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.
Exactly!
It’s not about Totalizing Enforcement. What it changes is the cultural norm. Not right away but over time.
An age limit on alcohol never stopped anyone of any age to acquire alcohol, but it sets the societal bar for what’s acceptable. You don’t wanna be the parents that gave your kids alcoholic beverages at 13.
It’s always a little jarring how everyone very readily believes that the Scandinavian countries are the happiest in the world, but won’t believe that the incremental policy changes we implement here have any effect 🤷♂️
As a case study, we did this in 1988 with a smoking law that was incrementally improved with great success. It was controversial at the time, but is now generally regarded as such an obvious policy: no smoking in or around public transport, in bars and restaurants etc..
An age limit on alcohol
This has a very clear means of enforcement, since you can require age checks at the point of purchase and revoke licenses if someone violates that.
This law is a lot harder to enforce, because what exactly is "social media"? If the kids are all blocked from Facebook and whatnot, they could rally around the comments section of a local newspaper or something (or even something like Lemmy, which isn't large enough to properly regulate). Kids are creative, and a lot of parents (at least here) are pretty oblivious to what they actually do on their devices.
So I'm skeptical of this law, but we'll see how it plays out.
its the point where people say "but a sneaky vpn will get around so we may as well do nothing" is equivalent to "my friend can buy me a sneaky drink so we may as well do nothing"... just because you can exploit a law doesn't make it invalid.
enforcement concerns are valid, but it seems reasonable to start with "i agree there is a problem" and go for the 80% rule
That really depends on what the proposed solution looks like. My government implemented a similar law (included porn as well as social media), and the net result is that I either need to upload my government ID or use a VPN to access the site. I don't trust these sites w/ my government ID, so I use a VPN. A lot of sites just don't support my area, so even if I'm old enough, I can't access the website. They're more willing to take the loss than implement some kind of ID vetting.
When my kids want to sign up for social media accounts (and I'm okay with that), I'll teach them how to use a VPN to get around the law so neither they nor I have to upload our IDs, and they'll probably teach their friends and whatnot.
That said, if age verification checks were simplified to a debit/credit card payment authorization (and not even an actual payment), then you'd automatically prove that they're old enough to have access to a debit/credit card, no government ID needed. The bank will check your ID, and if you're a minor, the parent will have to approve the account. That would be acceptable to me, because maintains the bar for most kids, while still having a reasonable way for a parent to provide access without doxxing either of them (except the name printed on the card, that is).
That's why I'm skeptical, but willing to see how it plays out. My local law certainly ticked me off though.
Most kids here in Norway get a bank account with debet card and BankID with it at 13. Implementing a solution to use it to verify if you are older than X years old would actually be less work than your proposed solution, both for the social media site, banks, the kids and the parents.
I would be very much against tying my social media accounts to a government services one. I know it can be correlated if needed, but the government automatically neatly having this information all in one place? No thanks, it's outright dangerous.
Yeah, I wouldn't want my account tied to my bankid either. But bankid could easily make an age verification that wasn't tied to accounts.
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.
Well.
Anything good I encounter in cultures that interest me is similar to the matching part of the Scandinavian cultures, or so it would seem.
And in this particular case it is so.
But in general I don't like this optimism of "you don't understand, it's different in our land of elves as opposed to your sorry piece of clay with goblins in it".
Centralized social media, controlled by companies, I'd want to be just banned. These are all harm and no good. But in general - see about optimism.
Could be I am being dense, but I do not understand what you are saying at all.
That happens, I do enjoy playing with sentence structure, and don't enjoy following the rules of English grammar strictly.
I wanted to say that you are right in this particular case, yes, but you are wrong in your idea that government overreach in Scandinavia is somehow different from it in other places.
Okay, so I never wanted to say that this was unique to Scandinavia. The important part was how we have a a lot of trust based systems (which of course probably exists elsewhere too, but not everywhere) that are really formative for how we make policy and implement it.
This trust should translate to trust to other people, but this has been eroded away for some time because the social contract is being violated.
Most importantly with respect to elf/goblin part: I found that distasteful and resent the implication that I said anything to that degree. I do not think people are fundamentally different, only that the conditions (material basis and social superstructures) that they find themselves in allow for and promotes certain kinds of actions and ways of being.
Most importantly with respect to elf/goblin part: I found that distasteful and resent the implication that I said anything to that degree. I do not think people are fundamentally different, only that the conditions (material basis and social superstructures) that they find themselves in allow for and promotes certain kinds of actions and ways of being.
In Tolkien's lore goblins were made from elves through torture and various degrading conditions and magic.
I agree about trust, but it can't be global, only friend-to-friend, in real life as well.
And trust in government should be taboo.
I thought it was Morgoth, a valar and not an elf, who made them. In any case it twists the causal relationship because the goblins subsequently make their own pitiful conditions. I do not condone the terminology even if solely on the basis of how reductionist it is. Since a government is, in its pure form, only a body of people, you can translate trust between people and trust between a government if it is sufficiently representative.
Since a government is, in its pure form, only a body of people,
That implies that logical structure of that body is negligible, if used to transfer human traits to a government.
"Are you 15 or more years old? Y/N"
There, that fixed the problem.
IIRC Norway has an actual Nat ID system, so assuming ðey 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.
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.
It's a thorn, a letter making a th sound. Still in use in Icelandic, I think. In English, it's archaic at best.
Fun fact, when it fell out of use, the letter Y was used to replace it for a while. So when you see something saying "ye olde", verbally it's still "the old".
I actually always wondered about the y in old texts. Thanks!
It's eth, actually, not thorn.
I had thought that eth was used in Old English for the voiced "th" and thorn for the unvoiced "th", but Wikipedia says they were used interchangeably for both sounds.
You're right otherwise. Thorn was not available on printing presses because they were being made in countries that didn't use the letter, which is why the letter Y was used instead until "th" became more common.
That's a shame, I would have loved to keep using those thorns and eths. Quite weird to think that they didn't even want to ask for a few customs pieces for those letters.
I’m probably doing exactly what they want here (e.g. having a conversation about it), but that letter is called “Eth” and was the Old English way of spelling the “th” sound: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eth
A number of linguistic buffs want to bring it back to the modern English alphabet.
I don't think ð was pronounced exactly the same way as thSeems like I was thinking of other languages where they were/are pronounced differently.
A møøse once bit my sister.
