I’m asking for public policy ideas here. A lot of countries are enacting age verification now. But of course this is a privacy nightmare and is ripe for abuse. At the same time though, I also understand why people are concerned with how kids are using social media. These products are designed to be addictive and are known to cause body image issues and so forth. So what’s the middle ground? How can we protect kids from the harms of social media in a way that respects everyone’s privacy?

  • Kissaki@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    The German passport allows services to verify age through you NFC reading your passport on your phone and confirmation of validity through intermediates state service. All they see is a confirmation of age requirement met. No name, no age, no address, no face.

    Some other countries have similar systems. It’s already a EU directive to be implemented on a broader European level.

    • ageedizzle@piefed.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      19 minutes ago

      This sounds like a much better strategy than the Australian model of simply scanning your face and using AI to guess your age

  • Daftydux@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    Burn it with fire?

    Honestly there needs to be an honor system in place for the internet.

    I think access needs to be granted through some branching moderation. Like one person vouches for two and they can then vouch for two each. If ever one person is found doing wrong, that whole branch gets skewered at the person who vouched for them.

    Sure its not perfect but it’s a system that doesn’t immediately jeopardize your anonymity.

  • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 hours ago

    the age verification thing was “obviously” been associated with PALINITR trying to collect private info of potential politicla dissidents. besides DISCORD they almost all enacted the same policy at once. so palinitir is trying to get access to all the potential surveillance data, it has little to do with “privacy/protecting children”

  • epicshepich@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    10 hours ago

    The book The Anxious Generation by Jonathan Haidt had a really clever idea. Create a regulation for operating systems that requires that their parental controls include an option that labels a device as belonging to a kid. When that option is toggled, requests will include some sort of header that labels the request as originating from a kid. Then, place onus (probably through some sort of legislation) on web platforms to restrict what content is shown to kids.

    • shneancy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 hours ago

      consider though - politicians nowadays don’t think. they think so little, in fact, that the last time i checked websites for self harm/sexual assault support or reporting were considered “too adult” for kids to have access to in the UK

      if it was about kids’ safety, this wouldn’t have been omitted

      • epicshepich@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Yeah, there’s no doubt in my mind that this tide of “think of the kids” is just a fascist dogwhistle (and one with a double-entendre at that).

  • CovfefeKills@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Probably don’t treat social media as a last front for free speech and let it be curated and safe for children.

  • socsa@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    15 hours ago

    I cannot emphasize this enough: I do not give a single living fuck what other people’s children do on the Internet.

  • KingOfTheCouch@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    14 hours ago

    I like to think I’m a tech savvy parent and the amount of tooth gnashing to setup and maintain child accounts is incredible. I’m convinced the foxes guarding the henhouse are using dark patterns to make parents give up.

    Why can’t I just get a notification on my phone saying “Hey, kiddo wants to have screen time. Approve?”

    Hell, I’d love a notification saying “Kiddo started watching Mr. Blah.” If I got the notification and I didn’t want them watching that, I could block the video, or creator with a click. WHY ARE WE NOT AT THIS LEVEL OF CONVENIENCE?

    A LOT of these concerns would go away if phones/tablets/tv’s had these simple controls. Move those privacy controls into the home and MAKE them so easy a neanderthal could operate them.

    If I have to *.newsocialbook.com into my router, you can bet your damn ass that “LiveLaughLoveMom<3” is going to keep demanding that someone else do it for her.

    • LePoisson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      37 minutes ago

      Capitalism. Everything you described costs money to create and maintain and it generates zero (or negative) profit. Most people aren’t going to want to pay for some sort of nanny toolkit.

      Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you and it should be like that. Our current systems are not going to bring that about though.

    • Almacca@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Sounds like an opportunity to create something like that. Any devs around here up for it?

  • lechekaflan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

    The hard way? Treat access to the Internet as if about to drive a car or being handed a gun. Along good parenting, responsibility should be taught throughout, and likewise smartphones shouldn’t be simply given to children like a Gameboy.

  • Nightsoul@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Better parent supervision is the main way to combat these issues.

    Companies should also either ban minors completely or allow parents to set up child accounts linked to their account with expansive parental controls that then can be migrated to full adult account once they reach legal age.

    I don’t think either will happen because there are so many stupid and lazy parents in America that don’t care what their kids do as long as it’s not bothering them

    • r0ertel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Agreed 100%. Enable parents, even not tech savvy parents, to parent. Ultimately, if the parent wants their kid to do whatever, they’ll just create an adult account for their kid. Do we really want the government parenting our kids? Sure, it may be an improvement for some, but it’s a slippery slope and could lead to a Brave New World.

    • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Internet has replaced parenting. Kids are just another achievement after spouse and house and two cars.

  • ChristerMLB@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Some of it can be accomplished by just setting universal demands for how social media works for all users:

    • ban targeted advertising
    • make it mandatory for companies to ensure algorithms don’t prioritize posts for making users angry, scared or depressed

    Stuff like that. These kinds of regulations don’t involve ID checks, and could take care of a big chunk of the problem.

    • ageedizzle@piefed.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      The ban target advertising would definitely be a more realistic solution than banning advertisements in general (which some people are advocating for here). I really am not a fan of ads and would love if they were banned, but I understand that it’s not politically realistic due to what a large role they play in our economy.

      • Alpha71@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        but I understand that it’s not politically realistic due to what a large role they play in our economy.

        Wut.

        • ageedizzle@piefed.caOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          I should have been more clear. I mean banning advertising in general would not be realistic, so a ban on targeted advertising is a more realistic alternative

  • pir8t0x@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Best solution IMO: Don’t let them use social media. If they really need to communicate, just buy them a SIM and or let them use your phone and SIM to contact them directly.

    And if you must let them use social media, set up parental controls on your router. I suggest NextDNS for this. And basically, monitor everything your child watches or interacts and engages with. If they’re using YouTube, check their accounts to see what content they’re consuming.

    • innermachine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Kids these days have access to the internet way too early. When I wanted to use the internet up until 14 I could either go buy my own computer (with what job lol) or I could use the family computer in the living room. Now 11 year olds are shit posting to 18+ subreddits it’s disgusting. And it’s all the parents fault. No govt regulation will fix this, you have to discipline your kids!

      • pir8t0x@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        They should revive the “Family Computer” thing in families once again. Way better than handing them their own devices

  • lemmy_outta_here@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    1 day ago

    Kill the engagement algorithm. Your feed should contain a chronological list of posts made by people you subscribe to. In one stroke you could end the doomscroll - not just for kids, but for everybody. Also, infinite scrolling should be banned.

    • Skavau@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 day ago

      Your feed should contain a chronological list of posts made by people you subscribe to

      Should that be the only way the feed should be organised by law?

      • lemmy_outta_here@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        in my opinion, yes. the point is to make it less addictive- and this will take away some of the ‘fun’ without isolating kids. social media is entertainment that has been branded and marketed as an essential by the people getting rich off it. i find plenty of good things on youtube without ever signing in - i just search for them. if youtube or whoever wants to use its own ad space to promote channels, i think that is probably ok - provided that the choice is not personalized by an algorithm.

        • Skavau@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          24 hours ago

          How is this even remotely enforceable?

          It will destroy curation. It’s an absurd concept.

  • BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    22 hours ago

    The answer is that we shouldn’t have most social media to begin with and parents need to actually fucking parent their kid’s usage. Social media is just the television replacement.