[HN Gopher] Every country should set 16 as the minimum age for s...
___________________________________________________________________
Every country should set 16 as the minimum age for social media
accounts
Author : paulpauper
Score : 81 points
Date : 2026-01-14 19:53 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.afterbabel.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.afterbabel.com)
| baggachipz wrote:
| I absolutely agree that gamified, algorithm-driven social media
| should be banned for those under 16. My issue is _how_ that
| should be done. I sure as shit don 't want to have to present my
| ID to look at dank memes.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| I _don 't_ think it should be banned, but I'm all for
| encouraging alternatives that use simple reverse-chronological
| and don't have the same tendency to create FOMO, a desire to
| check repeatedly, etc.
| Hizonner wrote:
| Why for those under 16 in particular? It has no value for
| anybody at any age, and has apparently driven tons of adults
| insane.
|
| But the right answer is still to ban advertising. And I don't
| mean just to those under 16.
| glial wrote:
| Agree, targeted advertising in particular is a trojan horse
| for many other internet-fueled social ills.
| jsemrau wrote:
| Its not only gamified and algorithm driven. People are also
| monetarily incentivized for socially harmful behaviors.
| Irrespective of political affiliation. Political content is
| highly engaging and also highly toxic.
| gregbot wrote:
| There are two objectives that western regimes have for pushing
| these draconian measures: the first is to end the historically
| unprecedented era of free and anonymous political speech by
| ordinary people. The second is to prevent anti-imperialist
| arguments and perspectives from reaching the eyes and ears of
| young western people. Young people will only hear the
| perspectives taught in government school and on corporate media.
| No choosing a different perspective early in life.
|
| On the idea that this is needed to "protect children" it is the
| job of parents not the state to decide what media their children
| consume. If you want to make that easier for parents then
| regulate and mandate parental controls and make sure parents
| always have the choice.
| lawn wrote:
| Or, you know, they actually want to protect the mental health
| of people.
|
| You may argue that the approach is bad (I would agree) but it's
| not because of some evil mastermind plot.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| There's been some pretty clear information from countries
| enacting online ID laws that they want it _precisely_ so that
| they can control discourse, not for any kind of protection.
| This isn 't a hypothetical, it's the actual stated goals.
|
| https://bsky.app/profile/tupped.bsky.social/post/3lwgcmswmy2.
| ..
|
| > The U.K. Online Safety Act was (avowedly, as revealed in a
| recent High Court case) "not primarily aimed at protecting
| children" but at regulating "services that have a significant
| influence over public discourse."
| barbazoo wrote:
| > There's been some pretty clear information from countries
| enacting online ID laws that they want it precisely so that
| they can control discourse, not for any kind of protection.
|
| Please do share that information.
| cocoto wrote:
| Free speech violations in UK and the country pushing for
| more ID checks is a simple example.
| barbazoo wrote:
| I'm not seeing how it's an example showing that they're
| doing it "precisely so that they can control discourse".
|
| You could still argue that ID checks are done to
| partition content by underage/adult which for many is a
| reasonable thing to do absent any better solutions.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| Edited the comment to include an example.
| Centigonal wrote:
| I don't think that social media has had that effect in
| practice.
|
| We're all scrolling through algorithmic feeds on walled gardens
| owned by some of the greatest capitalists in history. Domestic
| and foreign disinformation campaigns are not uncommon, and have
| affected election results and fomented atrocities (as in
| Myanmar). The US, which birthed most of these technologies, has
| grown more imperialistic and conservative since their adoption.
|
| EDIT: I saw your edit. I agree that enforcing an industry-wide
| standard for parental controls, preferable one that can be set
| per-device and must be respected by all social media services,
| is the right way to do this. Internet ID laws are dystopian
| insanity.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| So you say, but I don't think social media companies are benign
| or have the best interest of visitors at heart. If anything
| they make it far easier to identify users who are susceptible
| to propaganda and feed it to them in bulk.
