| |
| ▲ | Avicebron 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Ok, they have ignored that. I did my part and sent an email. Now what? | | |
| ▲ | protocolture 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Violent revolution I guess. Genuinely what are the other options? I made a formal submission to the Australian Government in the very small consulting window they held for the Access and Assistance bill. Pleading with them to consider simply not introducing the law, as there was no justification for it at all. Google also made a submission against the bill, as did many large local and overseas corporations. The government went ahead anyway. What are the chances of me swinging any government when Google et al are on the other side, determined to provide privacy and anonymity destroying products to bolster their bottom line? Probably worth mentioning that the Access and Assistance bill permits the Australian government to secretly (even just verbally) compel anyone building age assurance technology to secretly backdoor it to collect metadata, or any other information they choose. There's no level of safety from the government one can achieve with any app. If they resist they go straight to the Australian version of a secret national security court. The bill doesn't even make it clear whether briefing their solicitor about the request is legal. It doesn't matter how good the crypto is if the app is recording details outside of that. Its all just theatre at this point. There's no safe app, so we should completely resist all attempts to do things the government could restrict, leak or misuse. I dont see how this is even slightly contentious in the year of our lord two thousand and twenty six, after decades of leaks affirming governments do this stuff, decades of governments and corporations dangerously failing their citizens privacy, when a particular government is hell bent on using all the personal data it can hoover up to persecute migrants and refugees. How are people blindly monofocusing on the crypto while trusting everything else? | | |
| ▲ | IanCal 35 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | There are steps in between “send an email saying don’t do the thing you want” and “murder lawmakers”. > I dont see how this is even slightly contentious in the year of our lord two thousand and twenty six Violent revolution in response to data privacy issues? | |
| ▲ | Gigachad 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The vast majority of the population supports banning social media for kids so revolution isn't happening. Of course the social media companies object to their product being banned. It's like cigarette companies objecting to plain packaging. | | |
| ▲ | protocolture 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >The vast majority of the population supports banning social media for kids so revolution isn't happening Age assurance is being used in more than a single scope. I dont disagree that the revolution isnt happening, but theres no need to be so reductive. >Of course the social media companies object to their product being banned. It's like cigarette companies objecting to plain packaging. They aren't objecting to age assurance tools. They are objecting to the current ham fisted model, but when they can organise something less nebulous than the current regime they will be fighting to implement it first. | | |
| ▲ | Gigachad 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sure, the implementation details are blunt. But Facebook, Google, and Reddit have had decades to sort this out on their own and yet they have only poured fuel on the problem and watched the ad dollars rain in. So I have little sympathy that the resulting laws are not optimal for them. | | |
| ▲ | protocolture 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | >But Facebook, Google, and Reddit have had decades to sort this out on their own It was solved. Dont collect information. The problem is making shitty psychotic apps, not determining who can use them. I would much rather they cut meta into pieces and sold them off as scraps, than just scarfing up the PID of the users to make arbitrary determinations about who can have what brainrot. | | |
| ▲ | intended 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | It was solved for you. There are more people than just you (and other tech literate folk) online. I would also rather meta be cut an sold of as scraps. This is sadly not the question being framed. I’ve dedicated a portion of my life volunteering to moderate content in communities. It is an unmitigated shit show. The status quo is great for firms and corrosive for society. If theres a takeaway from this sub thread, is why “meta being broken up and sold for scraps” not being raised as a question in the first place. Is it another case of too big to fail? |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | vlian2088 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >The vast majority of the population supports banning social media for kids so revolution isn't happening. reddit isn't the vast majority of the population, fren. it's 1% of 4%. unless you've got polls you could show to back up your claim? polls, not opinion pieces. polls asking unambiguous questions like "are you in favor of banning social media?" or "are you in favor of age verification laws?", not vague ones like "are you concerned about the content your kids might see on the internet?". got any of those? | | |
| ▲ | Gigachad 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 77% of the Australian population were in support of "Proposed ban on social media for children under 16" https://yougov.com/articles/51000-support-for-under-16-socia... This was in 2024, since then the attitude is still very much that kids should be taken off social media, but that the current restrictions aren't yet working as the face scanning verification is easily bypassed. | | |
| ▲ | vlian2088 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | well, shit. Australians absolutely deserve having to scan their faces/fingers/eyeballs/assholes every time they touch their phones, then. |
| |
| ▲ | intended an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > 6 in 10 parents worldwide support social media ban for under 16s - but children are divided > Support among parents for a social media ban for under-16s is highest in Malaysia (77%) and India (75%), Argentina (55%) and lowest in Japan (38%) and Nigeria (39%) > Globally, the majority of Gen Z (51%) – the first true digital natives – support a social media ban for under-16s. Support for the ban is highest in India (73%) and UAE (67%), Argentina (54%) and lowest in Japan (28%), UK, and Canada (both 40% https://www.varkeyfoundation.org/post/6-in-10-parents-worldw... Support among parents for a social media ban for under-16s is highest in Malaysia (77%) and India (75%), Argentina (55%) and lowest in Japan (38%) and Nigeria (39%) | | |
| ▲ | vlian2088 an hour ago | parent [-] | | >among parents increasingly few people are parents, so these numbers are don't reflect 'the vast majority' of the population. | | |
| ▲ | intended 4 minutes ago | parent [-] | | A majority of Gen Z dont want it for kids, so that isn't true either. Plus, thats a moving of goal posts. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | matheusmoreira 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "Do the opposite of what Meta is lobbying for" Done. | |
| ▲ | miki123211 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's much easier to convince somebody to achieve their goals your way than to not achieve their goals at all. Politicians don't want to be seen as going soft on child predators and harms to children. That is a career-ending move. Whether the bills they introduce even protect children at all has no bearing on it. PR is PR. If you're essentially telling somebody that children don't need to be protected, you might feel smug and superior, but you're achieving nothing. You'll be ignored as a conspiracy-theory-loving nutjob. If, on the other hand, you tell politicians that there are multiple approaches to protecting children, all as effective, with one of them having fewer side-effects to the rest of society, now that's a much easier sell. You sound like somebody who knows their stuff and has a nuanced take. |
|
