7 ms·
That's not the entirety of the objection. There are paragraphs after that with concerns about how this would be implemented, and it being used as pretext for so
by neilv 15d ago
That's not the entirety of the objection. There are paragraphs after that with concerns about how this would be implemented, and it being used as pretext for some awful moves.
- ndriscoll 15d agoShouldn't those concerns be directed at the companies? The law makes it perfectly clear that age restrictions are only needed for addictive features. They could age gate just the addictive features if a user wants to turn them on. e.g. have a settings page to enable spying, autoplay, infinite scroll, etc. that requires age verification, but otherwise by default anyone can use the platform. This is like when companies pretend the EU made them make cookie banners; no, you could just not track and sell user data. It specifically says platforms are allowed to have users under 16. They need only "implement reasonable measures to ensure that users under 16 years of age are not provided any addictive feature on the covered platform."