[profstasiak]

I love this. I don't think children should be seeing what they can see on the Internet (we limit what movies or games they can buy, but hey - you can go online and watch hardcore porn, or people getting killed on video even when you are 12).

I also love that EU is working on a digital wallet that can facilitate that age check - I would for someone to make a social media with only verified people living in EU. Why do I need to browse russian generated posts that try to pretend they are citizens of my country?

I understand Internet has ideological foundations that are deeply entrenched in Sillicon Valley / American culture, but I don't but those anymore.

[JumpCrisscross]

> don't think children should be seeing what they can see on the Internet

We’re still on hacker news, right? When did any control function installed by our parents or schools ever limit us?

More importantly: where are the restrictions on addictive social media? Where we have documented evidence of harm being done?

[impossiblefork]

I don't understand how you can see it as okay from the point of view of European culture though.

Age verification requires treating a website, not as some random person, but as a platform which has control of content and some responsibility. Age verification requires giving websites information that they should not have.

Surely the European perspective should be that it is not Reddit's business whether I am 50 or 15. That they are just a website and should not care who I am and should not have that information.

Furthermore, this violent images are reality. It should be possible to discuss war in public, and use first-hand information and discuss horrible pictures in detail.

[profstasiak]

it is societies business to limit certain illegal activities both online and offline.

Most countries including USA have Indecent Exposure laws, prohibiting women for example from flashing their breasts on the street.

Yet somehow online adult women are able to "flash" homemade videos of them making sex with multiple partners, and you somehow think it's ok for children age 11 to view this with no responsibility on reddit's part?

Also most countries limit what children can do. It's illegal to drink even when you are 20 in USA. Why do we think children are mature enough when they are 11 to view unmoderated usergenerated content on tiktok? Many made by 18+ people driven by commercial interest and many of these videos dangerous for children (for example many challanges, where kids die after trying to do them).

Obviously one can have this kind of naive liberalism view, that anything goes. I personally don't and that's why I shared my comment.

[impossiblefork]

I'm not a liberal, but I believe that democracy requires a free public conversation.

Combat videos are not pornography.

[JohnFen]

> Obviously one can have this kind of naive liberalism view, that anything goes.

Very few people think this.

The issue isn't "anything goes", the issue is the expansion of surveillance. There is no way that I'm willing to subject myself to that. If that's a requirement for using a web site, then that web site is not suitable for me, so these laws make the web even smaller than it has already become.

[FMecha]

How is that digital wallet even going, though? Last time I heard the Digital Euro proposal still faces several hurdles - including privacy.

[sunaookami]

Didn't know Von der Leyen had an HN account!

[aaaja]

Agreed. Now that web access is so readily available, it's about time online service providers started taking more responsibility for what they publish and who can access it. That short-lived era of the Internet being only for tech-savvy adults is long gone. The online world is the real world now.

People often use the phrase "think of the children!" mockingly, but we really do need to think about their welfare and what sort of society we want them to develop and grow up in, and that includes the part of society that is mediated online.

Despite the criticisms people have over some of the detail in these new regulations, I see this as a very positive first step in the right direction.

[lowsong]

Is this intended as satire? Even if the position is so blatantly indefensible and ill-informed to be realistic, it's an unfortunate reality that there are people who actually do believe this.