• sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I really dislike this sort of daddy over reach but it seems like this is the only way to make corpos get real about enforcement.

    This would result needing to provide ID to use normie social media?

    How would this even work globally and on places like fediverse tho?

    • IcePee@lemmy.beru.co
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Well the devil is in the detail. However, what appears is being mooted is it will only affect big social media corporations. A Lemmy instance is hardly big business. Not that I’m discounting creeping regulation moving into the fediverse.

      • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s impossible to specifically target Facebook and Snapchat without also affecting Lemmy and YouTube comments.

        They’re all social media with minor UI differences.

        • Womble@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          It really isn’t, you just go the way the recent EU laws have gone and write them such that only large services (with over x million users or similar) are under obligation to comply and implement age gates and the like.

        • IcePee@lemmy.beru.co
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Not so sure that it can’t be tailored to big businesses. Regulations carve out exceptions all the time based on employee count, annual turnover, customer count (hits), etc

  • scaramobo@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Is it even possible to define “social” media? Media on the internet which allows you to connect with others? So the entire internet then? We always have had e-mail, IRC, newsgroups, IM, forums and later on voice calls, and every “new” platform is just an iteration or amalgamation of those early technologies. (Yeah especially you, discord, you worthless piece of shit)

    It is a law that makes sense to me from a human standpoint, but looks impossible to uphold if you think about the practical implications. Everything is social. Pure read-only websites are vastly outnumbered. Even wikipedia allows discussions ffs.

    That said, i would very much welcome an entire ban of minors on the internet. And while we’re at it, maybe more so a ban on data-harvesting, intrusive advertising and corporate driven monetisation of user created content. Earlier days of the internet. Ctrl-alt-del that fucker back to 1998 please.

    Or you know what, just pull the plug. It was fun while it lasted but let’s not succumb to FOMO. The party has ended and yet we’re still on the dance floor with the lights on, clinging on to the last moments that already passed. There’s beer and someone else’s vomit on our clothes, a bunch of drunks stumbling and yelling racist remarks, your girl is riding some loser on the wet floor and the thick, putrid smell of lost hope and forgotten dreams hangs in the air. There’s no more music, just the drunken ramblings of those that also refuse to leave and some shouting reverberated in the now almost empty venue, and you feel the cold air and the humidity. You realise you haven’t seen your friends around for hours. How did this happen all of a sudden, it was so fun here an hour ago?

    It never really was.

    Let’s just go home.

      • scaramobo@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Totally agree. The rise of the smartphone (be it the apps or just the access to the net at your fingertips) seems to at least partially coincide with the death of the classic internet.

    • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Here’s one way to do it. The legislators define a list. Products in the list are social media. The list is referenced in the law.

  • VintageGenious@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Sad to see people here supporting the same kinds of policies that are diametrically opposed to privacy on the internet.

    Parental control softwares are always parents failing to take the time to properly educate themselves and their children to the internet, as well as trust issue towards their children, which is bad parenting since it leads children into lying to them and finding alternatives as well as feeling seen “as a child”, bad for teens…

    Moreover those softwares are, as I said earlier nearly malwares

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          How hard up are you for Facebook? Like, there’s a technical solution, sure. But a big part of social media’s addictive quality is ease of access.

          Making access annoying absolutely will curb teen use.

            • CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              Sure, but what they’re saying is that even a little bit of friction will make some people give up, and that kills the virality of things like social media

        • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Could also age gate ð VPNs wiðin Norwegian networks. Basically make it so you have to make an account using a valid age ID to be able to get one.

          • Anivia@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Yeah, cause VPN companies are known for complying with foreign governments…

            • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              Ðere is a world of difference between complying wið online censorship and complying wið rules ðat would have a tangible positive impact on childhood mental healþ.

    • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      IIRC Norway has an actual Nat ID system, so assuming they develop a workable API for it ðis could actually be implemented quite easily.

      Preventing kids stealing ðeir parents’ IDs to open accounts anyway will be ð actual challenge.

        • CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          It’s the original English letter for th which was more or less deleted from the alphabet when imported printing press types lacked said letter.