This commenter has been sacked.
What ð heck are are you talking about, it looks normal. To me. Maybe ðeres someðing wrong wið your computer.
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"?
Passive aggressive typing.
.... I'm also one of ðose people ðat uses ð interrobang
Wow, aren't you a hip cat.
I do what I want
So then the kids will just use a VPN
Yup, ProtonVPN is free, and there are covert ways to purchase other VPNs (i.e. cash in an envelope).
All this would do is make it much harder for their parents to figure out what their kids are doing. If they can access it w/o a VPN, a regular internet logger can help inform parents of their traffic.
Kids often have no money, especially not money they can spend online, no?
so assuming they develop
Psst… ðey
Þkſ m8
Whats that O with an aeroplane?
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"
neat, thanks!
No need of this. Make a mandatory physical check of the ID that can't be subcontracted. People want an account? They need to go to an office and open it there like it was the case in the past for a bank account.
Not all VPNs have offices in Norway, and supplying ð check via ð internet will reduce ð likelihood of ð VPNs trying to fight compliance
True but would you prefer weak enforcement or strong enforcement?
Strong enforcement would likely involve the government having better records of your browsing habits.
My government already knows all of my kinks, I include a list of all the porn I watched each year with my tax return. They don't ask for that, but I provide it anyway.
Hey, you never know, maybe you'll get a response with some recommendations. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take, after all.
I prefer weak enforcement every time. It's effective for kids who would follow the law anyway, and it doesn't push the kids to use more covert means if they wouldn't follow the law anyway. The latter group is therefore much easier to monitor using standard tools, and good parents with deviant children can use that effectively to help solve their problems before they become more serious.
If they admit they're below the age of 15 they should be banned until they reach the mature age.
That'll get them. No one under 15 has any idea what a VPN is.
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.
downloading and using a vpn is super easy now though?????
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
fair
IDK... Where I live, a lot of things are blocked. And while there was a decline after the bans, the banned social media are NOWHERE close to being "dead" or "not viral".
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.
Yeah, cause VPN companies are known for complying with foreign governments...
Indeed they are if they want to operate on said countries.
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.
Enforcing it is virtually impossible.
You are correct, but i'd like to expand a bit on how it could be solved.
It requires that all major social networks use BankID for all traffic from Norway.
Bypassing it would require a VPN, which is a simple hurdle.
But the major win here is that parents will enforce this. Parents can point to this law and say that they have to be old enough. As long as enough parents enforce this law and the VPN requirement is there, then it will probably be effective enough
So you need a BankID to open an account on the covered platforms? That seems like a privacy nightmare.
Everyone in Norway has one, well like 99,99% or something. It is a requirement for banking.
It is used for all banking services in Norway. When you get your own bank account at 13 or something you also get BankID.
it's a privacy nightmare as it relies on google and apple servers to authenticate verification. neither of which are private. it also makes it impossible for european alternative operative systems to enter the market - giving a foreign state, the US, full control over what we can and can't do.
Can you elaborate a bit on the google and apple servers for authentication? My impression was that this system uses its own platform.
BankID is it's own trusted platform. It is not connected to any of them. I am not sure if I understand what the other person is trying to say. Maybe they are afraid that Google and Apple can use BankID verified sessions to better identify the user?
They are using the phone SDKs to verify that BankID was correctly installed, much like any other client side DRM.
I don't think BankID has any sort of SDK that lets other apps access user data like that? All interaction with BankID I know of at least is triggered with the app needing authentication/signature opening a BankID session to the central service where you enter your authentication and then the BankID app is used as MFA to verify this.
Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying completely?
they run verification through google/apple services. so we scandinacians can't use a degoogled/microg android phones at all. at one point (long long ago) they used to run their own which made it available on any platform, but that service mysteriously died the day ubuntu phone launched. very coincidental.
I am not sure if this is true, maybe I am misunderstanding something. I use GrapheneOS and can use all banking services in Norway just fine. GrapheneOS does have a translation layer or something like that for Google Play Services, is that what you are thinking of?
ah, it's possible BankID has a different authentication process in norway. while it's privately owned, they probably have actual requirements and guidelines to follow in norway as opposed to sweden.
What I meant was that the phone operating system has SDKs (e.g. google services on android) which the app uses to make sure it hasn't been tampered with, which makes it even harder to make an open source client.
It's the opposite of supplying an SDK for third party developers.
Or even run the app as is on a "non-compliant" os - like a rooted android.
Oh I see. Thanks for the clarification. Is that something they could have gone without and still be as secure as possible?
Not if you ask them but taking the time to design a system that isn't reliant on a strong client (and then open sourcing it) would probably be more secure, and obviously more inclusive.
For instance, I'm very eager to switch to a lknux phone but having blockers like this is forcing me to stay on Android, even though I am sick and tired or the enshittification.
We have SmartID and MobiilID in Estonia too, but you don't need it to log onto social media. You only need it
Right. But Facebook shouldn't have that number.
As far as I understand, BankID actually abstracts away those numbers. FB have to use an API, and more or less receive a true or false on their query.
They recently opened up for using BankID to prove your age at bars and such, and I think they only get to know if person is old enough or not. Not even a number, just old enough.
This is the right way to protect privacy. Auditable government departments have your data anyways. They don't provide the data to companies, but they answer questions like "old enough to drink?" With yes no answers.
The government can keep a log of what sites asked for such a proof though, and better assume they do.
That's true, but the government is auditable by citizens though. We can legislate them to not keep logs and most importantly we can see if they're sharing data with advertisers.
I wouldn't be as trusting of them. They have all the power to lie to people and just do the thing in their interest. Or someone there may just be bribed.
This is in comparison to private corporations who have a profit incentive to monetize your data in every disgusting abusive way possible. Companies with a fiduciary duty to exploit every possible potential for profit or they can be sued by shareholders? Companies that aren't publicly auditable so you'll never know who they're sharing your data with? Like the recent trend of cars selling your location data to your insurance company who then uses it to hike your rates?
You're comparing a government who has to be bribed or break a law in order to share your data at all with corporations who have a duty to sell it to the highest bidder. And in this comparison your conclusion is it's the government that you can't trust?
Sorry, I have to say I'm completely baffled by your statements right now.
I am not saying that companies are trusted - they're equally as bad. They collect and hoard your data for profit, government hoards it for control, that's all the difference. And both can exchange data with each other. The trust level is about the same.
