Google urges US lawmakers not to ban teenagers from social media.
indusbusinessjournal.com
Google urges US lawmakers not to ban teenagers from social media.::San Francisco– Google has asked the US Congress not to ban teenagers from social media, urging lawmakers to drop problematic protections like age-verification technology. The tech giant released its ‘Legislative Framework to Protect Children and Teens Online’ that came as more lawmakers, like Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), pushed for the Kids Online Safety Act, a …
There's no way to enforce an age ban on anything Internet related without serious privacy violations.
I believe the States have that already, with their age verification bullshit for porn. Doesn't seem like serious privacy violations are a concern for them.
There's nothing like that in the US that I'm aware of, though some states have tried.
I think Utah did it, or is at least experimenting with it
You're right, I didn't realize the lawsuit had been thrown out. The fact remains the law is completely unenforceable without serious privacy violations.
While I'm not really that fond of the government telling people what websites they can and can't visit, this would probably be a net good for kids. The fact that Google is against probably means doubly so.
This is a response to the very bad kids online safety act. See EFF's post for details on why it is bad: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/03/kids-online-safety-act-heavy-handed-plan-force-platforms-spy-young-people
EFF's article is better, but here are some of the details of why it is bad. The effect of kids online safety act will be censorship and tracking of kids online when research suggests that is counterproductive for the age group being added. Would require more detailed tracking of everyone, not just kids. Services likely would need to block certain content from everyone to reduce liability to a reasonable level. They would potentially be liable if kids got access to content even when it wasn't for kids no matter how the kids got access (lying, using someone else's account, bypassing filters, etc.). Content to be blocked is vague and open to be interpretation by the most conservative people in the US, which is obviously problematic. The previous COPPA needs updating, but the version of kids online safety act has so far been financially flawed.
Yeah I’m not into the government limiting the internet at all. Also, sometimes the internet is a safe haven for people who are alone or have trouble with their peers. Anonymity can help also get things off your chest, and be yourself. Although the big social media players aren’t about anonymity.
Young pre-Autism me was helped greatly by the early internet and chat rooms. And adult me really is surviving socially online due to living in an area hostile to me and and indifferent at best. Discord, Matrix, and IRC have great communities that have made me feel welcome and share interests. I’d be completely isolated and alone without them.
But notice I didn’t say traditional social media. I don’t like algorithms manipulating and all the tracking.
Yeah the obvious solution is to ban harvesting and storing of especially identifying data and the associated targeted ads etc but that will certainly never happen.
I agree
Yeah, just like most things, banning kids from social media would be especially harmful to minorities, be they LGBTQ+, neuroatypical, what have you
Which would be a bonus benefit to lawmakers.
I suspect that if this does pass it will have about as much efficacy as preventing kids from looking at online pornography.
Many of the more technical-focused communication tools like IRC and Matrix will probably not even notice the change
True. Even though the end to end Encryption could be a target
end to end encryption in public chats like the typical IRC channel or public Matrix chatrooms is useless. Anyone can join, then anyone can decrypt the messages just by joining.
The legislation doesn't ban teens from social media. It adds rules social networks have to comply with so they don't harm teenagers.
Yeaaahhh... Have you been missing all of the news around KOSA? Google is a broken clock in this instance. KOSA is another one of those, "we'll use the kids to ban what we don't like" kinda laws. Wikipedia has a general overview of the criticism against it. The gist of it is that it's not only limited to social media, and it's worded vaguely enough that it gives the states the power to decide what's harmful for children.
Can you guess who's the most excited about it and why?
I'm very disappointed that Warren is even part of this. Would be huge giveaway to pro-birthers and anti-equality people.
Those rules are harmful to teenagers
The rules include things like "do not run ads for strawberry flavored nicotine vapes that are blatantly intended to be sold to kids". That's not harmful to teenagers.
There might be other rules that are harmful, I haven't looked over the whole thing, but if Google has a problem with them how about explaining that instead of making false statements. This is clearly not a blanket ban on social media.
It's a, "we'll use the kids to ban what we want" kinda law. It's vague enough that it doesn't just apply to social media, but can be applied to other areas as well. Additionally, the way, "harm towards minors" is defined gives states a lot of wiggle room on how they interpret it, which means they can (and will) attempt to use the law to ban things like LGBT resources, critical race theory, black lives matter, etc.
Wikipedia has a summary of the criticism.
No, it's rules like "homosexual content is harmful to kids so it will be banned".
And adults couldn't possibly like strawberry. That MUST be about addicting kids! Not that that has fuck all to do with what we're talking about here. We're talking about banning kids from being able to talk about their sexuality and gender in safe spaces
Not a blanket ban, just the likely result.
That would suck
It's just easier to get kids addicted. That's why they need special protection.
Honestly, not the worst outcome. Social media appears to do more harm than good, especially for kids.
How so? Genuinely asking.
The act in question is all but explicitly about banning lgbt content online, especially for kids. It will leave vulnerable kids with 0 ways to discuss their sexual orientation, gender, etc in a safe space away from their parents.
Assuming the entirety of the rest of the world beyond social media doesn't exist that is.
What world, when you don't have money or privacy of your own? If there's not a good queer alliance club at their school, they're done for.
I mean, I'm 41 years old. My best friend in high school was gay. He talked about it with other friends, and I'm in a pretty right wing province.
The internet is pretty far from the only place that you can discuss these things, and the kind of parents that aren't going to give you the privacy to discuss also are definitely not the kind to just leave the internet alone and let you go crazy on it.
You're talking about extremely psychotic (and completely ineffectual methods of) helicopter parenting.
Can't get em addicted as easily
Addicted to what? Being able to be able to discuss lgbt topics online where their parents won't beat them?
I mean that short cycle dopamine that all apps are pushing towards like its the new micro transaction.
LGBT safe spaces are amazing, but aren't representative of 100% of online content
EDIT: I didn't read the article don't come at me I'm stupid n lazy, if its just another hidden homophobic law then fuck that, but IG you can't expect anything of lawmakers
I wonder how these lawmakers get away with passing their homophobic laws
In my defense I'm not even american
Without teens and boomers, social media would be dead.
Good, ban boomers too, then.