| gregbot wrote:
| i totally agree, but the solution to corporate manipulation
| of our feed is to regulate social media so that the first
| amendment applies to the algorithm so the companies
| themselves dont have the power to push their own propaganda.
| People should decide for themselves what perspectives they
| agree with online.
| taco_emoji wrote:
| Then the social media companies need regulation.
| gregbot wrote:
| Exactly. The fact that western governments have held that
| the corporations themselves have a free speech right to
| control your feed and speech but you do not have a free
| speech right to choose what the algorithm feeds you or what
| you say is absolutely stunning and reveals that capitalism
| is more powerful than liberalism in the west.
| NickC25 wrote:
| Too bad, they have too much money to bribe lawmakers with.
| Zuck is worth a quarter trillion dollars, and he ain't in a
| rush to give up so much as a penny of that if it doesn't
| fufill his goals of enriching himself further.
| logicchains wrote:
| Giving the state the power to regulate social media will
| just allow the the state to censor and control information
| again like it does with traditional media.
| ryandvm wrote:
| There are a lot of problems with age verification schemes, but
| you are doing your position a disservice by suggesting that
| anybody that doesn't want their kid to be bullied on Snapchat
| is actually just a puppet of fascist regimes trying to stifle
| political speech.
|
| You should learn to appreciate the nuance of opinions that
| differ from your own if you actually want to, you know,
| convince anyone of anything.
| logicchains wrote:
| >anybody that doesn't want their kid to be bullied on
| Snapchat is actually just a puppet of fascist regimes trying
| to stifle political speech.
|
| They are fascists if they want to prevent everybody else's
| kids using social media just because they're too shitty
| parents to teach their own kids that sticks and stones may
| break my bones but names can never hurt me.
| ianbutler wrote:
| We shouldn't ban social media we should ban algorithmically
| curated feeds that push any specific type of content. Outrage
| sells and so platform curated feeds have curated outrage and
| extreme content.
|
| In practice I haven't seen much useful political discourse by
| the average person, but as long as we don't selectively amplify
| voices through machine signals and they NATURALLY accrue
| followings then whatever I guess.
| gherkinnn wrote:
| Ban targeted ads while you're at it and throw around the most
| savage fines for companies who don't comply.
|
| The world will be better for it.
| Propelloni wrote:
| > the first is to end the historically unprecedented era of
| free and anonymous political speech by ordinary people. The
| second is to prevent anti-imperialist arguments and
| perspectives from reaching the eyes and ears of young western
| people. Young people will only hear the perspectives taught in
| government school and on corporate media. No choosing a
| different perspective early in life.
|
| Yet my motherland, the nation with arguably the most liberal
| social media in the world and the least functional school
| system among "western regimes", is the most socially polarized,
| has voted in an insecure bully on a platform of hate and
| prejudice, and is about to plunge into imperialistic conquest,
| possibly against our allies for 70 years. I can't see how age-
| gating social media can do any more harm.
| ngruhn wrote:
| Well said. The value of free speech is that all perspectives
| are heard, so that the best hopefully prevails. Social media
| is not doing that. You only see the shit you already agree
| with or the most ridiculous and extreme points on the other
| side.
| yongjik wrote:
| > The second is to prevent anti-imperialist arguments and
| perspectives from reaching the eyes and ears of young western
| people.
|
| Sounds like you're complaining that these measures will make it
| hard for authoritarian governments to astroturf young western
| people so that they radicalize and hate each other more.
| ghssds wrote:
| I think fighting authoritarianism with authoritarian measures
| is counter-productive.
| logicchains wrote:
| Because everything my government does is good and everything
| the other governments do is bad, as that's what the state-
| sponsored media I consume told me!
| matthewmorgan wrote:
| I don't really like how western governments are coordinating all
| these massive law changes together. Something distinctly sinister
| about it.
| knallfrosch wrote:
| Sounds like you'll have problems sourcing NATO national IDs in
| St. Petersburg to create fake accounts.