If truly masked, it might be fine. But the site has to gather that data in order to append it to the API call and it, therefore, mean that they could keep it (even of they actually may not). There are ways around it, such as with session tokens passed between the social media's page and the bank's official API page. But, knowing fb, they won't use the latter.
Obviously not, it's like Google authentication , you log into a site, doesn't mean the site can see your Gmail.
It depends how it's implemented. If they implement correctly, then you're right. But not all do. That's a fact that bit me in the arse once, and I no longer use those features for lack of trust.
In Scandinavia every citizen has a registration number and the government has deployed state-enforced online digital identity system.
It’s not a privacy nightmare if you can trust the government. And in Scandinavia you generally can.
I mean... the government already has all your information. If you distrust them with your information, you have an odd problem to overcome. The corpos, however, shouldn't have all this data on you.
Depends on where you live. Many places you can’t trust the government and they know almost nothing about you.
That's a fair point.
I’m not Norwegian or in Norway and I’m definitely doing this - my kids know of the problems of social networking (including the latest TikTok court docs and what the execs say.)
Some friends say that’s over the top; I just say it is responsible, involved parenting. I value their mental health.
And a 14 year old kid using a VPN is probably not the target audience for a lot of the worst abuse.
Not saying it won't happen, but a drastic reduction is better than none.
+1, where I live they made phones during school hours illegal. Literally NOTHING changed it's just that if they want to they can get people in trouble.
How do you do, fellow Norwegian Lemmings? I sure do love being under fifteen, who's with me, right?
Huh? So...only children get to use social media...?
Every finite range has 2 limits. A bottom limit and a top limit.
This isn't a finite range.
Ah, ok, so it might only be newborns.
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?
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.
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.
You can if you specify plataforms that sell ads.
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.
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
How would this even work globally and on places like fediverse tho?
it wouldn't work. I'm betting 100$ right now that nothing will come of this law it's purely populist virtue signaling.
You may use it only until you are 15. Alternately, you may choose any 15-year window in your life. Choose wisely.
The wisest choice is no period at all
How do they define what a social media is?
And most importantly: How would they enforce that? Kids have been lying about their ages since the dawn of internet.
I don't think they really need to.
Laws are often just an acknowledgement of a society's expectation.
"We've all decided that kids under 15 using social isn't great."
The fact that this law exists makes it infinitely b easier for parents to establish and maintain rules in their household, because peer pressure is minimised.
Yes, some kids will still use social before they're 15. Perhaps most kids. However, I think harmfully excessive use will be minimised.
Porn sites have age limits, we know this doesn't mean shit. No middleschooler gets condemned for watching porn.
The enforcing part is where this is likely to get shitty. Once they establish this as a law they maybe will try and sue companies that don't provide an age check on their websites. Now if that is possible I am not sure, seeing as many of those are having HQs in Ireland or Netherlands due to tax reasons.
But if that is successful it would mean they actually have to check everyone's age by some means, which means collecting IDs. Which definitely is bad news for users, we all know that data won't be securely stored or deleted.
Not sure how else this could go down.
Would probably require the sites to use Bank ID during signups from Norway.
Bank ID is a national system for confirming identity.
Sounds dystopian as fuck. Also, they can just pretend they're not from Norway.
Now Meta not only knows your name and where you live and your darkest secrets but your legal ID too — fun!
Not saying you might be right, but this could be solved with a simple API that returns yes/no for the age check, without providing additional information.
And this is the problem with any age verification online... there's always some lurking privacy invasion. It's for your own good.
Since Leisure Suit Larry at least. ;) Since alcohol sales were restricted to adults? Since.. ?
I know I have been surfing the hub ever since I was 13
Just like everyone on the internet.
Probably networks where users post personal data in conjunction with chat features. Obviously, Wikipedia is not social media in this regard and neither is a mailing list.
Yeah I want to know if YouTube and any website with comments (eg all news sites) are social media
What about Ecommerse site where you can interact with other buyers, talk to the seller and reply to people's reviews? Isnt that a social media?
No, that's quite obviously not social media.
It will just be the ones they don’t get kickbacks from.
Get off my Lemmy kids
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.
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.
But social media don't have to burn tar. They chose to because this way they can get more money, but it's not an inherent part of the system, it's an exploitation of it for profit, and can be separated
This. ^
And here you are, spewing bullshit analogies on social media...
found the smoker
Never smoked in my life... sorry to disappoint.
Message boards aren't social media.
comparing substances to social media is fucking stupid and you should feel bad.
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.
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.
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
Most parents don't know, don't care. Social media has been proven to be bad for kids, it's nothing new, this is a good thing
Social media has been proven to be bad for kids
Way too broad statement, which social media, which kids, how "bad"?
There's no scientific statement without those precision, and the broad opposite of your broad statement could as well be "proven" using studies
Don't stop at social media. Put that same limit on religion, too.
It's norway, so that's kinda pointless
You're right. I was just talking in a broader scope.
Are you pointing out how you don't like this law or are you actually suggesting we ban religion for kids?
People should be of legal age before officially joining a religion.
Agreed
I'm gonna go with what home dude below said. "People should be of legal age before officially joining a religion."
I'm thinking neither one is really enforceable.
If this is any guide, maybe there should also be an upper age limit, too.
I hope they've written a very broad definition of social media.
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
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.
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.
With that logic we should give everyone a nuclear bomb
And in here lies the problem of using bad analogies.
What?! Are you implying the parents should educate their kids better? How dare you!?
Why does it incorrectly say limit in the headlines then correctly say minimum in the first sentence.
A minimum is a type of limit.
I like the idea social media is for kids only and adults are banned. If that applies to advertisers and bots too then it could be a winner!
That ship has long sailed. Most teens will find a way and the ones that don't will be social rejects.
Social media is fundamentally a part of our social fabric. There's no going back on that. Instead, collectively we should promote healthier social networks not prohibit them. Norway is fucking stupid here.
Also, wtf are Norvegian parents doing with their infinite oil money they don't have time to care for their teens?
We don’t have to accept corporations selling ads that target young people and using algorithms to take advantage of them.
And Norwegian parents are doing what many are doing; caring for their kids to the best of their abilities. That oil money has provided good social services and these teens do have access to healthcare, including mental, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t teenagers still. They necessarily require some independence. That’s growing up, so you can’t just parent around every problem. Hence restricting some things, like cigarettes and alcohol for example.
