[ehnto]

They can opt out, by not participating with the site. No one is mandated to use social media. But I would also want to see things go the other direction anyway, default to non-algorithmic feeds. Those with the awareness to opt-out are not the people at highest risk.

I agree with basically everything else you said, and I think social media is generally a blight on society. But we can opt-out already, if you are on social media platforms with algo feeds, you are signalling that this works for you. You need to accept that responsibility in the same way it's up to ourselves not to drink 40 beers a day at home.

[Springtime]

Reddit is among the range of sites deemed 'social media' per the article. Reddit is practically a glorified forum where users directly influence which submissions rise above others via personal voting and self-curation of communities to follow. There's no voodoo there forcing non-subscribed things in one's feed unless one is logged out (ie: non-participating anyway).

Given the timeframe to come up with how it's meant to be practically implemented it's not hard to imagine on various services all users of all ages from the region would be required to submit standard ID rather than an idealized age verification the GP suggests that prevents either storing or leaking identity (in either direction). If it went that way it'd be a major blow to user privacy and data security concerns.

Looking at criticism of the legislation there were a range of organizations pointing out such issues, including UNICEF.

[rebuilder]

Isn’t this kind of like saying the solution to robocalls is not having a phone?

[ehnto]

I am not sure, phones are a device on a network, and robocalls are an abuse of the network to get to your device. It's an intrusion made by someone else. Social media seems to think it's a network, but it's more like a bar or club with a TV in it. You choose to show up each day and watch the TV.

[nxpnsv]

It works though

[linuxandrew]

> They can opt out, by not participating with the site

The definition of social media under the legislation is essentially any form of digital communication that allows two or more people to communicate, as decided by the minister.

> No one is mandated to use social media

OK, I'll bite. What if you want to join an interest group (crafts, technical, political etc) that organises meetings digitally on a social media site? Sure, you have the choice to not use a social media website, and if you do, in all likelihood not join your choice of interest group. The point is that Meta long used unfair and anti-competitive means to corner the market, and obviously not to interoperate so that it is difficult for people to leave. This might surprise you but the relationship between platforms and users is usually coerced and not really consensual. If you do not find yourself in this position, good for you. I'm a very firm believer that anti-competitive social media companies should be regulated in positive ways, like forcing interoperability and forcing companies to making algorithmic content opt-in.

> if you are on social media platforms with algo feeds, you are signalling that this works for you

Yeah except people are usually on those platforms for many reasons, like access to group chats and messages, as the platforms have a wide reach. A lot of people become outcasts by quitting social media, myself included, because our friends choose to continue to use it.

[ehnto]

I don't think we disagree, perhaps even on the point of responsibility for how we got here. I do certainly blame the social media companies for the software they built. I guess my only point is that the personal responsibility shouldn't be understated, as we all have agency over the issue, but it is too tough to rip the bandaid off for most which I understand.

I will say there are many ways to mitigate without leaving entirely, but it will be up to one's own discipline to disengage from the platform and manage your own behaviour while you visit.