| sejje wrote:
| Amen to that.
|
| I don't think Europe and the US share enough values to do it on
| a lot of fronts, so perhaps that will shield me as an American.
|
| But it seems like a lot of that coming down the hatch for most
| of Europe.
| lovich wrote:
| It's governments with similar cultures and practices, all
| tackling a relatively new phenomenon.
|
| Coming up with similar laws could just be convergent evolution
| rather than coordination.
|
| You also can't discount that once one country has tried it
| others that we're considering similar legislation are much more
| likely to take the plunge if the outcomes in the first country
| aren't negative
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| something sinister in the masses of misinformation, especially
| political/social that takes place in those spaces too.
| charcircuit wrote:
| This would disadvantage young business owners, cutting them off
| from a crucial marketing channel for businesses in the modern
| age.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Children shouldn't be business owners.
| ghssds wrote:
| According to who?
| esseph wrote:
| Laws in most countries require the age of 18 for signing
| contracts or anything legally binding.
| sejje wrote:
| I think it would be much easier to pressure the ~ten companies or
| whatever to implement policies.
| bahmboo wrote:
| Or perhaps we should watch what happens in Australia and draw
| lessons from it? I have a hard time telling a teenager that they
| cannot socialize with people just because it is via electronic
| means. I also do not like teenagers identities manipulated for
| commercial ends. Though we have done this since the 1950s. Also
| shouldn't we ban MTV and rock and roll music in general? It's
| destroying the youth!
| barbazoo wrote:
| > I have a hard time telling a teenager that they cannot
| socialize with people just because it is via electronic means
|
| There are still other means to chat with other individuals or
| groups that don't involve social media.
| sejje wrote:
| It's the social media, not the digital communication.
|
| AIM/ICQ didn't rot our brains or attention spans.
| bahmboo wrote:
| That's a good point. The problem for me is where the line is
| drawn. Is a car enthusiast forum social media? How about
| youtube comments? I think society is generally improved when
| the teenage generation is at least part of discussions. We
| need to protect the young people but excluding them and
| suppressing them leads to unintended consequences. I am not a
| tiktok apologist. Hey Facebook used to be enemy number 1 and
| now it's an afterthought for many people.
| vladms wrote:
| I would draw a line at user customized wall of content. All
| content on sites should be organized in a similar way for
| everybody (by date, by category, etc.). I think this would
| reduce a lot the problems that we see currently.
|
| If you want to be bold and imaginative, although doubt this
| would ever pass, any platform that focuses or allows user
| content, should not be allowed to show advertisements. Then
| the incentive to have people stay more to watch more ads
| would disappear.
| sejje wrote:
| I think mostly you know it when you see it.
|
| Infinite scrolling, algorithm based (not timestamp-based),
| "stories" (short videos), public (non-friend) accounts make
| up most of the feed, ads selling views and therefore
| companies trying to capture attention.
|
| A car enthusiast forum is not doing this. phpBB sites get a
| pass. YouTube is, though. I think YouTube is part of the
| brain rot, although not the comments section.
|
| FB, Instagram, X, tiktok, YouTube, Snapchat, etc.
| NickC25 wrote:
| Anything that promotes short-form video should be looked
| at.
|
| Youtube promoting shorts is bad.
|
| A youtube long-form video about, say, car repair, or
| quantum physics, or a history of eastern asian languages
| doesn't contribute to brain rot.
|
| The Chinese, take it for what it's worth, knew how to
| control TikTok. They simply banned non educational
| content on the platform. You want to watch a 5 minute
| video explaining the basics of a math theorem, or
| explaining a chess opening? Sure, that's cool. Stupid 30
| second clips of dances, memes, reactions, etc? Nah,
| that's dumb.
| sejje wrote:
| That's better imo, but creates a new problem.
|
| As we can see anywhere and everywhere, moderation teams
| have to use their power, even when nothing is in
| violation of the rules. They'll start policing more
| content, and pretty soon they'll be arresting people.
