Restricting social media for children

[poochyena]

Exposure to bullying and self-harm are the two that have been cited most frequently.

Does banning a few social media websites actually reduce that exposure though?

A child that is bullied at school can have a home life where they don't feel bullied. Friend groups that are separate. They can pretend to, or actually be, someone totally different in different spheres. Social media squishes that together in a way that is very unavoidably public, but also very difficult to punish in a way that direct harassment is not. It's not that people are suddenly paying attention to or caring about bullying because they can see it; a huge part of the problem for the victim is the very fact that it is more visible.

This is very particularly a social media issue: the intensely and overwhelmingly public nature of posts is nothing like forums, websites, or any more limited form of social interaction.

I don't understand. Getting bullied at school is a lot more public than having a private social media page. Unless you are for some reason following your bully on social media, you are unlikely to actually see any public posts from that person.

That’s not correct. Social media has been directly linked to increases in suicidality in teens.

source?

 

[wrylachlan]

source?

https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-...omeone you,of suicidal thoughts and behaviors.

 

[wrylachlan]

If you want to educate yourself on the harms of social media to kids I strongly recommend Jonathan Haidt’s The Anxious Generation.

https://www.anxiousgeneration.com/book

The big danger isn’t bullying or suicdality (though those problems are real). The big problem is that it’s rewiring kids brains to be more depressed, anxious and stripped of self-confidence. It’s a massive societal problem that requires a societal solution.

 

[[Ars]Hellheart]

I don't understand. Getting bullied at school is a lot more public than having a private social media page. Unless you are for some reason following your bully on social media, you are unlikely to actually see any public posts from that person.

If you struggle to understand what I mean here, you going out with your buddies is a different version of you than the you that exists as an employee. What happens to you as an employee is going to bleed into the rest of your life, but it isn't going to stick with you in other venues unless you identify as an employee in all aspects of life, which is rare (this is a small but notable aspect of the push against requiring employees to respond to e-mails during off-work hours). So your work life might suck, but that doesn't mean you want everyone else to know about it.

Children are not adept at maintaining multiple identities and properly separating social spheres in their head, let alone in their actual behavior. And bullies appear to enjoy humiliating people in as widespread and public a manner as possible. So even if a child has zero social media presence or awareness, that isn't the issue. The issue is that the bullies do, and that the bullies are able to use their own social media accounts through things like friends, following, and reposting to effectively amplify anonymous harassment to nearly everyone who has ever had contact with their victim. With or without that victim's knowledge. They add or @ the friends and family of themselves and their victim.

Now that identity of being bullied, of being a victim, of that shame? It's everywhere. It's inescapable. Everyone knows, regardless of whether you'd want them to. And based on the fact that it is both widespread and unpunished, the victim can delude themselves into believing nobody cares or everyone thinks the victim deserves it.

The social media presence of the bullies is what makes this possible. That's something you currently cannot police or restrict without additional laws.

EDIT: Cyberbullying laws do exist. Evidentiary standards are a lot harder to reach than "you're a kid, you shouldn't have these accounts" would be. A ban is a ridiculous overreach for just this one problem, but it's not just this one problem, and it's so incredibly difficult to actually address the issue in a way that isn't way too slow or convoluted or specific to limit the actual harms that this sort of behavior causes.

 

[SnoopCatt]

Does banning a few social media websites actually reduce that exposure though?

Does staying indoors when the outside air is polluted reduce exposure to air pollution?

 

[SnoopCatt]

If you want to educate yourself on the harms of social media to kids I strongly recommend Jonathan Haidt’s The Anxious Generation.

https://www.anxiousgeneration.com/book

The big danger isn’t bullying or suicdality (though those problems are real). The big problem is that it’s rewiring kids brains to be more depressed, anxious and stripped of self-confidence. It’s a massive societal problem that requires a societal solution.

I haven't read the book, but it has been cited as one of the key factors that have influenced the lawmakers and legal minds who drafted the regulations.

<edited for clarity>

 

[papadage]

I have ... thoughts on this issue and the overlap with bullying, and in a local case, stalking.

