this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2025
174 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
41188 readers
229 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
*France seeks to implement mass surveillance online by requesting age verification, but politicians wrap it in "we do it to protect the children" which is bullshit.
Protect your rights to privacy, stand up against such erosion of your rights.
"Protect children" bills never protect children
Sex offender registry?
Banning alcohol and cigarettes from children seems to have worked, if not perfectly, rather fine.
Or requiring school busses to have swing out stop signs and making it illegal to pass them when they're deployed.
Actual "protect children" laws don't get talked about because absolutely nobody has a problem with them.
How is that even a comparison?
Modern* protect children bills would be more accurate.
The playbook these days is to use children, terrorism, etc to justify something that fails to address that problem and pushes some other agenda.
This has been true anyway in the US and UK. I have no clue how true this is in France and I won't pretend to know, but from some other comments on the potential implementation could be better than what we've seen so far. I hope so, anyway.
Both could be true at the same time.
I’ve got four kids. I’d love nothing more than ban social media for them until 16. It really is poison for developing minds.
There are these crazy things called "parental controls". You've probably never heard of them, but they're on nearly every single personal computing device. OR, and hear me out. You could just buy a dumb phone for your kids until they're sixteen, and if they want to take pictures, buy them an inexpensive digital camera. It would be cheaper overall than buying them an iPhone. But no, that's probably too difficult for you, so everyone else has to give even more of their personal information if they want to use Facebook Marketplace or whatever.
Lol. Yes it’s that simple.
Look, I’ve raised 4 kids. I run OPNsense with filters. I’ve enabled parental controls all on their mobile phone connections. My kids were and will be the last that got a smart phone in their year. I’m an active member of smartphone free childhood in the UK; I’ve engaged with U.K. members of Parliament on the topic. I’ve worked for tech giants whose sole purpose it is to create “habits” ie addiction in amongst children. Regardless I’m not talking about just my kids, I work in education and engage with multiple schools on the topic.
You come back to me when you’ve taken kids through the landscape they exist in today. What’s more, it is possible to verify age online in a way that doesn’t enable governments to see what sites you visit (not that they can’t already get that your ISP); of course I’m against government oversight of everyone’s internet habits. But both can be achieved; anonymity and age verification is possible.
It sounds like a pretty one sided view you’ve got there and maybe, just maybe, it could do with some nuance.
There is no such thing as anonymous data. It has been proven all data can be linked to you. The only data that is anonymous is the one they don't collect.
I agree that for the system to be anonymous the state has to live up to its commitment to anonymity. Have you read the EU’s regulation about this? In there is exactly a commitment that age verification has to be anonymous.
But, let’s take a reality check here:
Yes you can circumvent this logging (to some extent) through VPN - just like you can circumvent the requirement to verify your age with a VPN. But the vast majority don’t.
Im not sure what youre arguing here? its possible to control access well as a parent, but so much easier if the state force everyone on the internet to provide id in order to prevent teenagers talking to eavh other?
You yourself csn target what you think is harmful but a law will hit everything and everyone, and like i implied in the driveby about roblox still might not actually block something you find unacceptable.
This is just the wrong approach to achieve the goal.
Youre on lemmy! This is like the one place people will decry facebook, x, reddit, insta etc. But what your arguing for will end up with them as the only services that can navigate existing legally, and children will still work around blocks because they simply dont care about consequences for lying about their age.
Would you upload your ID to Lemmy? Because that's what the "age verification" requires you to do. Maybe you'd rather upload a video of your face from many different angles, which is absolutely never going to be used for nefarious purposes, pinky promise.
Without Karens like you, we wouldn't have shit like the OSA. That's why there are so many angry replies. Now you have to pay for a VPN to have free access to the internet in the UK, many UK hosted sites had to shut down or block the UK wholly for UK users.
Once again, have you read the EU proposal? We are, after all, talking about France here, not the UK.
The UK, no longer part of the EU, of course have gone much softer and enabled non-anonymous verification. I am of course deeply against this.
What I AM talking about is the ZKP method mandated by the EU, which is anonymous.
I’ll ignore your name calling; not very conducive to a debate.
There's no such thing as anonymous age verification, you can browse the web freely without creating an account. Age verification removes that anonymity. I don't really care about the EU age verification shit, we already have that in Germany, porn websites of course ignore that law because nobody would use their site if they had to verify everyones age. They just removed all .de domains.
No ZKP system can work because someone can generate hundreds of tokens and hand them out to whoever wants one.
Buy a dumb phone and make them feel ostracized from everyone else lol. Spoken like someone who isn't gen Z.
Let's say you do use a dumb phone. What about everyone else? Others have to make a lot of concessions in order to communicate with you in a group project for example.Best case scenario the group does its communication over social media and calls you directly. You're going to miss out a lot on communication.