| NickC25 wrote:
| Youtube content moderators can arrest people?
| bahmboo wrote:
| "you know it when you see it" is a trap and ripe for
| abuse in its own right. Your description however is
| pretty spot on for this moment in internet evolution.
|
| Interesting to me is that I pay for youtube premium so I
| don't see any ads. They even have the jump ahead feature
| where you can skip in video project promotions. It's the
| most ad free experience I have on the internet. The
| comment sections are about the lowest of the low knuckle
| draggers and outright dimwits.
|
| I'm also a bit out of touch because I quit all social
| media. Youtube shorts is about the closest I get and
| that's a mind sink for sure. [Edit: and hacker news which
| I consider social media without the ads]
| sejje wrote:
| I mostly use YouTube without ads, and with sponsorblock,
| so a similar experience.
|
| I think YouTube shorts is exactly the experience we're
| talking about. And the youth watch it by scrolling up,
| not by selecting shorts that look interesting.
|
| I resisted shorts for a long time, but I watch them now
| as well. Prefer them, even.
|
| The fact we're not seeing ads, and that the comments are
| atrocious content, is irrelevant--our attention spans are
| at stake, not our wallets.
| lm28469 wrote:
| Everybody exactly knows where to draw the line... No one
| gives a shit about car enthusiast forums, everyone is
| talking about infinite scroll x targeted content x
| advertising powered by algorithms exclusively designed to
| extract your time, money and attention.
| gregbot wrote:
| > I also do not like teenagers identities manipulated for
| commercial ends.
|
| This. If western "liberal" "democracies" are concerned about
| children's privacy then we should push back on surveillance
| capitalism, not force people to submit government id in order
| to express their opinion online.
| jamespo wrote:
| Ah yes, the limitless benefits of anonymous posting.
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| it makes sense in terms of grooming. Most parents want to deny
| their children agency until they're no longer minors and giving
| them the internet massively undermines that idea. You're
| plugging your child into a stream of information that is mostly
| a sewer of misinformation.
| logicchains wrote:
| The school system is a sewer of bias with 90%+ of teachers
| leaning left. Decentralised media is the only chance many
| kids have of hearing both sides of the story.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| >they cannot socialize with people
|
| they can socialize online perfectly fine. Excluded from the ban
| in Australia are among others, WhatsApp, Discord, Steam and
| Facebook Messenger. TikTok, Twitter or Instagram are not and
| never have been platforms in which people form social
| communities with their peers.
|
| >Also shouldn't we ban MTV and rock and roll music in general?
|
| No, because there was never any evidence that rock has harmed
| the youth. Jonathan Haidt, author of this piece, has conducted
| extensive research to show that social media does.
| bahmboo wrote:
| > Twitter or Instagram are not and never have been platforms
| in which people form social communities with their peers.
|
| By peers do you mean people they know in person or
| demographic peers?
|
| I'm not going to anecdata [edit: then I do] but on platforms
| like Facebook I only have friends that I know personally (or
| at least when I used to use it). Twitter was the opposite.
|
| Oddly the most online abuse I've had is during in game chats
| and providing open source software but I digress...
|
| The "rock and roll" thing is because "think of the kids" is a
| perennial siren call. Only sometimes is it valid. I can't
| speak for everyone but there seems to be a consensus that
| "social media" can be deeply harmful for some young people
| and we should not ignore it. That this one guy made a study
| and it happened to support his hypothesis isn't enough for
| this one voter to want to ban online networks of pesky
| teenagers calling each other names and buying stupid crap.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| I like that this article at least links to a document with the
| features they want under scrutiny, but they do avoid a
| definition, and nearly all networked systems have at least some
| of the features in the document[1].
|
| Is google docs social media? It certainly has social features and
| I've been witness to cyber-bullying via a shared google doc.
|
| What about Spotify? It has social features far beyond just
| sharing playlists
|
| WhatsApp? Discord? MMS?
|
| 1:
| https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GVO7sNuCNmNwqVK64PHQ...
