I’m asking for public policy ideas here. A lot of countries are enacting age verification now. But of course this is a privacy nightmare and is ripe for abuse. At the same time though, I also understand why people are concerned with how kids are using social media. These products are designed to be addictive and are known to cause body image issues and so forth. So what’s the middle ground? How can we protect kids from the harms of social media in a way that respects everyone’s privacy?
I think we should reframe the question.
How can we protect adults from the harms of not being able to post meaningless bullshit anonymously to online anonymous strangers we never agree with without sacrificing everyones children’s mental stability?
Maybe put childrens rights before adult rights. Adults had fun and got along fine without social media back before the 2000’s. I refuse to believe that we are no longer capable of that. Especially if it means kids get to to go back to using the internet as a resource for homework and playing outside and using their own imaginations. Adults too.
Governments need to setup a digital ID using a trustless authenticator.
Government issues a one-time verified credential (tied to real identity verification, like a passport or SSN check). You get a cryptographic token on your device. When a platform needs to know “is this a real adult citizen?”, you present a zero-knowledge proof — yes/no, nothing else. No name, no IP, no persistent identifier the platform can track. The government isn’t contacted. The platform learns nothing except the answer to their question.
ban social media metrics and information trading/markets. make it a truly anonymous service like it was in the early 2000s.
if protecting children was the point they would stop corporations from identifying all users and selling their identities/profiles online.
but, protecting the children is NOT the point. the point is control of freedom of speech, or rather who gets to have the freedom of speech.
Most people don’t want social media to be anonymous. They want to be themselves and connect with real people. How exactly is an anonymous tinder supposed to work?
Glory holes
Just normalize talking about those online irl abuse/exploitation stuff instead of yelling at em nor grounding. And stop victim blaming even some of the professionals do that.
Maybe we should do normalize about talking about other stuff too, to body images in head including “problematic” ones to in some anormal/atypical attraction types to possible self diagnosed but not so loud neurodiversities such as realizing you are might be plural or have too specific kinds of ocd.
Ive seen many abusers online are aiming kiddies online with those stuff and since there are not much help and many stigma surrounding mental health and bs kind of therapists that does victim blaming, they will have either to go online with predators watching em and prey on them for those vulnerabilities thrn thus preds will shift blame to those kids or smth.
Ive seen kids young as 12 or smth in some high risk mental health communities. You can tell someone did not wanted em but predators def do. Basically do not give birth to kids if you cant accept em in any way, if you think your kid becoming dangerous after some time, methinks you are also responsible for some aspects of it if they are under some of age.
Stop. Giving. Them. Phones.
Stop whining. No they don’t need one. NO THEY DON’T.
No.
No they’re not special.
No they’re not too busy. Neither are you.
No iPad either.
Stop. Shut up. No. Phones.
The German passport allows services to verify age through you NFC reading your passport on your phone and confirmation of validity through intermediates state service. All they see is a confirmation of age requirement met. No name, no age, no address, no face.
Some other countries have similar systems. It’s already a EU directive to be implemented on a broader European level.
This sounds like a much better strategy than the Australian model of simply scanning your face and using AI to guess your age
How would that work online? How would they confirm it’s your passport, and that it’s a real passport that was really scanned (instead of a browser plugin)?
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EIDAS
- https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personalausweis_(Deutschland)#eID-Funktion
- Register as a service, with justification why you need to be able to read the fields or properties you say you need
- Upon acceptance, aquire a digital permission certificate
- Set up a server, that handles communication with the ID
- For a request, prove you own the permission cert through a challenge sent by the ID document
- ID document proves through a challenge to the server that it is what it is (a set of produced ID documents use the same private and public keys so they are not personally identifiable / associatable to an individual)
- User enters PIN so that this process can proceed
- Open secured connection between server and ID document
- Server can request/challenge age verification, and the ID document answers with “is met”
At least the Wikipedia page is not detailed/technical on step 8, but if you were to attempt to man-in-the-middle, you could not because you can’t fake identifying as a valid ID document, which is ensured by the challenge and private/public key cryptography.
Parental controls have been an effective way for decades. In combination with actually looking over your kids, of course.
yeah, but that would require, you know, parenting, which is something we can’t do.
By not allowing parents to outsource the responsibilities of being a parent.
Some of it can be accomplished by just setting universal demands for how social media works for all users:
- ban targeted advertising
- make it mandatory for companies to ensure algorithms don’t prioritize posts for making users angry, scared or depressed
Stuff like that. These kinds of regulations don’t involve ID checks, and could take care of a big chunk of the problem.
If you do the 1st one, then most companies likely wouldn’t bother with such algorithms anymore.
I dunno, they will still want people to stick around on their site, so they can see their ads.
I figure a ban of targeted advertisement would look like “The ads are only allowed to change once a day, and everybody during said day sees the same ads”. Whereas currently, each time you load a website, there’s an impromptu auction to sell the ad spots. (Advertisers don’t actually have to pay until you click their ad). So there would be less incentive to keep the user constantly engaged, as it would be enough if the user just visits regularly.
That’s interesting, and maybe better than what I had in mind.
What did you have mind?
The ban target advertising would definitely be a more realistic solution than banning advertisements in general (which some people are advocating for here). I really am not a fan of ads and would love if they were banned, but I understand that it’s not politically realistic due to what a large role they play in our economy.
It is apparently a movement, but it gets way too little attention: https://www.politico.eu/article/targeted-advertising-tech-privacy/