          Before it got universally replaced by th some printers used y like in “ye olde” which is really pronounced “the old”

      • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Is there a reason that you use some character (I’m afraid I don’t know the name of it) wherever you would otherwise use “th”? I can’t guess if it’s some kind of technical issue with federated text, something from a different language you’re incorporating, or one of those “I think we should add x symbol to the language so I’ll use it to draw attention to the effort” deals, like with the people that use the combined !? symbols whenever both are relevant at once.

    • 0x0@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Oppression?! FFS… can’t even look at 'em the wrong way nowadays and it’s oppression… i guess it’s better than repression!

  • Urist@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    For all those that think this is the government overstepping with an unenforceable law, you are not grasping the intent correctly. Declaring that we have democratically decided to have an age limit for social media means that we have laid the groundwork for collective action. This means that suddenly schools, parents, teenagers themselves, etc. all have a reason and a mandate for keeping young people off platforms that we believe to be detrimental to their development and well-being. True democratic culture lies not in bourgeoisie domination (as many Americans like to believe), but rather in mutual trust and cooperation in order to solve common and big problems.

    • Zink@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      True democratic culture lies not in bourgeoisie domination (as many Americans like to believe), but rather in mutual trust and cooperation in order to solve common and big problems.

      American here who has visited Scandinavia a couple times.

      There are so many little differences, but they add up to a staggering divide in the amount of mutual trust and cooperation you see in little everyday interactions.

  • tiredofsametab@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    You may use it only until you are 15. Alternately, you may choose any 15-year window in your life. Choose wisely.

  • Kairos@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Why does it incorrectly say limit in the headlines then correctly say minimum in the first sentence.

  • UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Governmental overreach. Good luck trying to enforce this shit.

    Social media isn’t bad inherently. Addictive algorithms, violation of user privacy, etc. is bad.

    Kids should be taught how to make use of social media for good. I was bullied quite a lot as a kid. Social media is what kinda brought me out of it.

    Social media told 13 year old me, that it is alright to be gay. Social media is what made me interested in politics. A huge part of who I am today is because of the nice people I met online. Fuck the government for trying to take it away from others like me.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Social media isn’t bad inherently. Addictive algorithms, violation of user privacy, etc. is bad.

      Cigarettes aren’t bad for you. It’s just the burning tar and the nicotine.

    • Chozo@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      While all of that may be true, it doesn’t necessarily negate the adverse affects social media can also have on young people.

      I think you got lucky and found a community that accepted and welcomed you. But a lot of kids aren’t as fortunate, and their experiences with social media are a lot more sinister. Children are more exposed to predators and harassment now than ever before.

      I dunno that a full “ban until ___ years old” policy is the cure, either. But it’s a start.

      • UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I don’t understand why the knee jerk reaction for everything is just “ban it”.

        You want to reduce the exposure of children to predators? Moderate the platforms. We can agree that Reddit n Lemmy’s moderation is a lot better than Instagram’s moderation. Why don’t we start with that???

        The biggest way predators do their predatoring is by sliding into ur DMs. You could restrict this by requiring approval for all such new DMs by a parent’s account or something. There r just so many ways that social media can be made safer for kids.

        Social media is a digital townsquare. Sure, there r some malicious actors lurking about. Does that mean that kids should just be banned from this townsquare? No. The townsquare should be made safer for kids. There must be some hand-holding for kids in the beginning so that they can learn how to make the best use of this infrastructure in the future.

  • foremanguy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    We shouldn’t blocked the social media, they are pure shit, don’t get me wrong, but we should only educate correctly the people to show them how bad it is

    • Angel Mountain@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      With that logic we should give everyone a nuclear bomb and teach them not to press the button. Let’s see how that works out.

      Big tegh companies spend billions on ways to influence your behaviour, making it even difficult for adults to not fall for their traps, let alone kids with still very much underdeveloped brains. Just look at all the stupid things you had done when you were a kid.

      • foremanguy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        My answer was an ideal thing, but it will not happened soon because of the big corporates, they are keeping us for profit. You’re absolutely right that it’s the fault of corporations.