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| Discord is 100% social media. Just like WhatsApp. MSN
| definitely was, remember MSN Groups? MSN Chat (the IRC knock
| off), and a bunch of other things. As someone who has consumed
| social media and chat platforms, I will note that most chat
| platforms are social media in their own regard. Habbo Hotel is
| another example of social media. :)
| iso1631 wrote:
| Is SMS social media?
| smlavine wrote:
| No, it is a protocol that allows a user to create their own
| social _network_ within their Messaging app.
| atiedebee wrote:
| Wait, how is that different from WhatsApp?
| Bratmon wrote:
| How is that different from Discord?
| joe_mamba wrote:
| _> Just like WhatsApp._
|
| Sorry but I don't consider WhatsApp to be in the social media
| category since it's just a chat app for your contacts, not an
| A/B algorithmically driven carousel of media to keep you
| hooked in and for strangers to hit you up (unless they have
| your phone number). However I do think Meta will try to
| slowly make it a social media app.
| WA wrote:
| Kids in 5th grade use WhatsApp for entertainment to send
| hundreds of messages per day filled with memes and slop.
| From the perspective of one kid in a class chat, this is
| indistinguishable from an algorithmically curated feed.
| joe_mamba wrote:
| _> this is indistinguishable from an algorithmically
| curated feed_
|
| If a classmate is sending you slop memes, then it's human
| curated content from an acquaintance, and not
| algorithmically driven, unless you consider your friends
| bots.
| robot-wrangler wrote:
| Is it? If kids grab the top result of a massively A/B
| tested algorithmic feed trying hook people and/or
| maximize the controversy / engagement, then arbitrage it
| onto another simpler less gamified platform... is that
| really human curated? There's some truth to the idea
| that, as long as there is any social media, everything is
| social media.
| dleslie wrote:
| The simple answer is that children should not have access to a
| cell phone at their leisure, or unmonitored access to a
| computer or tablet. Access should be limited, purposeful, and
| monitored when possible.
| kybernetikos wrote:
| As you say 'social media' is not a good category, we should
| specify exactly the things that are concerning. Here are the
| ones where I'm concerned about their effect on young people:
|
| 1. a user is shown new content based on extensive profiling and
| a secret algorithm that the user does not control
|
| 2. a users activity can be discovered and tracked by people
| that intend to take advantage of the user
|
| 3. the operation of the site is optimised for addiction (or
| more euphemistically "attention")
|
| I absolutely don't think that a book club or a kids own website
| comments or person to person chat systems should be included in
| the rules.
|
| Note - I'm not saying these things should be banned, just that
| I think it's reasonable to restrict their use to adults.
| NickC25 wrote:
| Honestly it should be even older than that. Should be 21. Let's
| not let easily influenced teenagers on what are effectively mass
| advertising platforms designed to make the likes of Mark
| Zuckerberg even more money.
| hnspirit95 wrote:
| Am I crazy for thinking setting age limits is just a lazy half
| measure by politicians who don't want to actually draft
| meaningful legislation for social media?
|
| Like the negatives of social media aren't just isolated to just
| kids and while shielding them from it is generally a good thing
| it still seems like putting duct tape over a giant crack in the
| foundation.
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| its better than the alternative. I think generally in terms of
| grooming the internet is an insane thing to give to minors.
| hnspirit95 wrote:
| Which alternative are we talking here? Doing nothing? Or the
| alternative I mentioned where governments actually do
| something for a change?
