We lost, big tech won
EXCLUSIVE: EU could announce social media ban for kids in September
Von der Leyen is expected to use her annual State of the Union speech to unveil plans for EU-wide age restrictions on social media
⇧
EXCLUSIVE: EU could announce social media ban for kids in September
Von der Leyen is expected to use her annual State of the Union speech to unveil plans for EU-wide age restrictions on social media
CatsGoMOW
in reply to AmonTheMetalHead • • •FineCoatMummy
in reply to CatsGoMOW • • •Kinda with you in spirit. How I think about it is... it is harmful for both adults and children. Esp in big-tech co form. FB, IG, TT, X, and w/e. There's a lot of research about it. But the cure can be worse than the disease. What the EU wants to do is not the right answer to address the immense harms of social media to our world.
Both the US and Canada have similar bills on boil. Both are also terrible ideas.
hneerqe
in reply to AmonTheMetalHead • • •For sure. Reddit doesn't start "testing" it just for sport.
Where have I seen such worldwide concerted action among all governments and corporations. Ah yes, when China "leaked" a virus.
Did they save lives?
or
Did they put us in house arrest?
smiletolerantly
in reply to hneerqe • • •They saved lifes.
Glad to have cleared that up for you 👍
dropdrip
in reply to hneerqe • • •And they put people in house arrest, because... ? I just saw tanks being transported on public-roads today. So the reason couldn't be to covertly move weapons: that goes on in public, in broad daylight and that transit sits alongside vans delivering ice-creams to convenience stores. So, the big cabal wanted to put people under house arrest... to do what?
Pick up a book. Pandemics aren't new and neither is the orchestrated response to them by governing bodies. History can be a good reference.
hneerqe
in reply to dropdrip • • •So they used medieval techniques got it.
Well they didn't, but concerning your teensy little pee brain of yours, could as well have.
I know they did the same in 1919, that's barely 20th century. And an entire century of medical progress early.
prole
in reply to hneerqe • • •hneerqe
in reply to prole • • •op seems to think that pandemic response is tradition based, rather than science based.
tradition as like in 1919 where people were told to put a rag on the face, ritualistic hand washing etc, and rushed novel vaccines with bacteria. Everyone died anyway.
Yeah I picked up the history book
ParlimentOfDoom
in reply to hneerqe • • •prole
in reply to hneerqe • • •hneerqe
in reply to prole • • •They turned authoritarian without batting an eye. Worldwide. That's what they really showed themselves to be. Cancelled freedom and privacy, destroyed local business and handicapped the developing children of that time. And will continue to do these things.
And yes it was unnecessary. I know you want to read into this and say I was against "a pandemic response", but not "that" pandemic response..
schnurrito
in reply to AmonTheMetalHead • • •Ledivin
in reply to schnurrito • • •Hasn't virtually every single study ever performed on the subject found a strong, direct link between unhappiness and social media use?
FineCoatMummy
in reply to Ledivin • • •From what I've seen, the answer is it's complicated. On avg, you're right, and it prob does cause unhappiness and mental health probs. But there are unique situations where it can be helpful. Ex, people who do not fit norms of thier peers, and find healthy connections with others more like themselves. So it has no single, simple universal answer.
The algos, esp on big tech social media like FB, IG, TT, X, etc, are very much designed to make you unhappy and outraged. Even the data scientists who designed the algos have testified to that fact before the US congress. B/c anger and outrage is the most powerful way to make you engage more. TT's internal research shows the more you use TT, the more probs you have with cognitive skills like memory formation, empathy, and anxiety.
Ofc, the harms of social media doesn't mean these bills are the right way to handle that. I believe we have a prob. But this is not the right solution.
Whistleblower: Facebook is misleading the public on progress against hate speech, violence, misinformation
Scott Pelley (CBS News)Lettuce eat lettuce
in reply to Ledivin • • •To a large degree, yes, but blanket bans on social media use for minors will fail for multiple reasons.
queermunist she/her
in reply to Lettuce eat lettuce • • •Lettuce eat lettuce
in reply to queermunist she/her • • •Very true, but that may make things worse down the line. Once they realize that kids are circumventing their restrictions, they won't think, "Hmm, maybe a blanket ban of social media for minors wasn't a great idea." They're just going to double down and say that there needs to be more hardcore restrictions on all internet/computer activity. More sensorship, more data harvesting, mandatory governement spyware in all devices.
