[whack]

> There is a zero percent chance this is organic

Who exactly has a vested interest in starting a worldwide conspiracy to ban social media for kids?

FWIW as an adult in my 30s, social media has caused me far greater harm than even binge drinking. I can't even imagine growing up as a teenager under the social media microscope

[synecdoche]

It’s pretext for identifying and tracking everyone. A inevitable ”byproduct” from getting your age by digital ID.

[hackable_sand]

Consider all the side effects.

Now children cannot form solidarity and exit abusive situations as easily. They are not exposed to diverse viewpoints or cultures. They cannot embarrass themselves and learn online social etiquette. They cannot engage with much of the online culture at all really.

It's sinister and patronizing, born from fear and ignorance, nothing else.

[ben_w]

Identifying and tracking everyone can't be a "byproduct" when it's already being done for years before hand, by the very businesses who are being directly prevented from accessing certain users by these new laws you're objecting to. Before Facebook the general advice was "do not post your real name on the internet ever", Facebook said basically "that doesn't work for [our advertisers?], we will ban you for anything other than your real name, or what we think real names look like": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_real-name_policy_cont...

For the last few years there have been 400-1600+ "trusted partners" on every website already tracking everyone. In the US, recent news is the FBI is buying that info from the private sector without a warrant: https://www.npr.org/2026/03/25/nx-s1-5752369/ice-surveillanc...

Back in 2016, the UK's Investigatory Powers Act (one of two reasons I moved out of the UK) requires ISPs record domain names for all user browsing nationwide and store them for a year, and will provide it without a warrant to a long list of organisations including the Welsh Ambulance Services National Health Service Trust: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act_2016#...

If you want to end surveillance, great. That requires at a minimum banning all tracking cookies etc., and we can see from the collective reaction to GDPR (consent popups instead of not tracking people) how hard the real surveillance industry has been fighting against all that.

[runarberg]

Like you observed the damage of social media is not unique to children. So a more sensible legislation would serve to help everybody from the harm of social media, not just children.

Second, age verification systems have a lot to benefit from a government contract.

Third, social media and ad companies would for sure prefer a blanket ban on children rather then a more careful legislation which e.g. ban targeted advertising, or further regulates social media from harmful patterns.

[fc417fc802]

Who exactly has a vested interest in starting a worldwide conspiracy to [ think of the children ] in order to push [ nefarious measure ]? Difficult question that.

[maest]

You should actually try saying something instead of vaguely insinuating something.

Like, I legitimately am trying to understand what you're saying but it's frustratingly vague. I feel like you're wasting my time with your attempt to seem like you know more than everyone else.

[fc417fc802]

I did say something. "Think of the children" became a cliche because of how commonly it crops up in politics. At this point it's far more common to see it attached to nefarious measures as opposed to those with accurate statements of intent.

The bad faith rhetoric on your part is unwelcome and explicitly against the rules here ... I say to the account from 2014. Given you've been around awhile assuming you were legitimately frustrated by my comment is it possible you've misunderstood? I was quoting the parent in a manner intended to make the pattern of engagement obvious. A fill in the blank that it should be immediately apparent broadly fits past discourse on a wide array of topics.

Basically any time you can summarize an argument as "think of the children" you should immediately become maximally skeptical of the overall situation. The answer to my "difficult question" is pretty much everyone based on historical precedent.

[Supermancho]

> The bad faith rhetoric on your part is unwelcome and explicitly against the rules here .

Asking for clarification is a hallmark of good faith discussion. More of that and less snark is healthy.

Yes there are side effects. I would still vote that it's a net good as a practical solution to a number of problems. Notably the suicide rates, declines in testing, and skill development.

The eternal debate between more socially enforced control versus independence. These controls apply to caring for the young versus being used to oppress the adult. Hand waving without specific concerns, isn't going to change the minds of people that have a different take.

I think it's great that there will be plenty of data (for both sides) in the next few decades, with the patchwork adoption.

[fc417fc802]

The request for clarification was not what I was referring to as bad faith rhetoric.

It seems like you're actively trying to change the subject. No one said anything about side effects and I don't think anyone was handwaving. The exchange you jumped into here was one regarding the presence of outside centralized influence on the legislative process at the international level.

The separate question of whether the initiative is of net benefit for society needs to be considered alongside potential alternatives in addition to any expected downsides. The elephant in the room is that the least invasive and most straightforward option of mandating the presence of accurate content classification headers has never been tried even though it would appear highly likely to solve the problem as I've usually seen it stated.