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| doing nothing. Governments typically marginalise techies
| when it comes to decision making, so the least they can do
| is make the call of lesser harm.
|
| If kids really want to use social media, they'll find a
| way. Its more about making it hard/impossible for those who
| haven't yet grasped their agency. As ever, its about
| electors and in this case: parents.
| XorNot wrote:
| No at all, this is my actual problem with the proposal.
|
| We're 6 months away from the news report about "the new thing
| kids are using on the Internet" but the open propaganda and AI
| forgeries on Twitter and Facebook will continue to do their
| work on everyone else.
| rpowers wrote:
| Just ban social media entirely. You would find a lot benefits to
| society for doing exactly that.
| eli wrote:
| Is HN social media?
| ngruhn wrote:
| I'm certainly visiting HN somewhat compulsively.
| XorNot wrote:
| Assuming someone won't harm themselves or accept sacrifice
| for a cause is a poor argument.
|
| If burning HN to the ground deleted Facebook and Tiktok out
| of existence, then let it burn.
| amelius wrote:
| No, ban the ad-based monetization model.
|
| That's the most important perverse incentive. Others can be
| dealt with later.
| eli wrote:
| Surprised to see this seemingly presented positively on HN.
|
| Social media "feels" like it should be uniquely bad for children
| but the evidence is low-quality and contradictory. For example,
| high social media use is _associated_ with anxiety and
| depression, but which direction does that relationship run?
| Meanwhile there are documented benefits especially for youth who
| are members of marginalized groups (e.g. LGBTQ). Don 't get me
| wrong, I think there are a lot of problems with the big social
| media companies. I just think they affect adults too and that we
| should address them directly.
|
| But setting that aside, the practical implications of age gate
| laws are terrible. The options are basically to have an LLM guess
| your age based on your face, or uploading sensitive identity
| documents to multiple sites and hope they are stored and
| processed securely and not reused for other purposes.
|
| But OK let's assume social media is always bad for kids and also
| that someone invents a perfect age gate... kids are just going to
| find places to hang out online that are less moderated and less
| regulated and less safe. How is that not worse?
| B56b wrote:
| Social media being bad for mental health in childhood is one of
| the most robust theories I've ever seen for these kind of
| society-wide problems. You can peruse the After Babel Substack
| for the evidence if you're not convinced, but Jonathan Haidt
| has consistently done incredible work here.
| eli wrote:
| All due respect, I do not think the substack of one of the
| world's leading proponents of the theory that screen time is
| harmful is a good source for evidence that runs contrary to
| that narrative.
|
| Here's Nature reviewing his book:
|
| > _Hundreds of researchers, myself included, have searched
| for the kind of large effects suggested by Haidt. Our efforts
| have produced a mix of no, small and mixed associations. Most
| data are correlative. When associations over time are found,
| they suggest not that social-media use predicts or causes
| depression, but that young people who already have mental-
| health problems use such platforms more often or in different
| ways from their healthy peers_
|
| > _These are not just our data or my opinion. Several meta-
| analyses and systematic reviews converge on the same message.
| An analysis done in 72 countries shows no consistent or
| measurable associations between well-being and the roll-out
| of social media globally. Moreover, findings from the
| Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development study, the largest
| long-term study of adolescent brain development in the United
| States, has found no evidence of drastic changes associated
| with digital-technology use. Haidt, a social psychologist at
| New York University, is a gifted storyteller, but his tale is
| currently one searching for evidence._
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00902-2
| jamespo wrote:
| Even the author of your link says "considerable reforms to
| these platforms are required, given how much time young
| people spend on them" whilst stopping short of a ban. The
| problem is these "considerable reforms" will always be half
| arsed.
| eli wrote:
| I think considerable reforms are needed too!
|
| There are a lot of problems with the way these platforms
| treat adults too. I think an age gate is the wrong
| solution and in many ways it doesn't go far enough.
| B56b wrote:
| I actually do think that Dr. Haidt is a good source for
| getting a fair understanding of both sides of the issue. If
| you've read or listened to him you'll know that it's a huge
| part of his ethos.
|
| Here's his rebuttal to that article:
| https://www.afterbabel.com/p/phone-based-childhood-cause-
| epi....
|
| I think you'd struggle to find someone more earnestly
| trying to get an unbiased understanding of the reality of
| this topic.
| everdrive wrote:
| Do you think there is a more compelling explanation for the
| mental health decline in teenage girls?
