>I’m glad this is finally becoming the cause célèbre du jour.

It really isn't, though. Don't mistake the internet for reality. The majority of people in the US and Europe support laws like these, and most of the rest don't care.

Even on Hacker News the consensus is mostly in favor of anything from age restriction to making all social media illegal.

▲

miiiiiike 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> Even on Hacker News the consensus is mostly in favor of anything from age restriction to making all social media illegal.

That doesn't sound right. Put up a poll. I'd put money on 90%+ choosing some flavor privacy/anonymity on the internet.

▲

ricree 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The main issue is that they are very careful not to frame it like that. In broader contexts, it's always framed as something like "do you favor limiting children's access to social media" without a word on what it would cost to actually institute such a ban.

▲

miiiiiike 24 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah, and we’re starting to inoculate people against that kind of rhetoric. It’s a process.

	▲	Gigachad 7 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Not really, if anything we are seeing what a good idea taking kids off social media is and how crazy we allowed this to all happen for so long.

▲

Terr_ an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Relevant British comedy clip (Yes, [Prime] Minister) on such polls:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ahgjEjJkZks

▲

rockskon 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's about as meaningful a framing as asking if you favor world peace and ending world hunger.

▲

causality0 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

You don't necessarily have to be in favor of any measures which reduce adult privacy to be in favor of that. Logically speaking, the liability for minors accessing age-gated products and services is the person who provides those products and services to the minor. In the case of the internet, that person is the parent, not the ISP or the website. It is the parent who contracts with the provider and then forwards the product to the unauthorized user, the child. A parent who purchases, say, access to porn and then provides that access to their child is no different than a parent who buys booze and provides access to it to their child.

▲

krapp 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I'd put money on 90%+ choosing some flavor privacy/anonymity on the internet.

I can only say what I've observed from numerous threads - people's advocacy for privacy on the internet here does not extend so social media.

But OK this could be fun let's put my keyboard where my mouth is: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48680434

	▲	iamnothere 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Talk to people in person and you’ll get a different view (at least among those under 50), especially if you ask about the negatives. Social media is full of astroturfing.