[bluegatty]

No, we have any number of social constructs around 'age and responsibility' - driving, alcohol, pubs, porn, excessive violence and so much more.

It's bereft to suggest that we wouldn't nominally have those in the digital world.

And, people are concerned about nth order effects, it's a huge point of debate.

Yes - there is a huge slippery slope argument to be made, but it's an argument ... to be made. There are all sorts of ways of doing this.

[dv_dt]

Social media age verification is like none of those - social media is the modern public square and age verification is asking everybody to show their papers before participating in free speech in the public. It will have a chilling effect on free speech and will be a tool for authoritarian control

[simondotau]

A poor analogy.

The public square has never been properly anonymous. If you start saying things which contravene laws or the rights of others, the police have been able to capture you and unmask your identity, if concealed.

[dv_dt]

So the solution for criminals in the public is for everybody to show their papers walking into a public square? It is not, we have requirements for police process like warrants and a process for determining the requirements for urgent conditions of arrest.

[bluegatty]

No, obviously not, and this is a completely glib argument.

Who is suggesting people 'show their papers' to go into a public square?

Literally nobody.

It really demonstrates how bad the analogy is - so much so that it's not even analogy.

The 'social controls' on the 'public square' are limited by a few laws (aka directed violence) but apart from that you can say as you like, kids can as well - it's where parents can be parents.

And - don't have problem with kids in the public square.

We have a very real problem with kids on social media, verifiable, scientific.

Kids are depressed, distracted, they bully each other, they're creeped on, and they're not yet in the business having serious discussions about 'Mein Kampf' - they're kids.

Everything in kids lives is introduced in an 'age appropriate' fashion - literally everything.

Given the toxicity of social media, it's a 'primary concern' for one of those gated things.

This is not even an argument - the only argument is 'the slippery slope'.

[dv_dt]

The science for age bans on social media is weak at best. There were pretty much terrible studies done during Covid and did not attribute all sorts of uncertainty going on at the same time.

If the point were to improve on the mental health of kids there are countless underfunded public programs. Especially in the US, social support programs like food, healthcare basic and mental, actual physical public spaces for kids, arts in curriculum, etc.

[fyredge]

This is hauntingly reminiscent of the gun law argument in US:

The government shouldn't infringe on my right to bear arms, mass shooting is a mental health issue anyways, oh but we can't really fund mental health support because my tax shouldn't go towards helping those who put themselves in that situation. Que the same argument for privacy on the internet.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you can't trust the government, then work towards healing it, restructuring it, overhauling it. Subverting the government is such antisocial behaviour, very criminal like.

[simondotau]

For what it’s worth, as an Australian, and as the operator of an online community, I unreservedly approve of the social media ban enforced by our government.

Conversely, I don’t agree with the way some other countries are going about it. Especially the UK with the abysmal way they have physically policed online speech by adults. Incredibly sad to see police prioritise non-violent “speech crimes” because they’re too scaredy-cat to tackle actual violent crime.

It shouldn’t be beyond the imagination of cryptography experts to design a system where only governments can issue an age identification certificate, which individuals can use to generate verifiable proof of age tokens. But where the tokens can’t be used by the government to identify the individual.

[simondotau]

If that’s how you interpreted my post, I can only hypothesis that you didn’t read it. I can’t think of another explanation.

I actually like the traditional public square model: you have anonymity most of the time, but it’s not some absolute shield you can abuse to be an obnoxious prick. The police can intervene, but the intervention happens in the public square too.

[hparadiz]

People publish entire books anonymously.

[simondotau]

Yes, and plenty of people have spoken in the public square anonymously too, because no attempt is made to unmask when the speech isn’t accused of breaching law.

Publishing a book anonymously in the public square still means someone has to physically manufacture it, distribute it and convince you to read it. All these steps are subject to interdiction by the police.

[pavlov]

Was there ever a public square where children could participate anonymously among adults? (I’m imagining three Dickensian urchins in a trench coat giving a speech in Hyde Park.)

[bluegatty]

Your local library has age and ID requirements.

Your local 'town square' has 'some rules'.

Parents are entirely able to overcome any of this if they so choose - including feeding their kids alcohol, guns etc. - and so the freedom does materially exist.

Social Media isn't a place for free expression - it's mostly toxic - like exposing your children to the most vile, inauthentic people.

The more genteel places, frankly, won't have much in the way of age restrictions.

Entire nations are banning social media for kids because it's just not healthy - the teachers want it, the parents want it, the data seems to support it.

I think you're right to be (very concerned) but this is a necessary discussion. As a teacher.

[Telaneo]

> Your local library has age and ID requirements.

It literally doesn't (at least not if I don't intend to borrow a book and take it home; if I stay there and read, I can do so without any ID. I only need ID to get a library card, and I don't need that to enter and read a book).

[bluegatty]

It literally does - and you just admitted it.

The point is that 'even the local library' enacts rules and social conventions - not that they're exhaustively and acutely enforced in all corners.

No 4chan section in the library?

You might wonder why it doesn't have vast array of avant guard adult content, porn or art with really aggressive themes and people calling each other the n-word?

In society we have 'age related' conventions all over the place ... including your Library.

This is the absolute worst of HN, where people dissolve into Reddit-like discussions of bad meatphors and totally out of context hair splitting.

I just can't believe anyone here has any relationship with the reality of children, teaching or parenting whatsoever. It's the same argument made by the 'drugs should be legal and accessible' crowd - completely oblivious to the instantaneous massive health epidemic we'd have with opioids and fentanyl, or the 'anti vaxer' crowd - narrow ideological arguments about expression disconnected from any kind of reality or nuance.

There's a variation of social media that will be fine for the kids, they can be exposed to more into their late teens. Parents that want to opt out, will de facto be allowed to - and there is always a slippery slope with every law.

[dv_dt]

My local librarian did not restrict my books to the kids section when I was a kid. Also librarians have fought civil legal battles to keep reading activities anonymous. Libraries are unlike the restrictions and risks of the proposed legislation being discussed for social media

[bluegatty]

?

--> Your local library fought for your right to read literature of some kind.

---> They did not fight for your right to gang up on others and call them the n-word, to spread lies and slander about people, to harass children and expose them to creeps and pedophiles, to inundate children with hyper-targeted advertising, or 'Andrew Tate 'how to beat women' seminars'.

Nobody is pushing for a ban on social media so that the kids will be stopped from reading 'Judy Bloom' stories about a girl's 'first period'.

It's disingenuous to suggest that this has anything to do with the causes your librarians stand for.

Literally the opposite - your librarians are creating essentially 'safe spaces' for kids so they can read and be civil.

[Nursie]

Social media as it has become now is a shitshow where a minority of angry and/or disingenuous posters dominate discourse.

Twitter (X) was never the public square, and now it's little more than a playground for propagandists. The rest of us do well to ignore it, and it seems that even the 'legacy' media are starting to realise the days of breathlessly reporting on tweet-storms weren't great for anyone.

[hparadiz]

In a recent survey of under sixteen year olds in a place where an under sixteen social media ban exists asked how many of them used social media found that 80% were still using it. Do you actually need a login to consume social media? The answer to that is no. You can doom scroll all you want on sites like Reddit with no account whatsoever.