Both the UK & AU have passed legislation in which they aim to “ban” social media for kids -16 (or that’s the excuse they’re using) when its the catalyst for mass surveillance (unfortunately, even if you tell them the truth: it’s either people including your own family consider you paranoid or a conspiracy theorist). To avoid that, one must gather sufficient evidence debunking or dispelling the lies being shoved into the masses via media.
The common defense for this is “think of the children” from either lazy parents or Christian conservatives as that’s the easiest lie ever told besides social media or internet usage (you heard that from games, movies or music restrictions in the past). IMO, “banning” SM outright or trying to reinforce AV towards everyone creates more hassle for both sides (users and companies) as SM companies can face large fines for non-compliance.
If you look at the larger picture: it treads on one’s liberties such as freedom of speech & expression as what appears to be “no SM for -16” soon morphs into a 1984-esque dystopia where people will be detained for speaking their mind or the truth. This is what digital privacy advocates fear, basically saying that internet anonymity will cease or be deemed illegal if people lack critical thinking or can’t see through the fog.
Even though the laws have passed in both countries: it does nothing as people (kids and adults) can still access SM. They know VPN’s exist, banning or trying to lock that under AV will make them look stupid. SM is toxic due to the slop and demographic, but IMO should remain up to the individuals or families rather than the government (all MSM side with the state using “no SM for -16” omitting mass surveillance in the headlines).
You must log in or register to comment.
We’ve learned that social media run for profit leads to only awful things. Social media run by specific governments is no better.
I’d prefer all social media in run both of those ways to cease to exist immediately.
It’s simply a way for getting around having to actually regulate these companies.
The actual solution is legislation telling these companies that if your algorithmic feed is anymore complicated than posts from people you follow in chronological order than they are considered a publisher and liable for anything shown to their users.
That’s it. That’s how you fix it.
I don’t think you’re right about that being a fix, but I don’t have a better suggestion and would really like to see this implemented and find out where it goes.
feels like one of those things which is going to ad unnecessary cost and time sink into society with no real return.
Yes.
It’s the parents’ job to protect their kids.
When kids go outside we don’t stop all the roadwork because a kid may try to eat powder concrete. It’s the parents’ job to teach their idiot kid not to eat powder concrete.
Yes its stupid.
Social media should be regulated to make it less addictive.
Social media should be regulated to make it unprofitable. No collecting, aggregating or selling of data. No centralization.
Yeah, strip away all the data harvesting BS and most of the problems will correct themselves.
Exactly. And I bet there’s enough lobbying and corruption going on to make sure it never happens. They rather discuss some stupid means if blind activism, which are gonna either be ineffective, or harmful.
The proper solution, of course, is to regulate those big tech companies. Leave the teenagers be, and outlaw all the toxic stuff, making people addicted etc…
Yeah because this place isn’t a doom scrolling addict hole 🙄
This shit has been happening since Usenet.
NOT MY SOCAL MEDIA
If using a browser, it’s 10 articles and hit next. Hardly doom scrolling.
The laws were never meant for children or whoever they put on paper, and they will absolutely not show their hand in its real purpose so soon. Let’s not forget that the US, UK, and AU are part of the Five Eyes and will absolutely share the linked IDs they’re collecting. AU openly admitted the law was not effective as did every expert on the matter, but won’t repeal it anyway.
A recent example of this covert repurposing was the GDID in Microsoft supposedly for (ineffective) DRM that was conveniently capable of de-anonymising Windows users at the whim of authorities.
It’s never been about what they say they’re doing, but rather what they could do to abuse that capability, and that’s what has people up in arms.
Yes.
Define “social media”
Also, you’re behaving just as authoritarian as those you’re railing against.
Others have correctly assessed the purpose of the ban. I would add that if you really wanted to help alleviate the social ills of SM, you would have to end corporate involvement with social media at all. Corporatism is just a more palatable form of fascism really, you can’t let profits dictate society and culture.
I would also, while I’m dreaming, say that governments should not run social media, and all SM should exist purely as non-commercial activities run by private parties. Like Lemmy. Any government is going to have just as perverse a motive in content moderation and policies as a corporation, and it’s too hard to prevent ideological bias from creeping in.
If SM should exist at all (I’m not 100p on that one myself), it should be fully formed by communities and private people, without permission, and without money or power politics added in.
I dunno about realistic ideas. This is in my wildest dreams.
Its ridiculous - parents could just use parental controls instead!!!
Start by pointing that out!
I think we should ban social media for everyone. Or at least as it currently exists. Ban Meta and Xitter.
I get that SM = Social Media, not Scrum Master or Sadomasochism but what is AV short for? Neither Antivirus or Adult Video seem to match your intention. ;-)
I believe the driving force behind these bans are two sides of the same coin, propaganda and disinformation or rather how to protect the citizens from it, and historically free societies are faced with a dilemma trying to find a counter to the polarization that happens through social media while remaining a free society.
When the village idiot finds a group of similar minds online, and then feed on an echo chamber of shit, MAGA is born (and easily influenced by whoever can spin the rage bait correctly).
Ban the echo chamber and the village idiot remains an unorganized fool.I imagine the focus on social media will soon fade as the new frontier of disinformation is polluting the LLM training data by creating a ton of websites parroting the view you want to infect the LLM with.
We already have people asking AI and repeating the AI equivalent of putting glue on pizza and taking it as a fact.This was a very fun post to re-read with SM as an ancronym for Sadomasochism, so thank you for that.
Happy to please. :)
I get that SM = Social Media, not Scrum Master or Sadomasochism but what is AV short for? Neither Antivirus or Adult Video seem to match your intention. ;-)
Likely Age Verification.
Cheers!
Social media makes sure politicians and other powerful people cannot control very well what information people less powerful than them receive. No surprise that politicians may want to ban it (first for kids, maybe later for everyone?).
I have a friend living in Australia when those laws took effect, basically nothing happened. Although there were certain websites asking for ID (however circumvented by using a paid VPN).
We should not argue against it on the grounds that it is ineffective. That just implies that it needs to be made more effective.
We should argue that democratization of information sharing is a good thing for society, and anyone wanting to reverse it is an authoritarian enemy of a free society.
MSM pitch the “think of the children” agenda (whilst omitting mass surveillance) as they’re either lobbied by politicians or paid by the state on pushing the narrative of “banning SM for kids -16 alleviates them being cyberbullied, exposure to violent or sexual content” with sharing sob stories trying to pinch people’s heart.
mass surveillance
A slightly better argument than “ineffective”, but still not the central reason why it’s bad. I can think of ways to make it work without mass surveillance, but I’m not writing about them because I don’t want to give any politicians who may be reading this any ideas.
banning SM for kids -16 alleviates them being cyberbullied
So that they can get bullied IRL instead, very much better amirite… /s
exposure to violent or sexual content
You see, I remember being a minor and adults trying to keep me away from violent or sexual content. I still do not see what the fuck is supposed to have changed on my 16th or 18th birthday or whenever that it would be ok afterwards, but not before?!
deleted by creator
The Internet was a mistake. The vast majority of the population is unable to communicate effectively or injest information quickly enough.
Ban 90% of the Internet. Whitelist banking and Bill services only. Touch grass. Meet your neighbor.