Two teen girls in the next town over from us were recently purposefully run over by a sadistic piece of crap. They were riding bikes on their block, and he hit them with an SUV. One of the girls was a family friend. The family goes to our local Greek Orthodox church. We also know them from where we come from in Greece, as they are from the same island and from my wife's family's village. She was active in the church youth organization and would help run activities for younger kids, including our daughters.

The 17-year-old killer was stalking that girl because she rejected him. He had been doing it for months and had been swatting the house, harassing her, and ordering dozens of pizzas to the family's home. He also made threats. The family called the police, but restraining orders cannot be issued against minors. The father is a cop who opted to retire early due to a deal over a DUI. An uncle is the police chief in the next town over, though he is supposedly estranged from the parents of the killer. I recently read that the father had called the local police to talk to the kid to do some intervention after he was violent at home, but that's not their job; they also neglected to inform the state crisis intervention teams. He also had a history of being violent in school.

The kid was radicalized and was an Andrew Tate fan, as evidenced by his copious social media history. He was also an aspiring streamer who left a trail of shit talking, support for Tate, and a lot of content supporting Charlie Kirk and other right-wing influencers. He posted a video the day after he killed them on YouTube, and it's still up.

So, here we have a confluence of a kid with severe and violent mental illness and radicalization through social media leading to murder, and a criminal justice system unequipped and unwilling to prevent imminent harm.

So, I am torn...

Would a ban on teens having social media, content filters, or prohibitions on engagement algorithms have done anything to prevent this tragedy? I don't know. But at the same time, this incident shows the harms go way beyond mere bullying. They also show that real life and social media are linked, so pretending they are separate is bullshit.

I really resent the snowflake libertarian, head-in-the-sand obliviousness about how bad social media is.

 

[concernUrsus]

I have ... thoughts on this issue and the overlap with bullying, and in a local case, stalking.

Two teen girls in the next town over from us were recently purposefully run over by a sadistic piece of crap. They were riding bikes on their block, and he hit them with an SUV. One of the girls was a family friend. The family goes to our local Greek Orthodox church. We also know them from where we come from in Greece, as they are from the same island and from my wife's family's village. She was active in the church youth organization and would help run activities for younger kids, including our daughters.

The 17-year-old killer was stalking that girl because she rejected him. He had been doing it for months and had been swatting the house, harassing her, and ordering dozens of pizzas to the family's home. He also made threats. The family called the police, but restraining orders cannot be issued against minors. The father is a cop who opted to retire early due to a deal over a DUI. An uncle is the police chief in the next town over, though he is supposedly estranged from the parents of the killer. I recently read that the father had called the local police to talk to the kid to do some intervention after he was violent at home, but that's not their job; they also neglected to inform the state crisis intervention teams. He also had a history of being violent in school.

The kid was radicalized and was an Andrew Tate fan, as evidenced by his copious social media history. He was also an aspiring streamer who left a trail of shit talking, support for Tate, and a lot of content supporting Charlie Kirk and other right-wing influencers. He posted a video the day after he killed them on YouTube, and it's still up.

So, here we have a confluence of a kid with severe and violent mental illness and radicalization through social media leading to murder, and a criminal justice system unequipped and unwilling to prevent imminent harm.

So, I am torn...

Would a ban on teens having social media, content filters, or prohibitions on engagement algorithms have done anything to prevent this tragedy? I don't know. But at the same time, this incident shows the harms go way beyond mere bullying. They also show that real life and social media are linked, so pretending they are separate is bullshit.

I really resent the snowflake libertarian, head-in-the-sand obliviousness about how bad social media is.

People do not even realize how bad social media can be on ourselves as adults. I am fair sure that ad./social media have successfully cause me to buy stuff that I would not have bought myself. It is very easy to get into weird conspiracies online as well. I have to make an active effort to clear my history if I decide to look at certain contents (comic book, super hero movie, etc.). If I do not clear history, I would eventually lead to Andrew Tate kind of content.

 

[LordInternet]

I haven't read the book, but it has been cited as one of the key factors that have influenced the lawmakers and legal minds who drafted the regulations.

