>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?