10 ms·
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.
by Fervicus 3mo ago
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.
- philipallstar 3mo agoThis is obviously about kids. The problem is it requires surveillance. You don't get to decide what it's not about.
- haunter 3mo agoIt will apply to everyone once you have to prove you are over 16. Kids are just the excuse.
- theultdev 3mo agoRiddle me this. If you have to verify yourself to prove you are over 16, did that just deanonymize you? Yes.
- philipallstar 3mo agoGood job I said this, then: > The problem is it requires surveillance.
- theultdev 3mo agoSo it's not "obviously about kids" then.
- philipallstar 3mo agoThis is like saying "people using cars to get places is really about oil".
- theultdev 3mo agoif 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.
- philipallstar 3mo agoHow can the system tell if someone's a parent or not.
- theultdev 3mo agoThe system can't. That's the beauty of it. It's up for the parents to enable it for their kids. Just mandate that certain parental features are AVAIALABLE to parents. It's up to the parents to parent their kids. Not the government. But if you want to mandate something, mandate tools for the parents.
- philipallstar 3mo agoBut how does the system know that someone's a parent who should be able to access the parental features?
- theultdev 3mo agoIt doesn't need to. Parents know who they are. THEY force their kids to use a child account with their parental account linked. The same way every other parental control system works, whether it's Youtube, Netflix, iOS, Xbox, etc.
- arcza 3mo agoand why do you get to decide what it "is about"?
- philipallstar 3mo agoI didn't say people couldn't decide what it's about.
- cedws 3mo agoThe 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.
- childofhedgehog 3mo agoHow 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!
- folkrav 3mo agoAlmost anything can be made "about the kids" with the right framing.
- insurgent_dino 3mo ago100%, anti-privacy and surveillance laws have always been wrapped in child protection and public safety.
- paytonjjones 3mo agoRegardless of the underlying motives and surveillance outcomes, it will surely affect the kids too. So it's worth discussing.
- undersuit 3mo agoNo 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.
- ElProlactin 3mo agoDo 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 3mo agoDoesn’t that prove their point?
- ElProlactin 3mo agoHow 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 3mo agoUntil 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 3mo agoSo 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 3mo agoThe 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.
- JonoBB 3mo agoAnd yet the vast majority of parents are in favour of a ban.
- dindunuf 3mo agovast majority of parents are in favor of banning plenty of things, including some that you like, need, or simply don't find objectable.