Cigarette bans for children are unconstitutional. |
|
|
| ▲ | CuriouslyC a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'm all for protecting kids from facebook/insta/snap/etc, they have love hate relationships with all of those, but YT is a bridge too far, is's more a knowledge sharing platform than a social network. |
| |
| ▲ | infotainment a day ago | parent | next [-] | | If you primarily choose to watch educational videos sure, but YouTube can give you just as much brainrot as TikTok, depending on what the recommendation engine decides you might like. | |
| ▲ | ndngmfksk a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think the personalised content and advertising puts it into the same category. At least, I think it has the same problematic incentives. | |
| ▲ | bob001 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Then it can separate the two separate components easily to satisfy whatever the law is. If it can’t then it is social media. A lot of YouTube is not knowledge sharing unless you view MrBeast as a sharer of knowledge. |
|
|
| ▲ | odiroot a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Some things, like invasion of privacy, are bad enough, that we should protect all citizens from it, independent of age. |
|
| ▲ | sunaookami a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is not about protecting kids, when will you finally understand? |
| |
| ▲ | inigyou 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's both. Everyone except libertarians wants kids to be protected because right now we're harming them incredibly quickly. Also, Facebook wants that to be implemented by ID scans. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | hactually a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| So just DNS block them in the UK.
They don't need YouTube |
|
| ▲ | applfanboysbgon a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Great, you do your job as a parent and keep your children away from them while leaving the rest of us free from your envisioned surveillance state. |
| |
| ▲ | 4ndrewl a day ago | parent [-] | | He says clicking "accept" to tracking cookies and their 762 "partners" | | |
| ▲ | anthk a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I have no messages for these under Dillo, nor in most browsers with UBo or a global hosts file. | |
| ▲ | applfanboysbgon a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Uh, speak for yourself, guy. | |
| ▲ | 3997531578 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not surpised supporters of the regime don't know about tracking protection. It's always the tech illiterates cheering on the surveillance. | | |
| ▲ | 4ndrewl a day ago | parent [-] | | Weird take. And brutally, if predictably, wrong (client ad-blockers, pihole, wireguard if you must know). |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | DonHopkins a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| As long as you're hysterically foaming at the mouth with enraged performative moral panic, then start with keeping kids away from Priests instead of Drag Queens. |
