Skip to content

Meta said it supports proposals for an EU-wide age of digital adulthood, below which minors would need parental consent to use social media

Technology
26 18 0
  • This post did not contain any content.

    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.)

  • 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?

    a heavy handed approach, but I don't see one that is not heavy handed, private, and effective enough.

    slight modification: mobile phone is ok if it only has a small screen like on old feature phones, no capabilities for mobile data but only calls (that's probably a software limitation), and no social media apps (or any installable apps).
    perhaps wifi capability with a weak antenna, or a wifi interface that only supports low speeds.

    private communications is a question though, because phone calls and SMS are anything but private.

    hey people, this could work!

    and its not like we need to ban kids from the internet, but to only allow them with the active supervision of a parent.

  • In my opinion we would need an EU service that does the verification while sharing as little information as possible with facebooks services.

    I think the EU service should only send back, if the person is allowed to use Facebook. A single yes or no. Which could mean both, that the person is either old enough or has their parents consent.

    I thought that's exactly how the porn age check is going to work

  • a heavy handed approach, but I don't see one that is not heavy handed, private, and effective enough.

    slight modification: mobile phone is ok if it only has a small screen like on old feature phones, no capabilities for mobile data but only calls (that's probably a software limitation), and no social media apps (or any installable apps).
    perhaps wifi capability with a weak antenna, or a wifi interface that only supports low speeds.

    private communications is a question though, because phone calls and SMS are anything but private.

    hey people, this could work!

    and its not like we need to ban kids from the internet, but to only allow them with the active supervision of a parent.

    Pagers. Kids under 21 can only get pagers.

    They get within two meters of a smartphone, both kid, parents, and whoever owns the smartphone go straight to jail.

  • In my opinion we would need an EU service that does the verification while sharing as little information as possible with facebooks services.

    I think the EU service should only send back, if the person is allowed to use Facebook. A single yes or no. Which could mean both, that the person is either old enough or has their parents consent.

    Anything else would be in flagrant violation of the GDPR (and this too, probably, though not as flagrantly).

  • 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.)

    I’d rather parents, who in 2025 probably grew up with connected devices, be responsible for it

    That's about as useful as saying that shops should be allowed to sell alcohol to 5 year olds and the parents should be responsible for it.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    Of course they do, since small spaces like lemmy and each of it's instances would have to implement some form of age verification too, making them either close down, or ban EU IPs like misskey does.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    That's a funny way to say they shouldn't be allowed to be on the net by themselves until they are 18.

    Going back to the Napster days there was an analogy that the internet is like a street. If you leave a photo or an mp3 available on the street, then I can take it as I pass by.

    Well similarly, if you allow your kid on the street and the internet is basically like the pink zone in Amsterdam, your kid will see things. Also they will be susceptible to abusers and advertisers.

    For that reason, we should always opt for local software for them to use, no social media and no presence on the net. Also anyone doing business on the net should be barred from doing business with a kid on the net.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    I've been thinking of possible ways that you could prove you're of legal age to access a site through a government service without the government being able to know who the user is, and I can't really come up with a clean solution.

    The best idea that came to my mind was that you could e.g. have a challenge system where the government service challenges the user to return an encrypted randomly generated value. Each user has e.g. an AES key assigned to them that corresponds to the year they were born in, e.g. everyone born in the year 2000 has the same encryption key in ther ID card, and they just use that to return an answer to the challenge. The government website can know all of the secret keys and just check if it can unencrypt the result with the correct one. This means that the government service won't know anything about the user other than their year of birth, but can confirm their age.

    Now two main problems are that, as everyone with the same year of birth has the same key, it could be possible to somehow leak one key and make it so that anyone can pretend to be born at that age, but considering this is for kids, exploiting that sort of problem is probably enough of a barrier to use. Another problem is that this would require you to scan your ID card with every use. Maybe you could accomplish this with a mobile app but idk if that's possible to do in the same way.

  • how would you ensure that this stays private? not just from facebook, but completely. as I see it, this would require some form of biometric authentication

    I mean yes, the verification service would know about you. But since this is a trusted service, it would be me okay. It doesn't even have to store the verification result, if you don't want to

  • I've been thinking of possible ways that you could prove you're of legal age to access a site through a government service without the government being able to know who the user is, and I can't really come up with a clean solution.

    The best idea that came to my mind was that you could e.g. have a challenge system where the government service challenges the user to return an encrypted randomly generated value. Each user has e.g. an AES key assigned to them that corresponds to the year they were born in, e.g. everyone born in the year 2000 has the same encryption key in ther ID card, and they just use that to return an answer to the challenge. The government website can know all of the secret keys and just check if it can unencrypt the result with the correct one. This means that the government service won't know anything about the user other than their year of birth, but can confirm their age.

