I don’t want age verification for social media — I’d rather parents, who in 2025 probably grew up with connected devices, be responsible for it — but if they do force this, it should be part of the operating system. Sort of like Apple Pay and Google Pay where sites and apps can essentially put some boilerplate code in that’s easy to implement and all the sites/apps get back is a yes/no answer. Users only have to go through the process once. It protects privacy way more than giving your info to every “social media” site that comes along.
It’s not ideal but it’d be way more workable than having to provide ID to every site that has social media functions. I mean, you could classify any random forum or site with a comment section as “social media” if the definition is too broad. Things like Fediverse instances wouldn’t have to each write their own implementation. (Eventually, there would be trusted, mature libraries, obviously, but that could take awhile and presumably would need to be part of every browser/app language but also at least some code for every back-end language to store the data.)
Of course they would. Not only would they get their hands on data users fully voluntarily give them by using their platform, but they’d get their hands on verified IDs and quite reliable family tie information. The potential loss of users is definately worth it for them (from their perspective).
I’ve been thinking about it and here’s my proposal:
- total ban on hosting/streaming videos with kids below 16. Anyone uploading content with kids is immediately banned. Platforms hosting content with kids are prosecuted.
- treat mobile phones like cigarettes. Parents giving phones to children < 16 are fined. If you want to track your kid get him a smart watch.
Who’s with me?
No one.
I would be surprised if majority of people couldn’t live without watching kids on youtube but who knows, maybe you’re right.
Most people could live without youtube period. But what the fuck would be the reason to do it?
Even so, the much more ridiculous one to me is the second one.
Most people could live without youtube period. But what the fuck would be the reason to do it?
You don’t know why it would be good to stop exploiting children for clicks and ad revenue? Do you think a 12 yo can consent to live streaming their life for the whole world to watch?
Even so, the much more ridiculous one to me is the second one.
Cell phone bans are now common in schools. More and more research shows phones are bad for development.
https://www.newsweek.com/overcoming-our-denial-about-smartphones-effect-kids-opinion-1926025
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451958821000622
But you want to give them to kids why exactly?
You don’t know why it would be good to stop exploiting children for clicks and ad revenue? Do you think a 12 yo can consent to live streaming their life for the whole world to watch?
The question is not whether you can find one kind of video/streaming that is exploitative but whether all of them are. Is it exploitative to share video from a spelling bee competition? Is it exploitative to share a school theater video? If not, ban the things that are.
Whether to give phones to children and how is a parents decision. As for the research, it is the same as above. Clearly these issues did not exist with early smartphones. So it’s not the phones, it something on them. My money is on social media and the “idle” games. Parents have the option to prevent installation of those.
You don’t ban pipes, because they can be used to make pipe-bombs. You ban making pipe-bombes. Your proposals are so broad they would ban way too many things that are ok.
And multiplayer games, please, add multiplayer games…
