The vast majority of the population supports banning social media for kids so revolution isn't happening. Of course the social media companies object to their product being banned. It's like cigarette companies objecting to plain packaging.
>The vast majority of the population supports banning social media for kids so revolution isn't happening
Age assurance is being used in more than a single scope. I dont disagree that the revolution isnt happening, but theres no need to be so reductive.
>Of course the social media companies object to their product being banned. It's like cigarette companies objecting to plain packaging.
They aren't objecting to age assurance tools. They are objecting to the current ham fisted model, but when they can organise something less nebulous than the current regime they will be fighting to implement it first.
Sure, the implementation details are blunt. But Facebook, Google, and Reddit have had decades to sort this out on their own and yet they have only poured fuel on the problem and watched the ad dollars rain in.
So I have little sympathy that the resulting laws are not optimal for them.
>But Facebook, Google, and Reddit have had decades to sort this out on their own
It was solved. Dont collect information.
The problem is making shitty psychotic apps, not determining who can use them.
I would much rather they cut meta into pieces and sold them off as scraps, than just scarfing up the PID of the users to make arbitrary determinations about who can have what brainrot.
There are more people than just you (and other tech literate folk) online.
I would also rather meta be cut an sold of as scraps. This is sadly not the question being framed.
I’ve dedicated a portion of my life volunteering to moderate content in communities. It is an unmitigated shit show. The status quo is great for firms and corrosive for society.
If theres a takeaway from this sub thread, is why “meta being broken up and sold for scraps” not being raised as a question in the first place.
>There are more people than just you (and other tech literate folk) online.
And if you bury the algorithms a lot of the other people will simply go away.
>I’ve dedicated a portion of my life volunteering to moderate content in communities. It is an unmitigated shit show. The status quo is great for firms and corrosive for society.
I stopped doing so over a decade ago. 9/10 other moderators are trying to win some kind of parasocial relationship with owners/developers/whatever. I have seen really good teams moderating really well, but they are the exception not the rule. I don't think anything proposed in this thread has any bearing on content moderation one way or the other.
>If there's a takeaway from this sub thread, is why “meta being broken up and sold for scraps” not being raised as a question in the first place.
The government and advertisers are addicted to the data that it generates. The social graph has basically replaced humint entirely for security services. Most of the defense against terrorism these days relies on idiots sending facebook messages with the details of their plans. The successful terrorists are now the ones that don't have meaningful friendships to blurt their plans out to. Its our panopticon, and "Too big to fail" doesn't even begin to describe it. Its just a matter of time until a western nation uses the data to persecute minorities, heck some people think the US government is already.
Which is why giving them more data to hoover up isn't a solution. Advertisers are squealing right now because so much content and engagement is completely fake, and they are worried about losing even more money if age detection systems add any more friction to usage. But the security agencies, the silent partner, are just patiently waiting for the kinks to be worked out.
>The vast majority of the population supports banning social media for kids so revolution isn't happening.
reddit isn't the vast majority of the population, fren. it's 1% of 4%.
unless you've got polls you could show to back up your claim? polls, not opinion pieces. polls asking unambiguous questions like "are you in favor of banning social media?" or "are you in favor of age verification laws?", not vague ones like "are you concerned about the content your kids might see on the internet?". got any of those?
This was in 2024, since then the attitude is still very much that kids should be taken off social media, but that the current restrictions aren't yet working as the face scanning verification is easily bypassed.
When something is fed to us by the media, and supported by both ALP and LNP there's rarely ever public dissent. The risks of age assurance weren't given any public airtime. The few criticisms that were put to the government were shrugged off as "oh it might start working later".
Probably a comparable issue would be the MyHealth Record nonsense, where the existence of the platform was largely uncontentious, but the change to make it opt-out rather than opt-in was actually put to public debate and once some day light got in, a significant amount of people opted out.
> 6 in 10 parents worldwide support social media ban for under 16s - but children are divided
> Support among parents for a social media ban for under-16s is highest in Malaysia (77%) and India (75%), Argentina (55%) and lowest in Japan (38%) and Nigeria (39%)
> Globally, the majority of Gen Z (51%) – the first true digital natives – support a social media ban for under-16s. Support for the ban is highest in India (73%) and UAE (67%), Argentina (54%) and lowest in Japan (28%), UK, and Canada (both 40%
