[brocklobsta]

This is a very complex problem. Its not just social media, but porn and other content that is not intended for young eyes.

One issue I have is with the age verification system. This will either be totally ineffective or overly effective and invasive. I feel legislation is drifting towards the latter with the requirement of ID.

One idea I had is a managed dns blacklist of inappropriate content. The government can have a requirement that a website register their site in this list to operate, otherwise they are subject to litigation for their content. At the same time have isps and network gear support this list in a 1 click type fashion. I have multiple dns blacklists I use at home. I know this may be a little more technical for the parents and guardians, but that is the world we are living in.

Limitations being:

Section 230 - user posts explicit content and the site isn't in the blacklist.

Network scope - This blacklist will have to be added to all networks accessed by children. What about public wifi? coffee shops?

IDK, I love being able to be anonymous online, but I do see the negative effects of social media, porn, and explicit content on our youth. I don't really trust the government to solve this effectively.

[kayodelycaon]

I don't even want the blacklist idea floated.

In a few states, you'll imminently see any information about LGBTQ+ people, include mental health resources, on that blacklist. (This has already been the case for decades in various school districts.)

And I'm not even trying to exaggerate. Ohio is working to eliminate any transgender medical treatment from the state. They've already succeed in making it nearly impossible for minors and now they are working on preventing adults from receiving hormone treatments.

[cheschire]

What qualifies for the blacklist? It's a moral question. What happens when the blacklist maintainer's morals differ from your own? Sure, in the U.S. it seems fairly uniform that most people do not want children having access to porn. But what about women having access to information about abortion? Or information about suicide? The use of drugs on psychological conditions? Vaccination efficacy?

Really sucks when someone that controls the blacklist decides you're on the moral fringes of society.

[brocklobsta]

Agreed, some are easy to classify like nude content, but what about a website about war history, that content is simultaneously factual and explicit. This is why I say its up to the website owner to register for the blacklist. That in itself has an incentive to reduce the surface of liability of the website.

Social media is a hard problem. What is exactly the issue? Is it creating a larger social hierarchy than children can cope with? Is it meeting and interacting with strangers? Is it reinforcing dopaminergic pathways from superficial digital content and approvals?

[djfdat]

Even worse, what happens when the deciding party decides that their opposition's gathering sites or news sites should be blacklisted?

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

I think that online anonymity is overrated (and yes, I'm aware of my username). Social media platforms ought to require traceability and age verification.