I don’t see this much differently. It is a hazardous drug that warrants some consideration. Enforcement is fraught but that doesn’t mean we should just sit on our hands and accept it as is.
personally I think it's the phone that's more the problem. the persistent access seems like it contributes more to habit forming than the nebulous definition of social media. and that's much easier to define and possible enforce.
prohibition simply doesn't work. Especialy with social constructs. Try telling teens that they shouldn't listen to a specific music genre lol
There are million other better ways to handle and this law just seems like a bunch of populist drivel:
Therefore, the next step will be to push forward an age verification solution specifically for social media.
So, now because some parents suck at parenting I should provide my ID to Instagram? How incredibly dumb is that?
As a parent myself I'm so tired of shitty parents ruining it for everyone. Just talk with your kids, it's really not that hard.
Interesting. Not going to debate much further with you, but I’m always a bit envious when I run into other parents who claim they have 100% control over their kids. I don’t. My child is grown now, but I absolutely did not. They were their own person, that no matter how much I talked to them had their own life and struggles.
And prohibition does work in some cases. See, cigarettes. Smoking has been in the fall for a long time especially among the young.
But I’m glad your kid will never have any problems ever and if they do that you admit it could have been solved by you talking to them.
I was under the impression that kids don't smoke anymore because it is not trendy like it was in my parents' times. But they do drink alcohol. And especially they do vape.
Interesting how in parents' times, you did not have to be 18 to buy alcohol... But juvenile alcoholism is a much bigger problem now. As if there is some bigger underlying reason...
I'm really confused by this perspective and your comparsion to cigarettes is completely inadequette — you can't compare substances to social constructs.
If parents can't influence their kids how is goverment powered prohibition supposed to do that?
List one social construct that is successfully prohibited by a governing body and actually provides societal value. The only thing comes to mind is porn and take a look how fucking twisted countries where porn is supressed are. This is some north korea level of stupidity.
This law is unprecedented and usually I'd say it should be approached with great care but clearly it's just populist virtue signaling because it's simply stupid and is backed by zero scientific or intelectual basis.
I agree that it is unprecedented and should be handled thoughtfully. Nevertheless a corporate website is not a social construct. There is no talk of banning socialization. Maybe you thought they meant social networks in the traditional sense (social group connections) but they are referring to websites. So cigarettes is a perfectly suitable analogy, which is why I can understand your dismissal.
So let me just clarify. Norwegian parents are bad, even though kids here are doing pretty well when compared globally. Regulating how young people interact with the world never works and is bad. So, underage drinking should be allowed, smoking, driving at 8, no age of consent? And parents can just talk to their kids to fix all the problems that happen, including psychological manipulation for financial gain? And anybody that has issues or is taken advantage of just has bad parents? Those who think society has a role to play are just virtue signaling?
Where are you getting "corporate website"? when it would affect all social media websites including Lemmy and Mastodon or your moms blog comments.
The idea of online social exchange of opinions or experiences is absolutely a social construct. We literally didn't have this and now it's part of every single person's life in some shape. How can you just prohibit that? Imagine prohibiting phone calls lol it's incredibly stupid.
Again you compare this to substances and driving? You can't be serious here? If you can't even understand this issue then you shouldn't be parenting let alone tell other people how to.
It could affect those things. But like I agreed with before, it should be handled carefully and this is a big reason. I distinguish simply between Facebook for example and ma’s blog. One tries to make money by gathering data and targeting advertising to people intentionally addicted to a platform. The other is, you know… a blog.
If the law outlawed the online exchange of ideas, I too would be among its biggest opponents but that is probably a strawman.
As far as me parenting? Sure. With the benefit of hindsight, I’m not sure I was fit either, but I did my best.
One tries to make money by gathering data and targeting advertising to people intentionally addicted to a platform. The other is, you know… a blog.
but that's not the issue in question. The issue is social media is introducing negative mental effects into teens life. Which we can all agree is true to some extent.
Now, how should we address this? Should we target specific elements like algorithmic timelines and lack of anti-bullying moderation which btw are 2 things that are scientifically proven here or we prohibit teens from accessing all social media even one that has no these harmful designs?
Do you see how this is just a shitty policy no matter how you look at it? It doesn't prevent big corps from making a bank and does zero things to address the actual issue. It's fucking stupid.
And prohibition does work in some cases. See, cigarettes. Smoking has been in the fall for a long time especially among the young.
Prohibition only feeds black markets.
Except it doesn't, like with their smoking example.
Or, if you'd like another... there are age requirements for buying alcohol. Based on your comments, there must be a massive thriving black market for selling moonshine to kids, yet I've seen zero evidence of such a thing.
I have evidence in form of drinking classmates. Moderately so in my school because it was cultured, but classmates told it was much worse in their previous schools. I guess it largely comes from the families.
An anecdote is not evidence. Do you have evidence?
My anecdote is that I've never even heard of children buying moonshine once.
I thought not about buying moonshine through specific channels but rather asking an older friend/acquaintance/family member to do it.
Even that isn't particularly popular amongst children. Youth drinking has dropped substantially over the years.
I also don't really get your point. We should stop under 18s/16s from drinking via asking their parents for some by... removing all restrictions altogether?
No, my point was that the reasons are way deeper than "being allowed to buy alcohol on their own".
Reasons for what? What are you advocating here?
You imposed yourself into a debate where someone said restrictions have zero effect other than creating black markets. I and others pointed out that's untrue.
Then you came along and now you seem to be arguing with me then now you're agreeing with me but being really vague about it.
Its possible to have back and forth conversation on a wikipedia user talk page, are they banning wikipedia too? The comments section on a news website? Desktop email clients and hotmail accounts?
I can't see a way where this doesn't end up being used to restrict information from wider society. Even just banning kids from the internet, is restricting millions of people who deserve to be able to access the resources on the www
You’re acting like Wikipedia talk pages and especially news site comment sections are some bastions of discourse 😆
They’re all cesspools of shit that don’t bring any joy to anyone except trolls, pedants and energy vampires
What a weird take..
They are allowed on the web, they are not allowed sign up to be members of social media websites. Information should be freely available without being logged in, if it isnt then maybe the platform if the problem not the person or government.
Im eager to know if you are just a negative person looking for flaws or have some legitimate concern you failed to express.
Government doing parenting now? Bad idea.
Is it? Not dealing with "the other kids have social media so I can too"!