There's also some aspect of "followers = clout". Basically what I'm trying to say is expecting your child to be OK taking a dumb phone to school while seeing everyone else with one may have a dramatic effect.
One, I'm not interested in making sure their coolest middle schooler. Well-Dressed and able to express their style through clothes, their bookbag etc. Two, I don't really want them in a bunch of group chats yapping constantly. Yes, they will miss out on a lot of communication but they don't need to be in constant 24/7 contact with anyone in elementary school and middle school. And finally, when I see them behaving maturely I may consider getting them a smartphone earlier. But if not they'll just be waiting until they turn 15. If they want to get on TikTok they can open up the app on the family room TV and they can be the same with YouTube.
I'm not going to go through every single scenario parenting in the digital age, but I have to be aware and I have to monitor. And over time the amount of monitoring I do will have to be reduced based on the maturity that they're showing but also out of respect for their autonomy.
But you know what's great about everything I said, you don't have to do any of that. You can give your kid the smartphone and let them get on FB messenger at 7 years old for all I care. And you know why I don't care? Because that's your decision and you can deal with the consequences or benefits of that parenting style.
Though I'll be honest, I'm not certain what point you're trying to make here. Are you saying you want the ban so you can give your child a smartphone without thinking about how they're using it? Or are you saying no ban and iPhones for preteens?
Yeah ... I was the kid that knew how to bypass those and "helped" other kids out in that regard.
Then hold the creators of the parental locks accountable. Why am i loosing rights?
You can.
You just don't want to either a) put in the legwork to do so, or b) be the 'bad guy' to your kids for doing it, so instead you just want the government to do it for you.
What's stopping you from setting up pihole or configuring your home router to block social media sites at home, or turning on parental controls on their phones and blocking the sites and apps?
Most parents either don't know how to do that, or don't care enough to stop their kids from using social media, despite how harmful it is for society as a whole, and especially children, and since all their friends are on social media, a child can credibly argue that they need to use it to maintain their social life. If social media is banned for under 16's, then children would have to communicate with normal chat apps. Also I know from experience that parental controls can easily be bypassed by a dedicated child.
A propely implemented (as in ZKP verification that gives no information to the service other than the age category) age gate is a good thing in my opinion, because at some point some systemic problems are better served by systemic solutions. We don't let parents decide if their kids should smoke or drink alchohol either.
I agree that big tech's social media is like digital heroin, not only bad for kids.
But it should be up to the parent to protect their kids, you also don't let them walk the park alone, why should you let them browse the web un-supervised.
There are parental tools to restrict your child's internet access, those should be applied by the parent.
Not every citizen should be under surveillance by the government under the rouse that they'll protect your kids, which they won't.
The real goal here is to detect people who go against the government and block them. While kids & criminals slip through the cracks by finding sketchy un-surveilled sites and messaging channels.
And if you really think your government gives a damn about your kids safety, then I urge you to look in the epstein ph/f-iles
Is something nobody discusses out loud is the fact that literally in you internet service where users can post is covered by these laws, they're not microtargeted at Instagram or anything like that. Also politicians explicitly say things like this is meant to stop transgenderism or this is about Gaza out loud
I appreciate the nuance. Thanks for a thoughtful answer.
You’ll see from different answers I’ve made to the reactions on my first comment that I also approach this with nuance.
I know many people that work in government. Not the US government, but across Europe. I can’t answer for the US government. But I can tell you first hand that the people I know aren’t in it to gain some kind of Orwellian control.
When I last spoke to a U.K. MP about this he was in fact understanding the complexity here, and the lens that many people want to see it banned and many see it as governmental overreach. Decent, hard working people are trying to balance these tough choices where I live. I’m sorry if that isn’t the case where you live.
I'm also living in the EU,
however I notice a global push to such mass surveillance. The EU has been under attack by Denmark for years now e.g. by pushing through chat control (a government backdoor into encryption).
However there ain't such thing as a backdoor only for the good guys, this can and will eventually be abused, either by extremist governments, which may not yet be in power, but might come some day, or external countries, hacking into the backdoor.
Privacy and technology experts have been warning against chat control and age verification for these reasons, however we do feel ignored, since the topics keep on coming back up.
I kinda doubt that most of the politicians graps these risks though, and kinda find it dissapointing and demotivating that our rights to privacy keep being put under scrutiny again and again.
However I'll refuse to give up, since maintaining your rights is important, and gaining them back once lost is often very hard / nearly impossible.
Thank you for being open minded and up for hearing my arguments though! :)
Chat control was an insane suggestion that wouldn’t work politically nor technically and, logically, has been abandoned. For Denmark not to check Germany’s position on it, and for the flagrant disregarding of all technical positions that called out the utter bullshit, was laughable and one of the major failings of Denmark’s presidency.
But chat control and age verification is not the same and one sensible suggestion shouldn’t fall on the insanity of another suggestion.