It is true that seems to have been the basis of the Australia law. In terms of the book, I have seen a lot of it criticism of amongst his academic peers including his own former grad student though.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00902-2


View: https://youtu.be/klasB8FtuyM?si=cb-P5t5EwIHtehmC&t=524

 

[Soriak]

According to some experts, the exception for online gaming doesn't make sense because chatrooms can also be used to exploit and bully children and gaming is addictive. They argue that the "social media" ban should be extended to games: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c93w90kqgv9o

And what about VPNs? The UK is offering the solution for that: UK Lords propose ban on VPNs for children.

The question of whether the harms of social media use outweigh the benefits for children is different from whether the harms of a social media ban for children outweigh the benefits. Inevitably you run up against enforcement issues, and now you end up with new laws aiming to address those.

Now, you can already imagine some problems with that, and so the UK has yet another solution (same link as above):

In another proposed amendment, Peers have suggested that: "Any relevant device supplied for use in the UK must have installed tamper-proof system software which is highly effective at preventing the recording, transmitting… and viewing of CSAM using that device."

Seems like the way to go: mandate installing a service that cannot be disabled and monitors all activity on a device. Every time you open your phone, it could use facial recognition to make sure it's not a child accessing the device instead. Messages can be scanned and suspicious communication can be flagged, in case someone is trying to groom a child. Given the UK's hate speech laws, it might as well also look for offensive messages and posts.

 

[wrylachlan]

The question of whether the harms of social media use outweigh the benefits for children is different from whether the harms of a social media ban for children outweigh the benefits. Inevitably you run up against enforcement issues, and now you end up with new laws aiming to address those.

Nah. The harm caused by social media is directly related to the ubiquity of access. You don’t need to enforce the law to the point that no child has access to it to be effective. You just need a scheme that breaks its ubiquity. Create enough hoops and most kids won’t have access. Those that flout the law and find a workaround will find an online space where the majority of their IRL friends just aren’t present.

There’s really no need to create an onerous legislative suite of regulations aiming for an impenetrable social media blockade for kids. Make it illegal, make the platforms provide tools for age identification, and let parents have the power to control/attest to age for their kids. Don’t lose an ounce of sleep if a few parents think they’re cool by giving their kids access.

 

[Faceless Man]

Maybe this is the real hot take, but... why not both? Hold companies accountable for the impacts of the content they push, both to minors specifically and everyone broadly. Hold parents accountable for what they allow their children to do that is harmful.

Also, phone bans in all K12 schools are a tangential issue here that probably needs its own thread. Though I honestly think most reasonable adults are going to go, "Yeah. Generations survived without personal phones in school and it's harming education. That's a good idea. Do that." So not sure how far that discussion will go.

There are a lot of things people survived without before today, that doesn't mean the new things don't make life better for both the children and the parents. Being able to contact your children directly in an emergency outweighs a lot of the perceived negatives of school children having phones. There's a more nuanced argument about what kind of phone, and what they should have access to on that phone, but on the whole more avenues of communication is a good thing.

Which ties into the social media ban. Now, as someone who was extensively bullied at school, I am a big fan of preventing bullying and shutting down avenues for bullying. I've gone back and forth on whether the social media ban is a good idea. I do know that social media, and online communities in general have let me meet people with a lot of common interests, where I haven't had much luck in meat-space. I don't know what my life would have been like if I'd been able to do that 20 years earlier, when I was still at school. Better? Worse? Impossible to tell.

I can see an argument for getting children off some social media, but I worry that without anything in place to replace it, which has proper protections against bullying, and allows for children to connect with others going through the same things that we're actually going to make a lot of things worse. I know, from people that I've met online, that online communities have been valuable for a lot of marginalised youth, because they aren't being bullied online, but they are in the real world. I feel that we might lose that kind of resource because dealing with the general concept of bullying is just too hard, so we make a few token gestures with things that are easy.

 

[slymenstra hymen]

This is just phase 1, there's a phase 2 coming where ISPs, hosting sites and search engines have to block porn, self harm, gambling content and other 18+ material will also need ID checks or in some cases it should be blocked.