Governments have always been involved in parenting and the education of kids.
What exactly do you think schools are?
a production line for corporate slaves.
Oppression of young people is the only one that seems to get worse over time
Oppression?! FFS.... can't even look at 'em the wrong way nowadays and it's oppression... i guess it's better than repression!
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.
Exactly!
It’s not about Totalizing Enforcement. What it changes is the cultural norm. Not right away but over time.
An age limit on alcohol never stopped anyone of any age to acquire alcohol, but it sets the societal bar for what’s acceptable. You don’t wanna be the parents that gave your kids alcoholic beverages at 13.
It’s always a little jarring how everyone very readily believes that the Scandinavian countries are the happiest in the world, but won’t believe that the incremental policy changes we implement here have any effect 🤷♂️
As a case study, we did this in 1988 with a smoking law that was incrementally improved with great success. It was controversial at the time, but is now generally regarded as such an obvious policy: no smoking in or around public transport, in bars and restaurants etc..
This has a very clear means of enforcement, since you can require age checks at the point of purchase and revoke licenses if someone violates that.
This law is a lot harder to enforce, because what exactly is "social media"? If the kids are all blocked from Facebook and whatnot, they could rally around the comments section of a local newspaper or something (or even something like Lemmy, which isn't large enough to properly regulate). Kids are creative, and a lot of parents (at least here) are pretty oblivious to what they actually do on their devices.
So I'm skeptical of this law, but we'll see how it plays out.
its the point where people say "but a sneaky vpn will get around so we may as well do nothing" is equivalent to "my friend can buy me a sneaky drink so we may as well do nothing"... just because you can exploit a law doesn't make it invalid. enforcement concerns are valid, but it seems reasonable to start with "i agree there is a problem" and go for the 80% rule
That really depends on what the proposed solution looks like. My government implemented a similar law (included porn as well as social media), and the net result is that I either need to upload my government ID or use a VPN to access the site. I don't trust these sites w/ my government ID, so I use a VPN. A lot of sites just don't support my area, so even if I'm old enough, I can't access the website. They're more willing to take the loss than implement some kind of ID vetting.
When my kids want to sign up for social media accounts (and I'm okay with that), I'll teach them how to use a VPN to get around the law so neither they nor I have to upload our IDs, and they'll probably teach their friends and whatnot.
That said, if age verification checks were simplified to a debit/credit card payment authorization (and not even an actual payment), then you'd automatically prove that they're old enough to have access to a debit/credit card, no government ID needed. The bank will check your ID, and if you're a minor, the parent will have to approve the account. That would be acceptable to me, because maintains the bar for most kids, while still having a reasonable way for a parent to provide access without doxxing either of them (except the name printed on the card, that is).
That's why I'm skeptical, but willing to see how it plays out. My local law certainly ticked me off though.
Most kids here in Norway get a bank account with debet card and BankID with it at 13. Implementing a solution to use it to verify if you are older than X years old would actually be less work than your proposed solution, both for the social media site, banks, the kids and the parents.
I would be very much against tying my social media accounts to a government services one. I know it can be correlated if needed, but the government automatically neatly having this information all in one place? No thanks, it's outright dangerous.
Yeah, I wouldn't want my account tied to my bankid either. But bankid could easily make an age verification that wasn't tied to accounts.
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.
Well.
Anything good I encounter in cultures that interest me is similar to the matching part of the Scandinavian cultures, or so it would seem.
And in this particular case it is so.
But in general I don't like this optimism of "you don't understand, it's different in our land of elves as opposed to your sorry piece of clay with goblins in it".
Centralized social media, controlled by companies, I'd want to be just banned. These are all harm and no good. But in general - see about optimism.
Could be I am being dense, but I do not understand what you are saying at all.
That happens, I do enjoy playing with sentence structure, and don't enjoy following the rules of English grammar strictly.
I wanted to say that you are right in this particular case, yes, but you are wrong in your idea that government overreach in Scandinavia is somehow different from it in other places.
Okay, so I never wanted to say that this was unique to Scandinavia. The important part was how we have a a lot of trust based systems (which of course probably exists elsewhere too, but not everywhere) that are really formative for how we make policy and implement it.
This trust should translate to trust to other people, but this has been eroded away for some time because the social contract is being violated.
Most importantly with respect to elf/goblin part: I found that distasteful and resent the implication that I said anything to that degree. I do not think people are fundamentally different, only that the conditions (material basis and social superstructures) that they find themselves in allow for and promotes certain kinds of actions and ways of being.
In Tolkien's lore goblins were made from elves through torture and various degrading conditions and magic.
I agree about trust, but it can't be global, only friend-to-friend, in real life as well.
And trust in government should be taboo.
I thought it was Morgoth, a valar and not an elf, who made them. In any case it twists the causal relationship because the goblins subsequently make their own pitiful conditions. I do not condone the terminology even if solely on the basis of how reductionist it is. Since a government is, in its pure form, only a body of people, you can translate trust between people and trust between a government if it is sufficiently representative.
That implies that logical structure of that body is negligible, if used to transfer human traits to a government.
"Are you 15 or more years old? Y/N"
There, that fixed the problem.
IIRC Norway has an actual Nat ID system, so assuming ðey 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.
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.
It's a thorn, a letter making a th sound. Still in use in Icelandic, I think. In English, it's archaic at best.
Fun fact, when it fell out of use, the letter Y was used to replace it for a while. So when you see something saying "ye olde", verbally it's still "the old".
I actually always wondered about the y in old texts. Thanks!
It's eth, actually, not thorn.
I had thought that eth was used in Old English for the voiced "th" and thorn for the unvoiced "th", but Wikipedia says they were used interchangeably for both sounds.
You're right otherwise. Thorn was not available on printing presses because they were being made in countries that didn't use the letter, which is why the letter Y was used instead until "th" became more common.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn_(letter)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eth
That's a shame, I would have loved to keep using those thorns and eths. Quite weird to think that they didn't even want to ask for a few customs pieces for those letters.
I’m probably doing exactly what they want here (e.g. having a conversation about it), but that letter is called “Eth” and was the Old English way of spelling the “th” sound: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eth
A number of linguistic buffs want to bring it back to the modern English alphabet.
I don't think ð was pronounced exactly the same way as thSeems like I was thinking of other languages where they were/are pronounced differently.A møøse once bit my sister.