Essentially the Great Firewall in China. Many governments have already expressed interest in modeling national internet access after China.
yes_this_time
in reply to Lettuce eat lettuce • • •Meatwagon
in reply to Lettuce eat lettuce • • •Point 3:
Adults have been making the outside more and more hostile for kids. There's no more third spaces. So like you said, they're removing a third space with nothing to replace it with.
huey_m
in reply to Ledivin • • •Depends what counts as social media. YouTube could very much be implicated as a social media. Reddit/Lemmy obviously. There's a ton of legitimately educational material on both platforms. What about Steam? With chat/friends/community function, isn't that a social media? Where is the line drawn?
How well have these studies accounted for neuro-divergence in kids (something Europe has generally done a pretty poor job accommodating)? What about kids with certain disabilities that put them indoors often if not essentially always? Isn't the isolation worse for their mental health?
Is there not some point at which you really do just have to depend on parents being parents? I accept that some state involvement is necessary sometimes, but this really feels pretty solidly in the purview of something that should be up to parental judgement.
yes_this_time
in reply to huey_m • • •Youtube is a massive problem for boys. There may be a couple of educational things on there but it's adjacent to awful recommended content.
I would debate the value of the "educational" content as well. We certainly aren't getting smarter through the internet. Read a book, find a mentor, stay in school.
pirat
in reply to yes_this_time • • •Speak for yourself. I am, without a doubt.
huey_m
in reply to yes_this_time • • •So is it worth losing access to Veritasium, Extra History, Professor Dave Explains, countless sources for learning programming...? This is like banning kids from TV because Jackass exists. It's always been parents' job to help guide their kids towards media that is more wholesome and fulfilling rather than tripe.
True of books, too, by the way... the written word isn't an automatically higher art. Pulp has always been a thing, and anyone who actually does do a lot of reading can confirm there is a lot of tripe out there right now in book form.
Learning to use digital content is a big part of school. It isn't the 70's anymore. This is like pushing for abstinence only education... it is pretty much proven, from sex ed to drugs, not to work. You need to teach responsible use.
yes_this_time
in reply to huey_m • • •Youtube as a platform is trash (in my opinion). Not to say there aren't some gems in there.
I'm not familiar with the channels you mentioned but trust your judgment. I would love to see a platform curated with high quality content.
"Hey mom and dad can I use 'historyTube'"
"Absolutely!"
Easy.
The analogies don't really hold. Traditional Broadcasters have some standards. Jackass is Disney compared to the back alley swamp that is YouTube.
Think about the experience of going into a library or bookstore vs. YouTube, the content mix is not comparable.
The algorithms, content scale, and access is another world.
huey_m
in reply to yes_this_time • • •Nebula. It isn't perfect, and it needs more creators, but that's the closest I've come.
Well, not if it's banned as social media, that's the issue.
Broadcasters did because they had laws restricting their content. Cable very much did not.
My experience is that the stuff pushed by most libraries as their hot new items, things to read, general recommendations, are pretty much slop. Romantasy slop is a big genre all its own.
Which isn't to say people can't enjoy it, but it really isn't much better than YouTube slop.
... Show more...Nebula. It isn't perfect, and it needs more creators, but that's the closest I've come.
Well, not if it's banned as social media, that's the issue.
Broadcasters did because they had laws restricting their content. Cable very much did not.
My experience is that the stuff pushed by most libraries as their hot new items, things to read, general recommendations, are pretty much slop. Romantasy slop is a big genre all its own.
Which isn't to say people can't enjoy it, but it really isn't much better than YouTube slop.
Now that, I agree is an issue, but that's just as true for adults as we've seen. I'd have less issue restricting how algorithms are pushed than mandatory ID... it would benefit all of society, not just kids, and it's actually a positive improvement on privacy since it disincentivizes profile building.
yes_this_time
in reply to huey_m • • •The Australian ban, and proposed bans in other countries (generally I only looked at a couple) aren't targeting things like Nebula though, focus is on large scale user to user platforms.
I just checked out YouTube front page in a fresh browser and it's several tiers below Romantasy in my opinion. You may have a more personalized experience, but the front door of Youtube is... nauseating.
The medium matters as well, the audio, visuals, length, like a sleezy, hyper active content casino.
Anyway, I cheer for any friction added to these tech companies because they are doing so much harm, so anything to slow them down.
But I do get the concerns around IDs and privacy (I personally wouldn't provide any). I think regulatory capture concerns are real as well. My preference would be on targeting the recommendation systems, and also making the platforms liable for content they are broadcasting.
huey_m
in reply to yes_this_time • • •Is that really a good reason for banning its use for kids? Again, this is like shutting off library access because the stuff presented at the front is slop... my library presents slop at the front door, I don't think that should stop kids from going inside.
I'd also point out at least my library doesn't do any age verification or ID checks either.
