[Fervicus]

Arguing about whether this is good or effective for kids or not is irrelevant. This isn't about kids at all. It's about surveillance.

[ElProlactin]

Do you not see that the largest companies on the internet are also surveilling everyone and that the massive troves of data they're collecting about their registered users and even non-registered users is directly and indirectly accessible to governments around the world?

[someguyiguess]

Doesn’t that prove their point?

[ElProlactin]

How so? If you're anti-surveillance, wouldn't you be pleased that under-16s won't be able to use the most wide-ranging and insidious surveillance platforms ever created?

[theultdev]

Until they turn 17, then they get to be id-verified surveilled like the rest of us!

Much safe system. Very cozy. Glad kids are safe now. That was close!

[ElProlactin]

So what's your solution?

There's substantial evidence for harms on young people that go beyond surveillance, but I guess we now live in a society that embraces throw them to the wolves and see which ones survive?

[theultdev]

The only proper solution always used for children. Parent's discretion.

Other people's kids are not my nor the governments business.

I will restrict social media as I see fit for my children. Don't need a nanny state.

No need for "think of the children". You shouldn't be thinking of my children, they are fine. Worry about yourself and your own kids.

[paytonjjones]

Regardless of the underlying motives and surveillance outcomes, it will surely affect the kids too. So it's worth discussing.

[undersuit]

No one is saying we should not discuss it, but discussing it in the context of the kids is a red herring. It will affect everyone.

[insurgent_dino]

100%, anti-privacy and surveillance laws have always been wrapped in child protection and public safety.

[JonoBB]

And yet the vast majority of parents are in favour of a ban.

[dindunuf]

vast majority of parents are in favor of banning plenty of things, including some that you like, need, or simply don't find objectable.

[philipallstar]

This is obviously about kids. The problem is it requires surveillance. You don't get to decide what it's not about.

[childofhedgehog]

How is it “obviously about the kids”? Is it because they mentioned them? I would argue it will impact the kids but this isn’t being done for their benefit, it’s being done to regulate what we have access to as a whole. Slippery slope coming up!

[haunter]

It will apply to everyone once you have to prove you are over 16. Kids are just the excuse.

[cedws]

The way this has been pushed through after countless attempts over the past decade, and push back from advising experts, does not feel like it originates from genuine concern for children. It feels like a state trying to wrestle for digital control amidst rising civil unrest.

[folkrav]

Almost anything can be made "about the kids" with the right framing.

[theultdev]

Riddle me this. If you have to verify yourself to prove you are over 16, did that just deanonymize you? Yes.

[philipallstar]

Good job I said this, then:

> The problem is it requires surveillance.

[theultdev]

So it's not "obviously about kids" then.

[philipallstar]

This is like saying "people using cars to get places is really about oil".

[theultdev]

if it was about kids they would have mandated parental controls.

not universal account verification.

people are stupid now though, so I guess they took their shot.

[arcza]

and why do you get to decide what it "is about"?

[philipallstar]

I didn't say people couldn't decide what it's about.