    Now two main problems are that, as everyone with the same year of birth has the same key, it could be possible to somehow leak one key and make it so that anyone can pretend to be born at that age, but considering this is for kids, exploiting that sort of problem is probably enough of a barrier to use. Another problem is that this would require you to scan your ID card with every use. Maybe you could accomplish this with a mobile app but idk if that's possible to do in the same way.

    There is no way. If identity is involved in any way, shape, or form it is a major privacy and security risk. Meta supports it only because it shifts responsibility and liability off themselves. In other words, it benefits them financially. Endangering the public for profit is their whole M.O.

  • Pagers. Kids under 21 can only get pagers.

    They get within two meters of a smartphone, both kid, parents, and whoever owns the smartphone go straight to jail.

    that does not seem to be right. 21 is way too high, and also this would effectively be a universal restraining order kids and not-so-kids, and adults. I don't want to go to jail just because of walking by a kid or a young adult, let alone converse with them, only sick people would actually endorse this.

    but also pagers only do one way communication, don't they? that is worthless here. the goal is not to just put a GPS tracker to kids, but to give them a simple communication device.

  • I mean yes, the verification service would know about you. But since this is a trusted service, it would be me okay. It doesn't even have to store the verification result, if you don't want to

    it would not be a trusted service, but at most legally. just like centralized chat scanning systems.

    It doesn't even have to store the verification result, if you don't want to

    "if you don't want to" lol. you won't decide whether they will store anything, silly. the control is theirs, cemented, the law is on their side, the political narrative will be on their side (think of the children!!), they'll do whatever the fuck they want.

  • I've been thinking of possible ways that you could prove you're of legal age to access a site through a government service without the government being able to know who the user is, and I can't really come up with a clean solution.

    The best idea that came to my mind was that you could e.g. have a challenge system where the government service challenges the user to return an encrypted randomly generated value. Each user has e.g. an AES key assigned to them that corresponds to the year they were born in, e.g. everyone born in the year 2000 has the same encryption key in ther ID card, and they just use that to return an answer to the challenge. The government website can know all of the secret keys and just check if it can unencrypt the result with the correct one. This means that the government service won't know anything about the user other than their year of birth, but can confirm their age.

    Now two main problems are that, as everyone with the same year of birth has the same key, it could be possible to somehow leak one key and make it so that anyone can pretend to be born at that age, but considering this is for kids, exploiting that sort of problem is probably enough of a barrier to use. Another problem is that this would require you to scan your ID card with every use. Maybe you could accomplish this with a mobile app but idk if that's possible to do in the same way.

    How about parents just do their job and make sure their kids aren't accessing stuff they shouldn't? I'm a parent, and I'm already doing that, I don't need the government to violate my privacy in order to be a decent parent...

  • This post did not contain any content.

    Keep internet free. Like libraries.

  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 90 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    lupusblackfur@lemmy.worldL
    Zuck can't be too excited to be suddenly and harshly cut out of the Oval Office Data Pipeline...
  • Study finds persistent spike in hate speech on X

    Technology technology
    43
    1
    348 Stimmen
    43 Beiträge
    80 Aufrufe
    E
    You are a zionist so it's funny that you say that
  • Founder of 23andMe buys back company out of bankruptcy auction

    Technology technology
    60
    1
    348 Stimmen
    60 Beiträge
    65 Aufrufe
    A
    Come on up to Canada, we still got that garlic bomb. I can still taste the one from last week
  • 456 Stimmen
    48 Beiträge
    60 Aufrufe
    L
    That's good to know, thanks.
  • Catbox.moe got screwed 😿