This commenter has been sacked.
What ð heck are are you talking about, it looks normal. To me. Maybe ðeres someðing wrong wið your computer.
Passive aggressive typing.
.... I'm also one of ðose people ðat uses ð interrobang
Wow, aren't you a hip cat.
I do what I want
So then the kids will just use a VPN
Yup, ProtonVPN is free, and there are covert ways to purchase other VPNs (i.e. cash in an envelope).
All this would do is make it much harder for their parents to figure out what their kids are doing. If they can access it w/o a VPN, a regular internet logger can help inform parents of their traffic.
Kids often have no money, especially not money they can spend online, no?
Psst… ðey
Þkſ m8
Whats that O with an aeroplane?
It's the original English letter for
thwhich was more or less deleted from the alphabet when imported printing press types lacked said letter.Before it got universally replaced by
thsome printers usedylike in "ye olde" which is really pronounced "the old"neat, thanks!
No need of this. Make a mandatory physical check of the ID that can't be subcontracted. People want an account? They need to go to an office and open it there like it was the case in the past for a bank account.
Not all VPNs have offices in Norway, and supplying ð check via ð internet will reduce ð likelihood of ð VPNs trying to fight compliance
Without any risk for sure....
True but would you prefer weak enforcement or strong enforcement?
Strong enforcement would likely involve the government having better records of your browsing habits.
My government already knows all of my kinks, I include a list of all the porn I watched each year with my tax return. They don't ask for that, but I provide it anyway.
Hey, you never know, maybe you'll get a response with some recommendations. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take, after all.
I prefer weak enforcement every time. It's effective for kids who would follow the law anyway, and it doesn't push the kids to use more covert means if they wouldn't follow the law anyway. The latter group is therefore much easier to monitor using standard tools, and good parents with deviant children can use that effectively to help solve their problems before they become more serious.
If they admit they're below the age of 15 they should be banned until they reach the mature age.
That'll get them. No one under 15 has any idea what a VPN is.
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.
downloading and using a vpn is super easy now though?????
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
fair
IDK... Where I live, a lot of things are blocked. And while there was a decline after the bans, the banned social media are NOWHERE close to being "dead" or "not viral".
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.
Yeah, cause VPN companies are known for complying with foreign governments...
Indeed they are if they want to operate on said countries.
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.
Enforcing it is virtually impossible.
You are correct, but i'd like to expand a bit on how it could be solved.
It requires that all major social networks use BankID for all traffic from Norway.
Bypassing it would require a VPN, which is a simple hurdle.
But the major win here is that parents will enforce this. Parents can point to this law and say that they have to be old enough. As long as enough parents enforce this law and the VPN requirement is there, then it will probably be effective enough
So you need a BankID to open an account on the covered platforms? That seems like a privacy nightmare.
Everyone in Norway has one, well like 99,99% or something. It is a requirement for banking.
It is used for all banking services in Norway. When you get your own bank account at 13 or something you also get BankID.
it's a privacy nightmare as it relies on google and apple servers to authenticate verification. neither of which are private. it also makes it impossible for european alternative operative systems to enter the market - giving a foreign state, the US, full control over what we can and can't do.
Can you elaborate a bit on the google and apple servers for authentication? My impression was that this system uses its own platform.
BankID is it's own trusted platform. It is not connected to any of them. I am not sure if I understand what the other person is trying to say. Maybe they are afraid that Google and Apple can use BankID verified sessions to better identify the user?
They are using the phone SDKs to verify that BankID was correctly installed, much like any other client side DRM.
I don't think BankID has any sort of SDK that lets other apps access user data like that? All interaction with BankID I know of at least is triggered with the app needing authentication/signature opening a BankID session to the central service where you enter your authentication and then the BankID app is used as MFA to verify this.
Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying completely?
they run verification through google/apple services. so we scandinacians can't use a degoogled/microg android phones at all. at one point (long long ago) they used to run their own which made it available on any platform, but that service mysteriously died the day ubuntu phone launched. very coincidental.
I am not sure if this is true, maybe I am misunderstanding something. I use GrapheneOS and can use all banking services in Norway just fine. GrapheneOS does have a translation layer or something like that for Google Play Services, is that what you are thinking of?
ah, it's possible BankID has a different authentication process in norway. while it's privately owned, they probably have actual requirements and guidelines to follow in norway as opposed to sweden.
What I meant was that the phone operating system has SDKs (e.g. google services on android) which the app uses to make sure it hasn't been tampered with, which makes it even harder to make an open source client.
It's the opposite of supplying an SDK for third party developers.
Or even run the app as is on a "non-compliant" os - like a rooted android.
Oh I see. Thanks for the clarification. Is that something they could have gone without and still be as secure as possible?
Not if you ask them but taking the time to design a system that isn't reliant on a strong client (and then open sourcing it) would probably be more secure, and obviously more inclusive.
For instance, I'm very eager to switch to a lknux phone but having blockers like this is forcing me to stay on Android, even though I am sick and tired or the enshittification.
We have SmartID and MobiilID in Estonia too, but you don't need it to log onto social media. You only need it
Right. But Facebook shouldn't have that number.
As far as I understand, BankID actually abstracts away those numbers. FB have to use an API, and more or less receive a true or false on their query.
They recently opened up for using BankID to prove your age at bars and such, and I think they only get to know if person is old enough or not. Not even a number, just old enough.
This is the right way to protect privacy. Auditable government departments have your data anyways. They don't provide the data to companies, but they answer questions like "old enough to drink?" With yes no answers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof
The government can keep a log of what sites asked for such a proof though, and better assume they do.
That's true, but the government is auditable by citizens though. We can legislate them to not keep logs and most importantly we can see if they're sharing data with advertisers.
I wouldn't be as trusting of them. They have all the power to lie to people and just do the thing in their interest. Or someone there may just be bribed.
This is in comparison to private corporations who have a profit incentive to monetize your data in every disgusting abusive way possible. Companies with a fiduciary duty to exploit every possible potential for profit or they can be sued by shareholders? Companies that aren't publicly auditable so you'll never know who they're sharing your data with? Like the recent trend of cars selling your location data to your insurance company who then uses it to hike your rates?
You're comparing a government who has to be bribed or break a law in order to share your data at all with corporations who have a duty to sell it to the highest bidder. And in this comparison your conclusion is it's the government that you can't trust?
Sorry, I have to say I'm completely baffled by your statements right now.
