this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2023
119 points (91.6% liked)
Technology
58142 readers
4320 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
While I'm not really that fond of the government telling people what websites they can and can't visit, this would probably be a net good for kids. The fact that Google is against probably means doubly so.
This is a response to the very bad kids online safety act. See EFF's post for details on why it is bad: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/03/kids-online-safety-act-heavy-handed-plan-force-platforms-spy-young-people
EFF's article is better, but here are some of the details of why it is bad. The effect of kids online safety act will be censorship and tracking of kids online when research suggests that is counterproductive for the age group being added. Would require more detailed tracking of everyone, not just kids. Services likely would need to block certain content from everyone to reduce liability to a reasonable level. They would potentially be liable if kids got access to content even when it wasn't for kids no matter how the kids got access (lying, using someone else's account, bypassing filters, etc.). Content to be blocked is vague and open to be interpretation by the most conservative people in the US, which is obviously problematic. The previous COPPA needs updating, but the version of kids online safety act has so far been financially flawed.
Yeah I’m not into the government limiting the internet at all. Also, sometimes the internet is a safe haven for people who are alone or have trouble with their peers. Anonymity can help also get things off your chest, and be yourself. Although the big social media players aren’t about anonymity.
Young pre-Autism me was helped greatly by the early internet and chat rooms. And adult me really is surviving socially online due to living in an area hostile to me and and indifferent at best. Discord, Matrix, and IRC have great communities that have made me feel welcome and share interests. I’d be completely isolated and alone without them.
But notice I didn’t say traditional social media. I don’t like algorithms manipulating and all the tracking.
Yeah the obvious solution is to ban harvesting and storing of especially identifying data and the associated targeted ads etc but that will certainly never happen.
If violators go to prison, from ceo to developer, and it is enforced, then it would work.
But that's counterintuitive to profit, so yeah, not gonna happen.
I agree
Yeah, just like most things, banning kids from social media would be especially harmful to minorities, be they LGBTQ+, neuroatypical, what have you
Which would be a bonus benefit to lawmakers.
I suspect that if this does pass it will have about as much efficacy as preventing kids from looking at online pornography.
Many of the more technical-focused communication tools like IRC and Matrix will probably not even notice the change
True. Even though the end to end Encryption could be a target
end to end encryption in public chats like the typical IRC channel or public Matrix chatrooms is useless. Anyone can join, then anyone can decrypt the messages just by joining.