So... de-facto mass deanonymisation of all Spanish social media users? I see a lot of supporters of these policies either not acknowledge that you can't identify under-16yo without identifying over-16yos.
I am personally going to avoid anonymous social media as much as I can going forward. (Not counting topic-specific forums and such). They have all become toxic cesspools and now AI is making it all so much worse.
I’ve stopped using Facebook a long time ago, but started using a similar locally made social media app/site, which is based on logins tied indirectly to national ID. Holy crap it’s so much better. Only real people. No bots or scams. Even the ads are better. Actual relevant local businesses. And people hesitate before writing nasty comments. Not that I’m using it a lot, I’m still not a big social media guy, but having groups for the neighbourhood or town is nice for becoming aware of events and such happening nearby.
I still have the Facebook account for now. There’s a group or two I need to check in on sometimes. Every time I log in I get so confused why anyone would still use it.
I worry that these measures (if they actually work, which is unlikely) will isolate people who struggle with real-life interactions. I remember reading somewhere that autistic people tend to find community in online spaces, and it seems like a lot of people gain their tech skills that way, including me. So indiscriminately banning young people from these spaces will prevent them from finding community and people like them
This is really globally coordinated, isn't it? I'm just not sure why now and not previously. Is it just that Twitter went over the toxicity threshold that everyone noticed?
It does seem to be, yes. Sweden will also fall if the leftist side wins in the september government election.
They will end up banning sites allowing purely anonymous comments. (This might include HN.) This is the consequence of the ambition that is already clearly anounced by the opposition leader Magdalena Andersson of the social democrats.
These anonymous comments are incidentally their current worst enemy. The are really good at amplifying stories that the 3 (three!) national news publishers (government/public service, Bonnier News, Schibsted) decide to ignore or deamplify for ideoleogical reasons.
Good, heavily in favor. Social media has just become media, the social aspect is mostly gone. Especially since all of them just try to shove down 30sec shorts/reels/tiktoks down your throat. I have not a single real-life friend or family member (except those, that are under 16 and use tiktok) that ever recorded a short.
Seems easier to justify if social media owners are hanging out with child sex traffickers and enabling features that let you undress anyone who posts photos to the site.
I hate social media and never used it, and I am in favor to ban it entirely, however, we all know this is not about “protecting the children!!!”, but the old school government’s way for more monitor and control.
Ooohhh I finally get it. It's another "protecting the children" guise when in actuality they want to introduce new mechanisms to control speech, classify what they don't like as "hate speech", fine/punish companies for hosting content they've decided is "hate speech", etc. How naive of me to think it was just about protecting the kids.
I haven't set up my kids on social media. They haven't asked either. I do worry that banning kids from doing something makes it all the more intriguing to them when they are then allowed... Or makes the kids that lie and get on anyway "cool"
I do hope it works out, though. I think Social Media is one of the main reasons for depression.
A lot of teenagers complain they spend too much time on social media and this will put some friction that wasn’t present before. I assume this will put a dent in traffic for companies like SnapChat etc. so I wonder how those companies will react.
This sure will imply that over-16 users will have to also authenticate themselves using some kind of personal id (DNI, I guess?)
As a non-user of social media (only have an anonymous Facebook account to check some hobby groups) this doesn't directly affect me but I'm starting to feel like a frog on a pot of what was tepid water and now it's starting to feel kinda hot.
Surely this should be for parents to decide? Even if the infra is in place for social media services to check IDs.
It seems quite bizarre to ban it since the vast majority use it safely.
Social media is the double edge sword I avoided MySpace, Facebook etc entirely. But I can understand people finding communities online they can't access in their location.
Oh well. I'm sure those that want to will be able to bypass it, and I've also no doubt that social media at a population level is a net harm. Even if this feels like overreach.
What seems truly harmful is the 12month old who is handed a tablet with YouTube running constantly depriving their brain of the big early exposure to the real world.
In total social media has long surpassed drug addiction in bad effects in young people (mental, psychological and physical). Together with the economic situation they are the cause of the unfortunate state of youth today.
Banning them is in the right direction even at the cost of any deanonym. A dozen entities, both public and private, know us very well already. They know that eveyone watches porn, now they will know how offen.
This seems to be gaining momentum. I think it's a good thing in the absence of banning ads altogether on social media and forcing it to be subscription-based only, which I think should be the goal. That de-incentivises media platforms from always increasing engagement because revenue isn't directly tied to time spent on the platform (in fact, the more someone is on, the more it incurs cost without increasing revenue).
The issue I see here is: what counts as social media?
Is this site social media? Will anything with a comment box be banned? If yes, what about online newspapers? If not, how will they prevent almost-social-media sites from popping up?
How will they deal with mastodon? If I have an instance in my home server at home, do I need to check people reading my posts are over 16 or is the onus on the servers where they are logged in?
For the record, I'm totally in favour of banning social media for kids and, contrary to other people here, I think it can be done without deanonymising anyone.
I just don't think it is possible. Ban facebook, x, and bluesky and tomorrow all the cool kids will be using facemagazine, y, and greensky.
22 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 50.0 ms ] threadOnce that’s done we should ban the over the 65+.
I’ve stopped using Facebook a long time ago, but started using a similar locally made social media app/site, which is based on logins tied indirectly to national ID. Holy crap it’s so much better. Only real people. No bots or scams. Even the ads are better. Actual relevant local businesses. And people hesitate before writing nasty comments. Not that I’m using it a lot, I’m still not a big social media guy, but having groups for the neighbourhood or town is nice for becoming aware of events and such happening nearby.
I still have the Facebook account for now. There’s a group or two I need to check in on sometimes. Every time I log in I get so confused why anyone would still use it.
They will end up banning sites allowing purely anonymous comments. (This might include HN.) This is the consequence of the ambition that is already clearly anounced by the opposition leader Magdalena Andersson of the social democrats.
These anonymous comments are incidentally their current worst enemy. The are really good at amplifying stories that the 3 (three!) national news publishers (government/public service, Bonnier News, Schibsted) decide to ignore or deamplify for ideoleogical reasons.
I do hope it works out, though. I think Social Media is one of the main reasons for depression.
As a non-user of social media (only have an anonymous Facebook account to check some hobby groups) this doesn't directly affect me but I'm starting to feel like a frog on a pot of what was tepid water and now it's starting to feel kinda hot.
It seems quite bizarre to ban it since the vast majority use it safely.
Social media is the double edge sword I avoided MySpace, Facebook etc entirely. But I can understand people finding communities online they can't access in their location.
Oh well. I'm sure those that want to will be able to bypass it, and I've also no doubt that social media at a population level is a net harm. Even if this feels like overreach.
What seems truly harmful is the 12month old who is handed a tablet with YouTube running constantly depriving their brain of the big early exposure to the real world.
Banning them is in the right direction even at the cost of any deanonym. A dozen entities, both public and private, know us very well already. They know that eveyone watches porn, now they will know how offen.
How will they deal with mastodon? If I have an instance in my home server at home, do I need to check people reading my posts are over 16 or is the onus on the servers where they are logged in?
For the record, I'm totally in favour of banning social media for kids and, contrary to other people here, I think it can be done without deanonymising anyone. I just don't think it is possible. Ban facebook, x, and bluesky and tomorrow all the cool kids will be using facemagazine, y, and greensky.