| logicchains wrote:
| Yes, it's the culture going to shit; the same decline hasn't
| been observed in e.g. Asian countries.
| ngruhn wrote:
| > kids are just going to find places to hang out online that
| are less moderated and less regulated and less safe. How is
| that not worse?
|
| Some will. But I bet a lot of kids "have to be" on
| Instagram/TikTok/etc because everyone else is. I don't think
| they all gonna flock to 4chan because they got locked out of
| the big platforms.
| lm28469 wrote:
| I'd argue even the darkest corners of 4chans aren't as bad as
| the average daily dose of brain rot delivered to hundreds of
| millions of people through infinite scroll algorithms on
| TikTok &co. And once you remove the sickening parts of 4chan
| I'd say it's overall a much more pleasant place than most
| other social medias, it's one of the last mainstream website
| that still somewhat feels like the golden age of internet
| dyauspitr wrote:
| 4chan is categorically bad. The combination of humor +
| racism/misogyny is like crack at brainwashing kids.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| This is not surprising at all. HN's perspective seems to
| generally go further with banning under 18 year old from having
| smartphones in general.
| tzs wrote:
| > But setting that aside, the practical implications of age
| gate laws are terrible. The options are basically to have an
| LLM guess your age based on your face, or uploading sensitive
| identity documents to multiple sites and hope they are stored
| and processed securely and not reused for other purposes.
|
| Those aren't the only options. See the comments on almost any
| of the many other discussions of age verification on HN for
| details of ways to do it that do not involve giving any
| sensitive information to sites (other than what you explicitly
| trying to give to them, like your age being above their
| threshold) and do not involve guessing your age via LLM or any
| other means.
| asdff wrote:
| Put it this way: is it good for a child to spend an appreciable
| fraction of their day browsing social media? Did children
| previously just have free hours at hand to burn on this? The
| answer is of course no, there are not more hours in the day
| after the creation of social media, so its usage comes at the
| cost of something else in that child's life, usually their
| precious little downtime where they might plan and think about
| their own life. Or maybe at the cost of other activities that
| might be more engaging physically or mentally.
| oytis wrote:
| I am not a fan of governments controlling the internet and of
| Australia in this regard in particular, but Feature 4 makes it
| all acceptable to me. We shouldn't ban all of web 2.0, people,
| including children, have right to talk to each other, but
| gamified, attention-leeching design is absolutely harmful, and I
| would be happy to see banned for everyone
| taco_emoji wrote:
| No, social media companies need to fucking moderate.
| wrxd wrote:
| That's not going to happen
| fnoef wrote:
| It's better to just ban social media all together. It clearly
| doesn't provide enough good value to society, regardless of age.
| AngryData wrote:
| If something is unacceptable for a 15 year old, it is
| unacceptable for the majority of the adult population too. I do
| not support age restrictions on information in any form. If you
| don't want your kids to do or view certain things, that is your
| problem to solve. There are plenty of parental control options
| and apps already, we have had legislation proposed to label adult
| content, the reason all this verification crap keeps getting
| pushed is because corporations want your full identity to sell
| and fascist supporters want to dox everyone and their ideas and
| activities for the government to control and punish people for.
| Reason077 wrote:
| Is this ban actually effective and going to be enforced, anyway?
| My 15-year old niece just returned from Australia where she
| reports she was definitely still able to access Tik Tok and
| Instagram while in the country. Her similarly-aged Australian
| cousins thought it was all a bit of a joke too, apparently.
| tolerance wrote:
| If this were to take effect with the bulk of social life taking
| place digitally we can expect minimum voting ages to be decreased
| the same and in the case of the US, the age of consent for sex to
| be standardized in the same direction too with a deemphasis on 18
| as the de facto minimum at the cultural level.
|
| And we can expect 15 year olds to hit the workforce full-time
| around then too I reckon. Or younger. Imagine 9 year olds stowed
| away in Waymo taxi trunks with socket wrenches and cyberdecks.