Australia was going to have a filter for adult content on the Internet back in 2008 to bring it in line with film and literature classification system. There was pushback and the tech wasn't there yet so it failed. The same party that was pushing for it is back in power with the the largest majority seen in a very long time and so they're having another crack at it. And strangely this time around there's not much talk about it.

This is more "think of the children" leading to people giving up not just their privacy, but also access to who knows what.

I'm not against social media changes, but this implementation is not it.

 

[Lt_Storm]

If a federal regulator goes to audit your financial records to see whether you made a transaction with a sanctioned party, do you think they will look at your process documentation and say "Hey, looks legit. No problems for me."?

Or do you think they will ask for your transaction records and verify that you aren't doing business with a sanctioned party?

Nevermind what happens when procedures are circumvented, something bad happens, and a lawyer gets involved. The social media company is going to want to prove that they jumped through the legally mandated hoops. Which means they have to keep recorded about jumping through those hoops for nearly as long as the account exists, or, at least, until the account itself reaches majority.

yea, using social media is a choice, while school isn't. You can't just ignore a bully in school like you can online.

Given the social nature of bipedal apes, social media is much less of a choice than one might desire. If you don't want to be an outcast, you will go where the other bipedal apes are. Incidentally, this is why social media like snap chat is such a good idea. The epheremal nature ensures that things don't stick around for a prolonged period.

Children are not adept at maintaining multiple identities and properly separating social spheres in their head, let alone in their actual behavior. And bullies appear to enjoy humiliating people in as widespread and public a manner as possible.

Having been on the receiving end of more than my fair share of bullies during elementary and jr high school, I can tell you: this isn't how it works. Children are plenty good at separating social spheres and their actual behavior: the bully you meet at school is not the same person you will meet should you encounter them on the other side of town or at church: remove their friends and they become perfectly firendly. Indeed, it's the social situation that creates the bully; ultimately, it's a power game: the bully isn't doing this because he enjoys humiliating people, he's doing it because, by picking on someone lower in the social heiarchy, he's able to intimidate others and raise his position in the social heiarchy. It's a way of climbing a social ladder by using low-status people as rungs to be stepped on while climbing.

 

[JonTD]

There's a more nuanced argument about what kind of phone, and what they should have access to on that phone, but on the whole more avenues of communication is a good thing.

This is extremely hyperbolic. We are talking about only in school. They are supposed to be focused on learning in school. Why exactly do they need more avenues of communication during that specific time?

If it’s a school wide emergency, a student is best served by focusing on their own safety and by paying attention to the adults around them that are trained to keep them safe. The adults have access to phones and will call emergency services. Talking to their parents on the phone is nothing but a distraction that would make the situation worse. If it’s an individual emergency, children in instruction should not have access to their phones. It should be off. And in that scenario the best way to reach them is through calling the administration which will connect them directly to the student through the classroom phone. They do not need a cell phone to talk to you.

If you want to contact your child during an emergency, go to the school or contact the school. The argument for cell phones in schools is nothing but an emotional appeal to make parents feel they have control in a situation where they do not have control nor should they be actively trying to assert control.

 

[wrylachlan]

This is extremely hyperbolic. We are talking about only in school. They are supposed to be focused on learning in school. Why exactly do they need more avenues of communication during that specific time?

If it’s a school wide emergency, a student is best served by focusing on their own safety and by paying attention to the adults around them that are trained to keep them safe. The adults have access to phones and will call emergency services. Talking to their parents on the phone is nothing but a distraction that would make the situation worse. If it’s an individual emergency, children in instruction should not have access to their phones. It should be off. And in that scenario the best way to reach them is through calling the administration which will connect them directly to the student through the classroom phone. They do not need a cell phone to talk to you.

If you want to contact your child during an emergency, go to the school or contact the school. The argument for cell phones in schools is nothing but an emotional appeal to make parents feel they have control in a situation where they do not have control nor should they be actively trying to assert control.

This 100%. Even saying to your kid “you need to have this device that tethers you to me in case of an emergency” is tantamount to saying “you’re incapable of handling emergencies without me” which is fucking kryptonite to the process of developing independent self-confidence. When I was in high school, my buddies and I would go for overnight hikes in the mountains on the weekends. No cell phone because they didn’t exist at the time. No one batted an eye. It was amazing for development of self-confidence.