I am not saying that companies are trusted - they're equally as bad. They collect and hoard your data for profit, government hoards it for control, that's all the difference. And both can exchange data with each other. The trust level is about the same.
If truly masked, it might be fine. But the site has to gather that data in order to append it to the API call and it, therefore, mean that they could keep it (even of they actually may not). There are ways around it, such as with session tokens passed between the social media's page and the bank's official API page. But, knowing fb, they won't use the latter.
Obviously not, it's like Google authentication , you log into a site, doesn't mean the site can see your Gmail.
It depends how it's implemented. If they implement correctly, then you're right. But not all do. That's a fact that bit me in the arse once, and I no longer use those features for lack of trust.
In Scandinavia every citizen has a registration number and the government has deployed state-enforced online digital identity system.
It’s not a privacy nightmare if you can trust the government. And in Scandinavia you generally can.
I mean... the government already has all your information. If you distrust them with your information, you have an odd problem to overcome. The corpos, however, shouldn't have all this data on you.
Depends on where you live. Many places you can’t trust the government and they know almost nothing about you.
That's a fair point.
I’m not Norwegian or in Norway and I’m definitely doing this - my kids know of the problems of social networking (including the latest TikTok court docs and what the execs say.)
Some friends say that’s over the top; I just say it is responsible, involved parenting. I value their mental health.
And a 14 year old kid using a VPN is probably not the target audience for a lot of the worst abuse.
Not saying it won't happen, but a drastic reduction is better than none.
+1, where I live they made phones during school hours illegal. Literally NOTHING changed it's just that if they want to they can get people in trouble.
How do you do, fellow Norwegian Lemmings? I sure do love being under fifteen, who's with me, right?
Huh? So...only children get to use social media...?
Every finite range has 2 limits. A bottom limit and a top limit.
This isn't a finite range.
Ah, ok, so it might only be newborns.
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?
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.
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.
You can if you specify plataforms that sell ads.
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.
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
it wouldn't work. I'm betting 100$ right now that nothing will come of this law it's purely populist virtue signaling.
You may use it only until you are 15. Alternately, you may choose any 15-year window in your life. Choose wisely.
The wisest choice is no period at all
How do they define what a social media is?
And most importantly: How would they enforce that? Kids have been lying about their ages since the dawn of internet.
I don't think they really need to.
Laws are often just an acknowledgement of a society's expectation.
"We've all decided that kids under 15 using social isn't great."
The fact that this law exists makes it infinitely b easier for parents to establish and maintain rules in their household, because peer pressure is minimised.
Yes, some kids will still use social before they're 15. Perhaps most kids. However, I think harmfully excessive use will be minimised.
Porn sites have age limits, we know this doesn't mean shit. No middleschooler gets condemned for watching porn.
The enforcing part is where this is likely to get shitty. Once they establish this as a law they maybe will try and sue companies that don't provide an age check on their websites. Now if that is possible I am not sure, seeing as many of those are having HQs in Ireland or Netherlands due to tax reasons.
But if that is successful it would mean they actually have to check everyone's age by some means, which means collecting IDs. Which definitely is bad news for users, we all know that data won't be securely stored or deleted.
Not sure how else this could go down.
Would probably require the sites to use Bank ID during signups from Norway.
Bank ID is a national system for confirming identity.
Sounds dystopian as fuck. Also, they can just pretend they're not from Norway.
Now Meta not only knows your name and where you live and your darkest secrets but your legal ID too — fun!
Not saying you might be right, but this could be solved with a simple API that returns yes/no for the age check, without providing additional information.
And this is the problem with any age verification online... there's always some lurking privacy invasion. It's for your own good.
Since Leisure Suit Larry at least. ;) Since alcohol sales were restricted to adults? Since.. ?
I know I have been surfing the hub ever since I was 13
Just like everyone on the internet.
Probably networks where users post personal data in conjunction with chat features. Obviously, Wikipedia is not social media in this regard and neither is a mailing list.
Yeah I want to know if YouTube and any website with comments (eg all news sites) are social media
What about Ecommerse site where you can interact with other buyers, talk to the seller and reply to people's reviews? Isnt that a social media?
No, that's quite obviously not social media.
It will just be the ones they don’t get kickbacks from.
Get off my Lemmy kids
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.
Cigarettes aren't bad for you. It's just the burning tar and the nicotine.
But social media don't have to burn tar. They chose to because this way they can get more money, but it's not an inherent part of the system, it's an exploitation of it for profit, and can be separated
This. ^
And here you are, spewing bullshit analogies on social media...
found the smoker
Never smoked in my life... sorry to disappoint.
Message boards aren't social media.
comparing substances to social media is fucking stupid and you should feel bad.
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.
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.
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
Most parents don't know, don't care. Social media has been proven to be bad for kids, it's nothing new, this is a good thing
Don't stop at social media. Put that same limit on religion, too.
It's norway, so that's kinda pointless
You're right. I was just talking in a broader scope.
Are you pointing out how you don't like this law or are you actually suggesting we ban religion for kids?
People should be of legal age before officially joining a religion.
Agreed
I'm gonna go with what home dude below said. "People should be of legal age before officially joining a religion."
I'm thinking neither one is really enforceable.
If this is any guide, maybe there should also be an upper age limit, too.
I hope they've written a very broad definition of social media.
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
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.
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.
And in here lies the problem of using bad analogies.
What?! Are you implying the parents should educate their kids better? How dare you!?
Why does it
incorrectlysay limit in the headlines then correctly say minimum in the first sentence.A minimum is a type of limit.
I like the idea social media is for kids only and adults are banned. If that applies to advertisers and bots too then it could be a winner!
That ship has long sailed. Most teens will find a way and the ones that don't will be social rejects.
Social media is fundamentally a part of our social fabric. There's no going back on that. Instead, collectively we should promote healthier social networks not prohibit them. Norway is fucking stupid here.
Also, wtf are Norvegian parents doing with their infinite oil money they don't have time to care for their teens?
We don’t have to accept corporations selling ads that target young people and using algorithms to take advantage of them.
And Norwegian parents are doing what many are doing; caring for their kids to the best of their abilities. That oil money has provided good social services and these teens do have access to healthcare, including mental, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t teenagers still. They necessarily require some independence. That’s growing up, so you can’t just parent around every problem. Hence restricting some things, like cigarettes and alcohol for example.
