There’s a drinking and smoking age because the government thinks that businesses should not have the freedom to profit from exposing kids to alcohol and smoking before they are 21, why shouldn’t the same be true for preventing social media companies from profiting from exposing kids to porn, bullying, illegal drug pushers, etc.
There’s a drinking and smoking age because the government thinks that businesses should not have the freedom to profit from exposing kids to alcohol and smoking before they are 21, why shouldn’t the same be true for preventing social media companies from profiting from exposing kids to porn, bullying, illegal drug pushers, etc.
Apples, meet oranges. And why the supposedly magic age of 21 in the first place? And why hasn't the rest of the world set the age limit that high for alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, etc?
But thank you for inadvertently pointing out that the proposals to have mandatory age verification laws for social media (and God knows what else too eventually, the entire internet perhaps?) are NOT on philosophically stable ground. Any age limit is arbitrary, and ultimately will backfire on adults (however defined) as well.
Greg, the grapevine is telling me that IDing users (authenticating ID ownership and age verification without revealing who someone is or their age) to enforce existing terms of use age restrictions in social media (and other adult websites) is not only possible it is a question of when not if. European regulators are heading in this direction. Facebook is looking to acquire existing for profit companies in this space. All this will be discussed at tie Internet Identity Workshop next week in Mountain View. It is an Unconference, so if you don’t see the discussion group agenda you’d like to discuss - for example, standards for product design that protect individual rights - add it. IMO the most trusted solution is one that is universal, run by a non-profit foundation with open governance and paid for through a tax on for profit companies. But those parameters will probably run into lots of hurdles. There’s a lot of lessons learned about the risks of digital IDs from India and other places that will probably be discussed. But the good news is that this is not a new discussion, it has evolved a lot.
Since 2020. evidence has revealed the ugly reality that Section 230 has been leveraged as a threat by government officials seeking to quiet criticism. I hope that EFF has the independence to debate and discuss what is and is not transparent and be realistic about the conflicted interests between protecting individuals and corporate purpose to make money.
Separately,regarding digital ID technology, the psychological damages to youth should compel an industry thought leader like EFF to consider that the ID will come and the role they could play in bring the provider of a product to verify age anonymously instead of letting this become a for profit or it governmental function. Time to step up.
There is a difference between reforming Section 230 versus repealing it outright, of course. The latter would be a disaster and would not solve the problem. Canada and Australia, for example, have no equivalent to Section 230, and yet are nonetheless plagued by the same problems as the USA. Imagine that, only in the much more litigious and hypersensitive USA. Would you want to be sued for what other people post in the comments section of your blog, for example? All because some snowflake (of any political persuasion) felt offended? Outright repeal is a solution in search of a problem. As is the whole "ID for the internet" idea as well. Just another can of worms to open up, basically.
A better solution is Privacy First. Banning surveillance advertising would throw the proverbial One Ring into the fires of Mount Doom:
I would also support auditing the algorithms, banning deliberately addictive design features (without censoring content), and going antitrust on Big Tech. But anything else is a bridge too far for a free and democratic society IMHO.
Ads themselves would not be banned, just the creepy tracking and data mining (surveillance) used to fuel them. They would simply have to go on the DuckDuckGo model, and use contextual advertising instead.
Mandatory age verification to access social media, on the other hand, would clearly fly directly in the face of the First Amendment.
There’s a drinking and smoking age because the government thinks that businesses should not have the freedom to profit from exposing kids to alcohol and smoking before they are 21, why shouldn’t the same be true for preventing social media companies from profiting from exposing kids to porn, bullying, illegal drug pushers, etc.
Apples, meet oranges. And why the supposedly magic age of 21 in the first place? And why hasn't the rest of the world set the age limit that high for alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, etc?
But thank you for inadvertently pointing out that the proposals to have mandatory age verification laws for social media (and God knows what else too eventually, the entire internet perhaps?) are NOT on philosophically stable ground. Any age limit is arbitrary, and ultimately will backfire on adults (however defined) as well.
Greg, the grapevine is telling me that IDing users (authenticating ID ownership and age verification without revealing who someone is or their age) to enforce existing terms of use age restrictions in social media (and other adult websites) is not only possible it is a question of when not if. European regulators are heading in this direction. Facebook is looking to acquire existing for profit companies in this space. All this will be discussed at tie Internet Identity Workshop next week in Mountain View. It is an Unconference, so if you don’t see the discussion group agenda you’d like to discuss - for example, standards for product design that protect individual rights - add it. IMO the most trusted solution is one that is universal, run by a non-profit foundation with open governance and paid for through a tax on for profit companies. But those parameters will probably run into lots of hurdles. There’s a lot of lessons learned about the risks of digital IDs from India and other places that will probably be discussed. But the good news is that this is not a new discussion, it has evolved a lot.
We need to be VERY careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/03/age-verification-mandates-would-undermine-anonymity-online
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/section-230-good-actually
Kafka, meet trap. Pandora, meet box. Albatross, meet neck.
Since 2020. evidence has revealed the ugly reality that Section 230 has been leveraged as a threat by government officials seeking to quiet criticism. I hope that EFF has the independence to debate and discuss what is and is not transparent and be realistic about the conflicted interests between protecting individuals and corporate purpose to make money.
Separately,regarding digital ID technology, the psychological damages to youth should compel an industry thought leader like EFF to consider that the ID will come and the role they could play in bring the provider of a product to verify age anonymously instead of letting this become a for profit or it governmental function. Time to step up.
There is a difference between reforming Section 230 versus repealing it outright, of course. The latter would be a disaster and would not solve the problem. Canada and Australia, for example, have no equivalent to Section 230, and yet are nonetheless plagued by the same problems as the USA. Imagine that, only in the much more litigious and hypersensitive USA. Would you want to be sued for what other people post in the comments section of your blog, for example? All because some snowflake (of any political persuasion) felt offended? Outright repeal is a solution in search of a problem. As is the whole "ID for the internet" idea as well. Just another can of worms to open up, basically.
A better solution is Privacy First. Banning surveillance advertising would throw the proverbial One Ring into the fires of Mount Doom:
https://www.eff.org/wp/privacy-first-better-way-address-online-harms
I would also support auditing the algorithms, banning deliberately addictive design features (without censoring content), and going antitrust on Big Tech. But anything else is a bridge too far for a free and democratic society IMHO.
(Mic drop)
Ads themselves would not be banned, just the creepy tracking and data mining (surveillance) used to fuel them. They would simply have to go on the DuckDuckGo model, and use contextual advertising instead.
Mandatory age verification to access social media, on the other hand, would clearly fly directly in the face of the First Amendment.