Kids need more risk in their lives, not less.

 

[concernUrsus]

This 100%. Even saying to your kid “you need to have this device that tethers you to me in case of an emergency” is tantamount to saying “you’re incapable of handling emergencies without me” which is fucking kryptonite to the process of developing independent self-confidence. When I was in high school, my buddies and I would go for overnight hikes in the mountains on the weekends. No cell phone because they didn’t exist at the time. No one batted an eye. It was amazing for development of self-confidence.

Kids need more risk in their lives, not less.

It is a different environment now. We have delayed the development of kids because of our own fear (and media creates and enforces some the fear). The social media further delay or even stun kid mental development by telling them how to think.

I took bus to middle school by myself and my parents only need me to get home by dinner. We also have open campus, so we would have lunch outside of school most of the time. It is my understanding that Japan kids would go to school by themselves as young as 7-8 years old.

 

[Bardon]

This is extremely hyperbolic. We are talking about only in school. They are supposed to be focused on learning in school. Why exactly do they need more avenues of communication during that specific time?

If it’s a school wide emergency, a student is best served by focusing on their own safety and by paying attention to the adults around them that are trained to keep them safe. The adults have access to phones and will call emergency services. Talking to their parents on the phone is nothing but a distraction that would make the situation worse. If it’s an individual emergency, children in instruction should not have access to their phones. It should be off. And in that scenario the best way to reach them is through calling the administration which will connect them directly to the student through the classroom phone. They do not need a cell phone to talk to you.

If you want to contact your child during an emergency, go to the school or contact the school. The argument for cell phones in schools is nothing but an emotional appeal to make parents feel they have control in a situation where they do not have control nor should they be actively trying to assert control.

My wife works at a high school here in Australia and this is spot on. If there's a legitimate need for the parents to contact their kid they call the office or drop in - the kid is then brought to the phone to talk to the parent. If there's a legitimate need for the student to contact their parents they inform the teacher and if agreed (no "but I want to check what's for dinner" bs) the kid is taken to the office and can call their parent from there.

Simple, easy, effective and keeps disruption to the minimum.

 

[Matisaro]

It is far easier to send an anonymous or only visible to the victim insult and less risky than to do so in public with potential social consequences for how that interaction goes I would guess.

In person bullying is bad ofc but internet bullying is in my mind way worse because there is no risk to the bully of status loss which can happen in a public bullying attempt if the target drives sympathy from the crowd or even worse for the bully is funny and sarcastic and flips the crowd response.

Both potentials often make bullies themselves uneasy and anxious as it is a social performance as much as anything else which controls a lot of their perceived social standing.

 

[SnoopCatt]

This is just phase 1, there's a phase 2 coming where ISPs, hosting sites and search engines have to block porn, self harm, gambling content and other 18+ material will also need ID checks or in some cases it should be blocked.

Do you have a source for this? Please link.

 

[slymenstra hymen]

Do you have a source for this? Please link.

https://insightplus.bakermckenzie.c...fety-codes-registered-by-esafety-commissioner

There are more details on the esafety website, but it's a pain to find anything there.

 

[AmitY]

Well, let it be.
I'm on the Fediverse. and my instance is Canadian.

 

[zenparadox]

To be fair, my distaste is not wanting to verify. It is that I do not trust these companies to keep my SPI safe. I will verify if required, but I would not wish for it to be in a persistent form where it has to live on my profile. If they setup a secure service, disconnected from their own with provable disposal of SPI once confirmed, then sign me up!

The same way I have not and will not save credit card information there for transactional purposes. There are just too many instances right now where high-profile social media accounts get taken over, and become forever lost because there is no accountability with these companies.

Having verification information with entities you don't trust isn't the problem; it is the symptom of billionaires again demonstrating that they won't contemplate even the slightest reduction in profits for reducing the harm they do to society.
It would be comically easy relatively speaking for the SM giants to properly moderate their products such that banning their exposure to children was no longer the only meaningful option available to governments taking their responsibility to serve their populations safety seriously.