I don’t see this much differently. It is a hazardous drug that warrants some consideration. Enforcement is fraught but that doesn’t mean we should just sit on our hands and accept it as is.
personally I think it's the phone that's more the problem. the persistent access seems like it contributes more to habit forming than the nebulous definition of social media. and that's much easier to define and possible enforce.
prohibition simply doesn't work. Especialy with social constructs. Try telling teens that they shouldn't listen to a specific music genre lol
There are million other better ways to handle and this law just seems like a bunch of populist drivel:
So, now because some parents suck at parenting I should provide my ID to Instagram? How incredibly dumb is that?
As a parent myself I'm so tired of shitty parents ruining it for everyone. Just talk with your kids, it's really not that hard.
Interesting. Not going to debate much further with you, but I’m always a bit envious when I run into other parents who claim they have 100% control over their kids. I don’t. My child is grown now, but I absolutely did not. They were their own person, that no matter how much I talked to them had their own life and struggles.
And prohibition does work in some cases. See, cigarettes. Smoking has been in the fall for a long time especially among the young.
But I’m glad your kid will never have any problems ever and if they do that you admit it could have been solved by you talking to them.
I was under the impression that kids don't smoke anymore because it is not trendy like it was in my parents' times. But they do drink alcohol. And especially they do vape.
Interesting how in parents' times, you did not have to be 18 to buy alcohol... But juvenile alcoholism is a much bigger problem now. As if there is some bigger underlying reason...
I'm really confused by this perspective and your comparsion to cigarettes is completely inadequette — you can't compare substances to social constructs.
If parents can't influence their kids how is goverment powered prohibition supposed to do that?
List one social construct that is successfully prohibited by a governing body and actually provides societal value. The only thing comes to mind is porn and take a look how fucking twisted countries where porn is supressed are. This is some north korea level of stupidity.
This law is unprecedented and usually I'd say it should be approached with great care but clearly it's just populist virtue signaling because it's simply stupid and is backed by zero scientific or intelectual basis.
I agree that it is unprecedented and should be handled thoughtfully. Nevertheless a corporate website is not a social construct. There is no talk of banning socialization. Maybe you thought they meant social networks in the traditional sense (social group connections) but they are referring to websites. So cigarettes is a perfectly suitable analogy, which is why I can understand your dismissal.
So let me just clarify. Norwegian parents are bad, even though kids here are doing pretty well when compared globally. Regulating how young people interact with the world never works and is bad. So, underage drinking should be allowed, smoking, driving at 8, no age of consent? And parents can just talk to their kids to fix all the problems that happen, including psychological manipulation for financial gain? And anybody that has issues or is taken advantage of just has bad parents? Those who think society has a role to play are just virtue signaling?
Where are you getting "corporate website"? when it would affect all social media websites including Lemmy and Mastodon or your moms blog comments.
The idea of online social exchange of opinions or experiences is absolutely a social construct. We literally didn't have this and now it's part of every single person's life in some shape. How can you just prohibit that? Imagine prohibiting phone calls lol it's incredibly stupid.
Again you compare this to substances and driving? You can't be serious here? If you can't even understand this issue then you shouldn't be parenting let alone tell other people how to.
It could affect those things. But like I agreed with before, it should be handled carefully and this is a big reason. I distinguish simply between Facebook for example and ma’s blog. One tries to make money by gathering data and targeting advertising to people intentionally addicted to a platform. The other is, you know… a blog.
If the law outlawed the online exchange of ideas, I too would be among its biggest opponents but that is probably a strawman.
As far as me parenting? Sure. With the benefit of hindsight, I’m not sure I was fit either, but I did my best.
but that's not the issue in question. The issue is social media is introducing negative mental effects into teens life. Which we can all agree is true to some extent.
Now, how should we address this? Should we target specific elements like algorithmic timelines and lack of anti-bullying moderation which btw are 2 things that are scientifically proven here or we prohibit teens from accessing all social media even one that has no these harmful designs?
Do you see how this is just a shitty policy no matter how you look at it? It doesn't prevent big corps from making a bank and does zero things to address the actual issue. It's fucking stupid.
Prohibition only feeds black markets.
Except it doesn't, like with their smoking example.
Or, if you'd like another... there are age requirements for buying alcohol. Based on your comments, there must be a massive thriving black market for selling moonshine to kids, yet I've seen zero evidence of such a thing.
I have evidence in form of drinking classmates. Moderately so in my school because it was cultured, but classmates told it was much worse in their previous schools. I guess it largely comes from the families.
An anecdote is not evidence. Do you have evidence?
My anecdote is that I've never even heard of children buying moonshine once.
I thought not about buying moonshine through specific channels but rather asking an older friend/acquaintance/family member to do it.
Even that isn't particularly popular amongst children. Youth drinking has dropped substantially over the years.
I also don't really get your point. We should stop under 18s/16s from drinking via asking their parents for some by... removing all restrictions altogether?
No, my point was that the reasons are way deeper than "being allowed to buy alcohol on their own".
Reasons for what? What are you advocating here?
You imposed yourself into a debate where someone said restrictions have zero effect other than creating black markets. I and others pointed out that's untrue.
Then you came along and now you seem to be arguing with me then now you're agreeing with me but being really vague about it.
Its possible to have back and forth conversation on a wikipedia user talk page, are they banning wikipedia too? The comments section on a news website? Desktop email clients and hotmail accounts?
I can't see a way where this doesn't end up being used to restrict information from wider society. Even just banning kids from the internet, is restricting millions of people who deserve to be able to access the resources on the www
You’re acting like Wikipedia talk pages and especially news site comment sections are some bastions of discourse 😆
They’re all cesspools of shit that don’t bring any joy to anyone except trolls, pedants and energy vampires
What a weird take..
They are allowed on the web, they are not allowed sign up to be members of social media websites. Information should be freely available without being logged in, if it isnt then maybe the platform if the problem not the person or government.
Im eager to know if you are just a negative person looking for flaws or have some legitimate concern you failed to express.
Government doing parenting now? Bad idea.
Is it? Not dealing with "the other kids have social media so I can too"!
Governments have always been involved in parenting and the education of kids.
What exactly do you think schools are?
a production line for corporate slaves.
Oppression of young people is the only one that seems to get worse over time
Oppression?! FFS.... can't even look at 'em the wrong way nowadays and it's oppression... i guess it's better than repression!