    Technology technology
    40
    55 Stimmen
    40 Beiträge
    44 Aufrufe
    archrecord@lemm.eeA
    I'll gladly give you a reason. I'm actually happy to articulate my stance on this, considering how much I tend to care about digital rights. Services that host files should not be held responsible for what users upload, unless: The service explicitly caters to illegal content by definition or practice (i.e. the if the website is literally titled uploadyourcsamhere[.]com then it's safe to assume they deliberately want to host illegal content) The service has a very easy mechanism to remove illegal content, either when asked, or through simple monitoring systems, but chooses not to do so (catbox does this, and quite quickly too) Because holding services responsible creates a whole host of negative effects. Here's some examples: Someone starts a CDN and some users upload CSAM. The creator of the CDN goes to jail now. Nobody ever wants to create a CDN because of the legal risk, and thus the only providers of CDNs become shady, expensive, anonymously-run services with no compliance mechanisms. You run a site that hosts images, and someone decides they want to harm you. They upload CSAM, then report the site to law enforcement. You go to jail. Anybody in the future who wants to run an image sharing site must now self-censor to try and not upset any human being that could be willing to harm them via their site. A social media site is hosting the posts and content of users. In order to be compliant and not go to jail, they must engage in extremely strict filtering, otherwise even one mistake could land them in jail. All users of the site are prohibited from posting any NSFW or even suggestive content, (including newsworthy media, such as an image of bodies in a warzone) and any violation leads to an instant ban, because any of those things could lead to a chance of actually illegal content being attached. This isn't just my opinion either. Digital rights organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation have talked at length about similar policies before. To quote them: "When social media platforms adopt heavy-handed moderation policies, the unintended consequences can be hard to predict. For example, Twitter’s policies on sexual material have resulted in posts on sexual health and condoms being taken down. YouTube’s bans on violent content have resulted in journalism on the Syrian war being pulled from the site. It can be tempting to attempt to “fix” certain attitudes and behaviors online by placing increased restrictions on users’ speech, but in practice, web platforms have had more success at silencing innocent people than at making online communities healthier." Now, to address the rest of your comment, since I don't just want to focus on the beginning: I think you have to actively moderate what is uploaded Catbox does, and as previously mentioned, often at a much higher rate than other services, and at a comparable rate to many services that have millions, if not billions of dollars in annual profits that could otherwise be spent on further moderation. there has to be swifter and stricter punishment for those that do upload things that are against TOS and/or illegal. The problem isn't necessarily the speed at which people can be reported and punished, but rather that the internet is fundamentally harder to track people on than real life. It's easy for cops to sit around at a spot they know someone will be physically distributing illegal content at in real life, but digitally, even if you can see the feed of all the information passing through the service, a VPN or Tor connection will anonymize your IP address in a manner that most police departments won't be able to track, and most three-letter agencies will simply have a relatively low success rate with. There's no good solution to this problem of identifying perpetrators, which is why platforms often focus on moderation over legal enforcement actions against users so frequently. It accomplishes the goal of preventing and removing the content without having to, for example, require every single user of the internet to scan an ID (and also magically prevent people from just stealing other people's access tokens and impersonating their ID) I do agree, however, that we should probably provide larger amounts of funding, training, and resources, to divisions who's sole goal is to go after online distribution of various illegal content, primarily that which harms children, because it's certainly still an issue of there being too many reports to go through, even if many of them will still lead to dead ends. I hope that explains why making file hosting services liable for user uploaded content probably isn't the best strategy. I hate to see people with good intentions support ideas that sound good in practice, but in the end just cause more untold harms, and I hope you can understand why I believe this to be the case.
  • Twitch is getting vertical livestreams

    Technology technology
    20
    1
    11 Stimmen
    20 Beiträge
    45 Aufrufe
    zombiemantis@lemmy.worldZ
    Oh, yeah, that makes sense. I kinda assumed they already supported it, like YouTube Shorts adopting the vertical format for shorts after Ticktock blew up.
  • 0 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    K
    Only way I'll want a different phone brand is if it comes with ZERO bloatware and has an excellent internal memory/storage cleanse that has nothing to do with Google's Files or a random app I'm not sure I can trust without paying or rooting. So far my A series phones do what I need mostly and in my opinion is superior to the Motorola's my fiancé prefers minus the phone-phone charge ability his has, everything else I'm just glad I have enough control to tweak things to my liking, however these days Samsungs seem to be infested with Google bloatware and apps that insist on opening themselves back up regardless of the widespread battery restrictions I've assigned (even was sent a "Stop Closing my Apps" notif that sent me to an article ) short of Disabling many unnecessary apps bc fully rooting my devices is something I rarely do anymore. I have a random Chinese brand tablet where I actually have more control over the apps than either of my A series phones whee Force Stopping STAYS that way when I tell them to! I hate being listened to for ads and the unwanted draining my battery life and data (I live off-grid and pay data rates because "Unlimited" is some throttled BS) so my ability to control what's going on in the background matters a lot to me, enough that I'm anti Meta-apps and avoid all non-essential Google apps. I can't afford topline phones and the largest data plan, so I work with what I can afford and I'm sad refurbished A lines seem to be getting more expensive while giving away my control to companies. Last A line I bought that was supposed to be my first 5G phone was network locked, so I got ripped off, but it still serves me well in off-grid life. Only app that actually regularly malfunctions when I Force Stop it's background presence is Roku, which I find to have very an almost insidious presence in our lives. Google Play, Chrome, and Spotify never acts incompetent in any way no matter how I have to open the setting every single time I turn Airplane Mode off. Don't need Gmail with Chrome and DuckDuckGo has been awesome at intercepting self-loading ads. I hope one day DDG gets better bc Google seems to be terrible lately and I even caught their AI contradicting itself when asking about if Homo Florensis is considered Human (yes) and then asked the oldest age of human remains, and was fed the outdated narrative of 300,000 years versus 700,000+ years bipedal pre-humans have been carbon dated outside of the Cradle of Humanity in South Africa. SO sorry to go off-topic, but I've got a big gripe with Samsung's partnership with Google, especially considering the launch of Quantum Computed AI that is still being fine-tuned with company-approved censorships.