If I have to choose between verifying using unsecure methods, and continuing to use SM, I will stop using SM.
Since the aim of the legislation is much bigger than my sub-problem with its implementation.

 

[zenparadox]

Probably bad hot take:

I don't like the onerous nature of requiring tech companies collecting ID to verify ages. States like Texas already implemented something like this by requiring porn sites to collect driver's license info, which is just a privacy and security nightmare.

Rather, I would place the emphasis on the parents. Make the parents accountable and responsible for devices they give their children or accounts they set up for their kids. If the kids are distracted in class or school because of social media or their device, then they are no longer allowed to bring those devices to school and the parents are given the equivalent of truancy fines.

Making parents responsible instead of putting the onus on the companies making billions is total shitbaggery.
It discriminates so fucking hard against kids with sub-optimal parents, or none. You're then going to stack social injustice by penalising parents who'll most likely take it out on the kids.
Why are people siding with shitbag corporations over their fellow humans?
Self-regulation is the joke that keeps on giving anywhere it's rolled out.

Ars yields some really really sheltered viewpoints at times that indicate extreme privilege, and a lack of awareness of what that means.

Bolded; yes, yes it is. It's so much simpler to force the corporations milking every last personal detail from their users to profit, to apply workable moderation.

 

[zenparadox]

alcohol and guns are deadly to children, social media isn't.

Citation needed.
Have read much more evidence to the contrary on that point.
Sure you can't kill 20 people in a school in one afternoon, but there have been multiple examples of suicides after bullying on SM in Australia.This is not hard to find information, which is mostly in keeping with my experience of your participation in threads here.
Just because you choose to ignore the obvious, doesn't mean others will.

 

[zenparadox]

Does banning a few social media websites actually reduce that exposure though?

I don't understand. Getting bullied at school is a lot more public than having a private social media page. Unless you are for some reason following your bully on social media, you are unlikely to actually see any public posts from that person.

source?

Yeah nah, you made the claim that social media doesn't cause harm/can't be deadly; completely at odds with well established examples.

Enough with the sea-lion nonsense - you're making the grand claim against reasonably well-established data.
It's on you to prove your claims.

 

[SnoopCatt]

https://insightplus.bakermckenzie.c...fety-codes-registered-by-esafety-commissioner

There are more details on the esafety website, but it's a pain to find anything there.

Thanks for that. I've had a quick read through and there is some overlap of the Phase 2 Industry Codes with the social media restrictions, mostly related to age assurance, but I think that probably warrants a separate thread when it happens.

 

[LordInternet]

Australia was going to have a filter for adult content on the Internet back in 2008 to bring it in line with film and literature classification system. There was pushback and the tech wasn't there yet so it failed. The same party that was pushing for it is back in power with the the largest majority seen in a very long time and so they're having another crack at it. And strangely this time around there's not much talk about it.

This is more "think of the children" leading to people giving up not just their privacy, but also access to who knows what.

I'm not against social media changes, but this implementation is not it.

Personally I think we should be doing the California approach. Rather for California they are more focussed on education and regulation not prohibition and biometrics/ID.

Put age verification at the OS/app store level which the parent set age at device setup so nobody needs biometrics or ID.

Then restrict to age appropriate content from there along with warning labels to advise young people about social media harms rather than banning them.

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/10/13/g...ias-leadership-in-protecting-children-online/

If thats what we legislated in Australia instead then I would be 100% in support.

We could also be mandating the esafety commission's own resources be put in the feeds of young people but also potentially with different demographic targets as well much like government road safety campaigns.

 

[JonTD]

Put age verification at the OS/app store level which the parent set age at device setup so nobody needs biometrics or ID.

That's essentially what ISO 18013-5 aims to do at the device / account level. The device can tell websites and apps that the current user is above an appropriate age threshold without actually divulging someone's age. All the recipient of the data would know is that you are at least the minimum age to use their product or to access age-gated content. The user is then only responsible for ensuring the relative physical security of their device to keep their private data private.