I think this is cutting off your nose to spite your face though when it allows... mandates, rather, a huge collection of data. I'm not so sure big tech is really against this... early iterations of code to verify age were said to not store any data, but auditors found that to not be the case. That was walked back, but I find it very unlikely they won't just do it again when there's less scrutiny.
Especially since kids are likely going t
... Show more...Is that really a good reason for banning its use for kids? Again, this is like shutting off library access because the stuff presented at the front is slop... my library presents slop at the front door, I don't think that should stop kids from going inside.
I'd also point out at least my library doesn't do any age verification or ID checks either.
I think this is cutting off your nose to spite your face though when it allows... mandates, rather, a huge collection of data. I'm not so sure big tech is really against this... early iterations of code to verify age were said to not store any data, but auditors found that to not be the case. That was walked back, but I find it very unlikely they won't just do it again when there's less scrutiny.
Especially since kids are likely going to just get on through backdoors anyway, we've likely done very little to stop data collection on them while handing them most adults on a silver platter. That's in no way a score for the little guy.
I'm totally on board with fucking tech companies, I just don't think this does it while simultaneously it fucks us.
yes_this_time
in reply to huey_m • • •It's not at all comparable.
If I go into a library and get a book on fixing cars, the librarian doesn't follow me around suggesting Joe Rogan.
Kids books from the library don't autoplay a pipeline of incrementingly extreme, dangerous or vapid content.
I don't see the value in the data being greater than the cost of administrating a patchwork of varied regulations across the globe.
huey_m
in reply to yes_this_time • • •Most people access their libraries via digital platforms like Libby as well these days. Unless you're just going full Luddite and we're just saying no digital access to anything at all.
This is a very strange position from someone posting in this community. You don't think, even assuming no ill intentions, there's any security risk in allowing big tech to access, and likely store, official identification? Data leaks happen all the time. If you wouldn't publicly post your identification information, you should see the value in that data.
huf [he/him]
in reply to schnurrito • • •you're shocked that the countries that love to bomb children abroad also dont like children at home?
also the epstein stuff.
Blisterexe
in reply to schnurrito • • •Most people support these social media age gates:
documents.leger360.com/hubfs/%… (page 11)
this poll is for canada, not the eu, but I couldn't find good polling for the EU.
GMac
in reply to AmonTheMetalHead • • •FoundFootFootage78
in reply to GMac • • •Require age verification only if you want to get algorithmic recommendations. That way you can still engage in the social internet anonymously as an adult.
The recommendation algorithms give American big tech way too much political sway in Europe and ideally they should be banned entirely, but age verification at least gives the appearance that this is "for the children" and not something with (justifiable) political motivations.
GMac
in reply to FoundFootFootage78 • • •smiletolerantly
in reply to GMac • • •GMac
in reply to smiletolerantly • • •smiletolerantly
in reply to GMac • • •birdwing
in reply to AmonTheMetalHead • • •lemmylemonade
in reply to birdwing • • •lemmylemonade
in reply to birdwing • • •thanksforreading
in reply to birdwing • • •Malyca
in reply to thanksforreading • • •thanksforreading
in reply to Malyca • • •prole
in reply to birdwing • • •Maybe more akin to Brave New World, and the "savages" who don't live in the fucked up society they created.
Just minus the soma holidays
eleitl
in reply to AmonTheMetalHead • • •Phoenixz
in reply to AmonTheMetalHead • • •So how is that going to work exactly?
Facebook is easy, you force the company or block it.
But how about, say, Lemmy, or other self hosted places maybe where where people do use their real names? How is any of this supposed to work?
FineCoatMummy
in reply to Phoenixz • • •Well... how many Lemmy instances are hosted in the EU, Canada, USA, Australia, UK, ...? They can be threatened under the full power of the state, unless they req ID checks.
OK, you may say, just use one in Tuvalu! But someone below mentioned it. Govs will not think, gosh darn it! I guess we got foiled by those rascally nerds! Pack it up guys, we lost! No, they will double down. They will create national firewalls. VPN bans. Already the UK, and Utah in the USA are pushing for VPN bans. They will make examples of people, to deter the rest.
It's very hard to solve political probs with technical methods.
gleaminggoat
in reply to AmonTheMetalHead • • •huey_m
in reply to gleaminggoat • • •A) It's very unlikely to actually stop kids from accessing social media. VPN's, purchasing blackmarket accounts that have already been verified, classic fake ID's (in the age of AI generated images, no less). So they'll just keep building profiles for them anyway (it's already known they do this now for people not actually signed up with social media, their trackers are all over the web and it's easy to build a profile without concerted effort against it). Why do we always think "this time for sure forcing abstinence will work!"? It never does.
