An Angus Reid survey says three-quarters of more than 4,000 respondents are in favour of a ban like the one in Australia, where youth under 16 are prevented from setting up accounts on TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat and Threads.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] snoons@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The issue is how it will be enacted. It will invariably require transmitting personally identifying information across a network and for it to be stored somewhere for processing. Even if this is done as safely as possible with government systems, there is always the risk of data theft and exposure as well as excluding people that don't trust the government at all, like pretty much every Indigenous person I've ever met.

It as well provides the government with a system and store of information that could be used as tool of oppression.

[–] NarrativeBear@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Simple home router Whitelist enacted through a parental control setting.

Completely "local" and no personal information is given to a third party website.

Now the question is could we create a job/field were the persons responsible would curates and classifies each website? They could classify based on ages, genres and other useful tags.

What could we call these creators of information?

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I mean, in an ideal world, you just implement it at the OS level. You don't need to send PII off device ever.

[–] nik282000@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Why does it matter if it's a checkbox when you sign up or a number held by your OS? Leave the OS alone and hold parents accountable for the actions of their children.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Lmao, and how many children do you have, oh wise one?

I mean, with that logic, why do we ban cigarettes from kids too? Why not just let cigarette companies advertise and sell cigarettes to kids, and just "hold parents accountable for the actions of their children"?

[–] nik282000@lemmy.ca 0 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Boot lick harder

My servers should not be legally required to verify my age. My TV should not be legally required to verify my age. Parents should be legally required to monitor and filter their children's access to the internet.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Lmao, the guy defending using Instagram is calling others a bootlicker?

Please social media companies, fuck everyone harder, we can't possibly have a TV maker have the ability to lock it down with parental controls, society would collapse if that were to happen!

Oh wait, literally every single TV sold in the past 25 years has had that.

[–] ageedizzle@piefed.ca 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The problem is that this basically makes these checks mandatory. You can choose not to use Facebook, but you cant choose to not use an operating system. Plus it might mess with linux development to have this at the OS level

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

You can choose not to use Facebook, but you cant choose to not use an operating system.

So? If you're not using Facebook then it's not an issue. If you don't add your age to your OS it's not an issue.

In an ideal implementation you just have the option of setting up a restricted device with their age, and if that's set, then the OS passes it to the browser and it passes it to the site, and if it's a restricted account and it's under age then the site and/or browser doesn't load anything.

[–] ageedizzle@piefed.ca 1 points 1 day ago

Okay, I guess it wouldnt necessarily be mandatory then. I still worry about the strain it would be on linux developers tho