| true_religion wrote:
| Or we could stagger the introduction to adult society, like we
| do today.
|
| Drinking beer at 16, drinking liquor at 18 for example.
| tolerance wrote:
| In some circles I believe that's referred to as 'grooming'?
| dontwannahearit wrote:
| This too shall pass.
|
| In 2050 people will say "Do you remember social media?" and
| someone will say "Oh yeah, those online systems where everything
| you said was used to build a marketing profile of you? Where
| every picture you posted of your girlfriend / wife / sister /
| daughter / aunt / grandmother or child was taken by some weirdo
| and turned into porn? Where our kids hung out and were
| radicalized by fanatics and foreign powers?"
|
| "Oh yeah, whatever happened to them?"
| Tiereven wrote:
| Maybe the problem isn't the teens. Bullying is bullying no matter
| where it happens.
|
| Profiting via dark patterns is despicable, whether it's preying
| on teens or the elderly. How many elderly people are fed
| distorted, sensational news and believe it wholesale? At least
| our teens have learned to be skeptics.
|
| Instead of punishing the innocent to gatekeep a system that is
| one of the most important innovations in history, maybe we should
| focus on the root cause: the crappified, ad-based internet that
| glorifies "clicks" above all else.
|
| We might have to face the fact that "free" accounts have become
| too expensive. If the cost of a free internet is a business model
| that monetizes outrage and addiction, it's not working. I don't
| love the idea of paid-only access or enforced identity, but
| applying a single standard to everyone might be better than what
| we have now.
|
| I still believe in the free internet, and I know what I want to
| do to build it: Make excellent content. Teach good things.
|
| I want to prove the value of an open and positive system.
| cadamsdotcom wrote:
| It's hard not to blame Meta for this.
|
| Did they really need to push the evil lever to 100% just for
| engagement? Or could they have pushed back on shareholders just a
| teeny bit, in the name of long term legislative freedom?
| gherkinnn wrote:
| Blaming a company that allowed bots to hold "sensual"
| conversations with children? An outrage!
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/aug/15/meta-ai-c...
| stevenalowe wrote:
| People under 16 should not be permitted to socialize or express
| themselves, nor should they be allowed to hear words from adults
| at all, not just online.
|
| /s
| jmward01 wrote:
| The impacts of social media on children (and adults for that
| matter) are becoming more clear by the day but a question, I
| think, is is it the format/function or is it the algorithm to
| drive the feed that is the issue? So, for instance, pushing
| damaging teen influencers at a child's feed or pushing
| negative/polarizing content, etc etc. Could there be safe social
| media, that wouldn't need verification, if for instance the
| algorithm was 'dumb' and just showed friend feeds and feeds
| specifically selected to follow?
| politelemon wrote:
| The necessity we have for infinite unsustainable growth will
| always result in unsafe social media. Safe social media
| requires altruistic and benevolent intentions.
| asdff wrote:
| >if for instance the algorithm was 'dumb' and just showed
| friend feeds and feeds specifically selected to follow?
|
| That is how it used to work on facebook But social media was
| still toxic to teens even back then from the pressures they'd
| put on eachother, expectations for posting, etc.
| daedrdev wrote:
| What counts as social media? Is discord social media? What about
| Roblox? What about youtube?
|
| Many sites don't need accounts to access, is the account the
| issue or the access?
| unquietwiki wrote:
| I think stuff like this, is trying to recreate a world that
| doesn't exist anymore. With whom, are you gonna go play in the
| woods with, that haven't already been bulldozed into housing and
| strip malls? Do you need to watch YouTube only on a parent's TV
| that's logged in, even for homework help? Some kids start working
| at 14 or 15: they can be trusted to work somewhere outside of
| home, but not online? What about Steam games? What about any
| games? What about hobby & fan forums, that have nothing to do
| with "grooming" or grabbing eyeballs? What's next, an Internet
| license?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-01-14 23:00 UTC)