 

[Coriolanus]

Making parents responsible instead of putting the onus on the companies making billions is total shitbaggery.
It discriminates so fucking hard against kids with sub-optimal parents, or none. You're then going to stack social injustice by penalising parents who'll most likely take it out on the kids.
Why are people siding with shitbag corporations over their fellow humans?
Self-regulation is the joke that keeps on giving anywhere it's rolled out.

Ars yields some really really sheltered viewpoints at times that indicate extreme privilege, and a lack of awareness of what that means.

Bolded; yes, yes it is. It's so much simpler to force the corporations milking every last personal detail from their users to profit, to apply workable moderation.

Okay, so let's walk through the process of making companies responsible for children not having access to social media.

The companies will know that they are at legal or regulatory risk if they allowed children access. So what will they do to reduce or limit that risk?

They are going to validate age from everyone. That means collecting selfies and ID scans from everyone accessing the platform.

Is that a preferable outcome over having parents be responsible for their kids?

 

[Coriolanus]

That's essentially what ISO 18013-5 aims to do at the device / account level. The device can tell websites and apps that the current user is above an appropriate age threshold without actually divulging someone's age. All the recipient of the data would know is that you are at least the minimum age to use their product or to access age-gated content. The user is then only responsible for ensuring the relative physical security of their device to keep their private data private.

ISO 18013-5 hasn't been implemented with every state's IDs. And currently, the simplest option for ID verification is through selfie and ID scans.

 

[JonTD]

ISO 18013-5 hasn't been implemented with every state's IDs.

That's a fixable problem.

And currently, the simplest option for ID verification is through selfie and ID scans.

I guess this this the impasse in the debate for me. I don't actually have a problem with this. No one has a right to anonymous social media usage IMO.

I am fine with federal US law (and hopefully international cooperation) that:

1) Requires online services to have age verification for accounts if they allow user generated content to be published in any way and lock out minors. (i.e. - you can still have a kids website, it just cannot have social features and you can still have kid accounts if they cannot see or interact with user generated content). An example here is, for instance, underage accounts would be locked out of online voice chat, end game chats, seeing user profiles, etc. for gaming platforms, but not from the gaming.

2) Require all services support ISO standards appropriate for age verification. (ISO 18013-5 explicitly but also also some regulatory body to regulate what standards are appropriate so Congress isn't required to amend the law as technology advances.)

3) Users may opt in to selfie verification or ID scans if they prefer not to use ISO standards or ISO standards are not yet supported for their ID types/devices. Otherwise they cannot use the platform or are relegated to being locked out of the social aspects of the service.

4) By law companies cannot store data gathered or inferred from ID verification after ID verification is completed/so much time has passed (which must be done on a reasonable timeframe--24 hours or so) or use it in any way other than for said ID verification except for data that indicates the date, time, and result of ID verification. Give that substantial teeth (minimum fines based on annual revenue) and whistleblower protection (whistleblower payouts would be based on fine collected). Make it a criminal act for those complicit in breaking said law, down to the software engineers themselves.

 

[SnoopCatt]

...That means collecting selfies and ID scans from everyone accessing the platform.

Is that a preferable outcome over having parents be responsible for their kids?

That's not the choice here. The other side of the equation is not 'parents being responsible for their kids'. It is actual harm to children, whether through bullying, self-harm, or changing the ways their brains develop.

 

[LordInternet]

ISO 18013-5 hasn't been implemented with every state's IDs. And currently, the simplest option for ID verification is through selfie and ID scans.

This is for mobile driver's licence's which is a different thing, just California as I understand has one.

California's law involves no ID or face scanning just self-declaration (or parent) of age at device setup. Likely using the Apple Declared Age Ranges API or Google Play Signals API. So you are still anonymous.

 

[squiggit]

non intrusive device level verification like we've seen in some examples seems pretty reasonable but it's hard to get behind any scheme that asks me to send a photograph or driver's license or etc. to a tech company.

 

[SnoopCatt]

non intrusive device level verification like we've seen in some examples seems pretty reasonable but it's hard to get behind any scheme that asks me to send a photograph or driver's license or etc. to a tech company.

Tech companies don't have a great track record when it comes to handling personal information. Not only can they be hacked, but they can also be coerced by governments.