B) In addition to not actually stopping building profiles on kids, it now hands them a goldmine of information on adults. Mandates it, even. Data leaks are going to get a lot more "fun"...
asdfasdfasdf
in reply to huey_m • • •How would a VPN help at all if you still need an ID?
And maybe I'm wrong but I find it hard to believe that kids will purchase black market accounts for this. Aren't the IDs verified by a gov database? Anyone selling the account would be legally responsible for it and identifiable.
This is different from pirating stuff where no IDs are involved.
gramie
in reply to asdfasdfasdf • • •asdfasdfasdf
in reply to gramie • • •huey_m
in reply to asdfasdfasdf • • •Honestly, in 2026 do you really think this won't be subverted?
VPN to countries that don't require identification. Done.
Kids have been buying accounts for years now. It isn't new. See: WoW. This isn't anything new, just a new market for it.
lol regarding holding anyone legally responsible. Good luck is all I can say. The US doesn't prosecute firearms owners who claim a stolen gun that was involved in a crime, only in very clear (and especially stupid) cases. No chance this happens with social media accounts. Just none, on any wide scale.
And again, pretty easy to AI generate an ID these days... kids were doing this in the 70s and it was way, way harder back then.
And this is at the cost of mandatory handing of IDs to big tech that will inevitably leak. Are you comfortable posting a picture of your ID right here? If not, you should be no more comfortable handing your ID to Facebook.
I'm not willing up give up my right to privacy because someone else is a shitty parent, sorry. I'll subvert it because it's unethical.
hneerqe
in reply to asdfasdfasdf • • •prole
in reply to gleaminggoat • • •Holy shit, is this what people actually believe?
That's honestly wild.
Ankkuli
in reply to AmonTheMetalHead • • •trilobite
in reply to Ankkuli • • •SocialistVibes01
in reply to trilobite • • •BenLeMan
in reply to SocialistVibes01 • • •... is a statement which, even if correct, contributes absolutely nothing to the current debate. Feel free to open your own thread about it.
SocialistVibes01
in reply to BenLeMan • • •BenLeMan
in reply to SocialistVibes01 • • •SocialistVibes01
in reply to BenLeMan • • •BenLeMan
in reply to SocialistVibes01 • • •SocialistVibes01
in reply to BenLeMan • • •BenLeMan
in reply to SocialistVibes01 • • •Returning to my original point, I really do think that wasn't very pertinent to the ongoing discussion. Maybe we can close this particular thread here. If you feel like going further into it, maybe opening a separate thread does make more sense.
thanksforreading
in reply to Ankkuli • • •prole
in reply to Ankkuli • • •Random Dent
in reply to AmonTheMetalHead • • •While this is obviously bad, I don't think there's ever really a total win or loss when it comes to this stuff. It's a constant fight. They'll bring shit like this in and it'll seem hopeless, then someone will bypass it and it'll go back and forth. Same as ad blocking or DRM or countless other things.
It'd be nice to not have to deal with it in the first place, but we'll deal with it sooner or later I'm sure.
ScoffingLizard
in reply to Random Dent • • •daniskarma
in reply to AmonTheMetalHead • • •For one, they want all our data, they want to know all we do online.
For other, they found out children who grew exposed to people's opinions online grows more critical that kids that grew on they caged propaganda. Not good for their business to have citizens that can actually think.
acron
in reply to daniskarma • • •daniskarma
in reply to acron • • •Without access to that the children view of the world gets limited by what their parent's and their government said. It's just basic logic .
Anyway if you want to talk in papers,
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK5947…
This says that social media have both GOOD and BAD effects on kids and teenagers. Both.
Social Media Has Both Positive and Negative Impacts on Children and Adolescents
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.govmelsaskca
in reply to AmonTheMetalHead • • •mineralman
in reply to melsaskca • • •melsaskca
in reply to mineralman • • •Dymonika
in reply to AmonTheMetalHead • • •ZiClaud
in reply to AmonTheMetalHead • • •I mean, kids are smart when it comes to technology, some even more than me who got a degree in computer science.
They'll find an alternative, maybe they'll to go back to personal websites, or join the fediverse, who knows.
Imma stay optimistic
ScoffingLizard
in reply to ZiClaud • • •utopiah
in reply to AmonTheMetalHead • • •What a disgusting rage bait title.
Please no matter the news do not invite others to give up. You might be totally depleted. You might have fought teeth and nails against problems but if you want to give up let others try.
This is deeply problematic and of course precisely helps those you do agree with.
Do not fall prey to learned helplessness.
If politicians and lobbyists can keep on proposing a law until it goes through, so can we, including the very politicians who do not represent our views.
The situation might be bleak and I can understand the frustration but this kind of title is not helping.