Why would you not just want social media to be better regulated by the law? You can't seriously believe that your children are going to have no access to social media, even with an age ban, unless you intend to lock them in a room and home school them till they're 18.
The absolute binary inability for children to access social media shouldn’t be the litmus test for whether we should try.
Some children manage to buy lottery tickets or gamble for real money online. Some manage to buy alcohol even when they’re underage. Some manage to buy cigarettes. Inadequate parents will even sometimes support this.
But we aim to create an environment where that is difficult. And by doing so we shape culture. And culture shapes patterns. My aim isn’t to remove the harm social media perpetrated on children, but to reduce it. All law works like this - speed limits are routinely broken but most drive sensibly.
Well we definitely agree pretty much 100% about social media as it stands today, in terms of its ills.
I don’t know what “regulation” of social media would be without requiring identification of users, though. The vast majority of its ills comes from, as you identify, monetised engagement which promotes bots. Therefore it is in social media companies’ interest to allow bots to play, which enables an undermining of our democracy.
Though we will disagree on what “verification” of users mean in terms of privacy risks.
The EU proposal for age verification has a legal requirement for anonymisation. This means that your “age verification” app simply holds signed verification tokens that it hands over to the service. There is no way for that token to be tied back to an identifiable user.
And there’s a million ways that could be circumvented by the state, agreed, but if the state circumvents its own laws (“must be anonymous”) they are already able to circumvent ISP logs, phone records etc. We have laws for dealing with it.
My point being that you either trust your government, in which case the requirement for anonymity will be upheld, or you don’t, in which case this doesn’t increase your risk surface (as you already believe your government circumvents laws and accesses logs illegally).
I'm an anarchist and an anti-capitalist, and usually appeal to the choices that have the best outcomes.
The government and every corporation having a direct personal dossier with my information in it is very specifically against my beliefs.
I think that social media should be designed like the fediverse. Organized around communities and those communities should be obligated to moderate themselves. Meta literally does not moderate any of its platforms. They know that Facebook and Instagram are full of misinformation, pedophiles, scam artists, and they do not care. The websites are designed to harvest money and data. They are not actually designed to create sustainable healthy social communities. There should be laws mandating routine auditing of the entire moderation ecosystem at social media platforms. If child safety is our concern then it should be the law that social media platforms have to actually deal with threats to child safety and make their platforms usable for children.
I don't understand why there exists seemingly a widespread interest in protecting Facebook and TikTok? Why? I dont think the fediverse is bad for you. I wouldn't come here if I believed that. The idea of social media itself being harmful is just a liberal misdirection right? Its all just to distract from the fact that Mark Zuckerberg has more power than most nations and is functionally beholden to no laws. He is entirely ambivalent to these laws because they make really no difference to his bottom line. Kids will still use his platforms. And the platforms themselves are entkrely unaffected. Perhaps even emboldened. Its an "adults only space" after all, which basically let's them fuck off on all moderation of any kind. After all, all their users are adults now right. So why would they need to moderate? They're already starting to do this. And kids are still going to access the sites anyway. So they just get access to a worse platform with even less protections for its users and designed even more aggressively to harvest their money and data.
I just see literally not a single positive in a law like this. I don't get why the answer is to functionally inconvenience every single person and overnight destroy any semblance of human privacy. For nothing. For a net 0 gain. It's all to protect the policies and actions of meta and TikTok and Snapchat and so on.
I’m not an anarchist nor an anti-capitalist but I really appreciate the civil discussion.
I am 1000% aligned that no government nor corporation should have a dossier with your information.
That’s why I’m actually able to support age verification online in the EU, because the proposed system prevents exactly that. Your device will literally be issued with ZKP tokens, which solely verifies “the person handing you this token is above 18”. It is a specific requirement that no knowledge can be inferred about who is passing the token (hence the name “Zero Knowledge Proof”). This is a mathematical possibility we can utilise and which the proposal relies on. The Danish trailblazer system is built exactly to this spec.
I do understand the concern about implementation burden for smaller players (like federated services). In every other case where the burden has been large, open source has sprung to the rescue (eg Let’s Encrypt); I am convicted the same will happen here.
That's propaganda
I haven’t got the foggiest idea what you mean. I’ve expressed my opinion. You choose to call it propaganda because you don’t like it.
I don't give a flying fuck about your kids or your inability to parent your fucking children.
If you don't want them using social media stop them from using social medi. It's your fucking problem, and I am NOT okay with having the worlds turned into an Orwellian hellscape for the sake of a bunch of stupid fucking kids with dumber parents.
You’re a charming fellow aren’t you?
Consider for a second if my position came from knowledge and wisdom, rather than knee jerk. Consider if you understand all nuances here. Change your tone. Then maybe we can engage on this.
Sound like a you problem
Dont worry theyll get plenty of poison after the ban too from roblox chat