 

[zenparadox]

Okay, so let's walk through the process of making companies responsible for children not having access to social media.

[snip]

Obscenely profitable business pays rounding error for decent moderation.
(moderating the algorithm is by far the simplest and cheapest solution here. Billionaire shitbags choose not to, to continue breaking capitalism to their advantage.)

How hard was that?

The real question is why you carry so much water for billionaires with overt goals of destroying civilisation as we know it for a fuckteenth more profit?

Faux libertarianism when really you're just window dressing much farther right ideologies doesn't fool anyone.

 

[LizandreBZH]

Australia has recently enacted restrictions on children under 16 from accessing some social media. At the time of the law coming into effect (December 10 2025), there are 10 sites that are subject to the restrictions. The 10 sites are Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Kick, Reddit, Snapchat, TikTok, X (formerly Twitter), Twitch and YouTube. The list is dynamic, so other sites could be added. The platforms could face fines of up to $AU 49.5 million if they fail to take reasonable steps to block young users. There are no penalties for users who breach the restrictions. At the time of posting, one site (Reddit) has formally lodged a challenge in Australia's High Court.

European governments are reportedly considering similar bans, but with some key differences such as parental consent, curfews, and restricting addictive features.

There are reasonable arguments both for and against the restrictions. And there are certainly technical questions around how sites should verify someone's age, and what steps people can take if they have been wrongly banned.

What do you think?

We now have a growing scientific body of evidence that tells us that (a)social networks are deeply harmful for children and teenagers. And adults, of course. As most countries restrict alcohol or pornography for underage persons, I don't see a problem with countries restricting access to social networks for underage persons.
We allow adults to destroy themselves legally in various ways (and prohibit some other ways, depending on the countries) but generally most countries do not allow children that kind of "freedom". No problem with me.

 

[breze]

That's a fixable problem.

I guess this this the impasse in the debate for me. I don't actually have a problem with this. No one has a right to anonymous social media usage IMO.

I am fine with federal US law (and hopefully international cooperation) that:

1) Requires online services to have age verification for accounts if they allow user generated content to be published in any way and lock out minors. (i.e. - you can still have a kids website, it just cannot have social features and you can still have kid accounts if they cannot see or interact with user generated content). An example here is, for instance, underage accounts would be locked out of online voice chat, end game chats, seeing user profiles, etc. for gaming platforms, but not from the gaming.

2) Require all services support ISO standards appropriate for age verification. (ISO 18013-5 explicitly but also also some regulatory body to regulate what standards are appropriate so Congress isn't required to amend the law as technology advances.)

3) Users may opt in to selfie verification or ID scans if they prefer not to use ISO standards or ISO standards are not yet supported for their ID types/devices. Otherwise they cannot use the platform or are relegated to being locked out of the social aspects of the service.

4) By law companies cannot store data gathered or inferred from ID verification after ID verification is completed/so much time has passed (which must be done on a reasonable timeframe--24 hours or so) or use it in any way other than for said ID verification except for data that indicates the date, time, and result of ID verification. Give that substantial teeth (minimum fines based on annual revenue) and whistleblower protection (whistleblower payouts would be based on fine collected). Make it a criminal act for those complicit in breaking said law, down to the software engineers themselves.

4) Describes a law that is very aggressive against the surveillance capitalist companies that will try to abuse it. Enforcement down to the engineers—this is extremely unusual (in the US, at least, where most engineers are not even personally licensed).

If you have to resort to adding unprecedented restrictions against the abuse of your law, to convince yourself that it isn’t a bad idea, it’s probably a bad idea.

 

[Cognac]

If a federal regulator goes to audit your financial records to see whether you made a transaction with a sanctioned party, do you think they will look at your process documentation and say "Hey, looks legit. No problems for me."?

Or do you think they will ask for your transaction records and verify that you aren't doing business with a sanctioned party?

ID checks for alcohol sales are not kept for the record. It's shown to the vendor, who does a cursory check to see if it's an obvious fake. This is 100% process oriented. If an audit happens and the process is in place and executed then they pass the audit. The limitation of whether or not an ID was checked might be done via CCTV, but there is no post-facto requirement to produce the ID itself.