We’ve been dealing with a variation of this for decades (maybe even millennia).
The core issue is that kids have more time and energy than any parent, and they have inquisitive problem-solving minds motivated by an intense-to-them need for social connection.
Parental control software: Bypassed
Firewalls and DNS blocks: Bypassed
Parental locks on modern phones: Bypassed
“Are you over 18?” prompts: irrelevant
Asking for driver’s license? Good luck. Are lawmakers going to commit to the inevitable cat and mouse game that starts with kids doing AI forgeries of licenses?
Some states are already moving in this direction. However, it is a firmly unconstitutional approach. Our forefathers are rolling in their graves.
If I can run multiple person bots in 10 years on my cpu, governments around the world will abuse it to 11 and forcing all actors to such measures.
In the 18th century your word was everything, and your identity was tied to your word. When you came into town, or a tavern, or wherever, you had to identify yourself. And if you lied about who you were your word was tarnished forever.
Now we're doing the same thing in a digital world. It's time to adapt to that.
Online and offline is not the same.
If you got caught you were done.
In a digital world we can combat such fraud in vastly different ways.
Obviously I mean any letter of substance where identification is a crucial factor. Not your anonymous love letters to your childhood sweetheart.
I must write you this letter to show you my burning eternal love since your 4th grade for legitimate, anonymous and encrypetd communication.
In shivers.
Your uncle.
The GP comment was about the right toward anonymously sending telegrams and letters, then the response was about fraud, which makes no sense given the context of anonymity; you can't be fraudulently anonymous.
Publius
Folks seeking to profit from your loss of freedom find it extremely useful.
same thing will happen, a leak will occur and the authorities will be thrilled to offer me a 45 cent class action suit -- meanwhile bad actors will have the data and do who-knows-what with it.
if bad internet data is really the problem here then I would suggest more rigorous filtering of results rather than involuntarily signing up the world for a club that every individual may or may not want to be a part of by way of an eID.
And yet democracies predate the existence of digital anonimity by quite a few centuries (or at the very least decades, depending on how many slaves you accept in your definition of a "healthy democracy").
> The "chilling effect" refers to a phenomenon where individuals or groups refrain from engaging in expression for fear of running afoul of a law or regulation.
> Laws that chill free expression do not provide the appropriate level of breathing space for First Amendment freedoms.
https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/chilling-effect-overv...
since this is HN I better clarify - I'm not sure I agree that should pass or would pass, it seems a stretch to me. But if I wanted to make the argument that is where I would go.
An eID can also just make a call to the eID issuer, identifying the person, and then a callback to the service indicating that the identified person complies with certain requirements like age.
Think of it as a bouncer at the door that does not divulge any details to the club owner. ;)
If we share information which is a true risk to national security or the general welfare of the People, that's something the Constitution allows for. But wholesale enforcement of eID is reprehensible and must be met with rigid disobedience.
We haven't tried to ban it for kids. Social media is a network effect. Currently kids have to go on if they don't want to get outcasted. But if you eliminate the network there isn't the same pull factor.
I would never support similarly gimping children in an increasingly online world. Banning kids from congregating on the internet is a reprehensible idea.
This is not to invalidate your own experience - it sounds awful - but we can’t make policy decisions at this scale based only on individual experiences.
Personally I dread the impact that social media might have on our daughters as they move on to secondary school.
Making decisions at scale is always hard, and sometimes outright terrible, because some people always lose out. Nobody likes this or thinks it’s anything other than horrible but, going back to social media, if I can save 5 kids from serious harm by banning social media for them versus 1 or 2 if I don’t, that’s a grim decision but also one I’d make.
Of course, it’s not that simple, and I don’t really know where the net benefit lies, but that’s what we have to figure out.
> if I can save 5 kids from serious harm by banning social media for them versus 1 or 2 if I don’t, that’s a grim decision but also one I’d make.
Not me, and I'd appreciate it if you don't attempt to parent my children for me.
Are you looking for a perfect solution?
Do you also understand that governments and other hostile threat actors already use social media as a propaganda tool to spread misinformation? Do you think it's a good thing that children and teenagers are exposed to this? Do you like that your household is exposed to it?
Do you further realise that social media companies profiting off the back of social and societal problems they cause is also an abuse of power? Is that corporate abuse of power really better than government abuse of power?
I happen to think we can come to a solution that reduces all of these abuses. In fact I think we need to. Whether or not that involves a ban on social media use by under-18s or under-16s or whatever, I've already made clear I'm not sure of, though I can see that it might be a helpful option.
What you're proposing on the other hand is no solution at all: many parents aren't capable of correctly configuring a firewall or securely locking down a phone, even though products exist that make both easier. Some would be able to learn, but some wouldn't. You're simply burying your head in the sand.
> Do you understand that governments already abuse the data held by social media companies and that, by removing, limiting, or regulating young peoples' access to social media one of the outcomes would be that social media companies would hold less data that governments could abuse?
Fixing one problem with another problem. Instead, lets actually take user privacy seriously, and instead of following the abstinence method which works so well, we create a world where this kind of data is not collected/saved or abused in the first place.
> Do you also understand that governments and other hostile threat actors already use social media as a propaganda tool to spread misinformation? Do you think it's a good thing that children and teenagers are exposed to this? Do you like that your household is exposed to it?
Believe me, I do. I also believe that kids have a right to gather online. Our children have always faced danger, and have always needed guidance on how to safely navigate this increasingly complex world. By limiting the collected data as mentioned above, we mitigate this problem as well. Instead of attacking the rights of children, we limit the operational rights of corporations so that individual data privacy and security are better respected.
> Is that corporate abuse of power really better than government abuse of power?
No. See above. Your suggestion of instead limiting the rights of minors to congregate online does not in any way solve or mitigate corporate abuse of power, however it does enable governmental abuse of power, so I'm not sure what point you're making here.
> Whether or not that involves a ban on social media use by under-18s or under-16s or whatever, I've already made clear I'm not sure of, though I can see that it might be a helpful option.
I am very sure it's not the right move.
> What you're proposing on the other hand is no solution at all: many parents aren't capable of correctly configuring a firewall or securely locking down a phone, even though products exist that make both easier. Some would be able to learn, but some wouldn't. You're simply burying your head in the sand.
This is the strongest argument you've made yet, and you're right; Teaching digital privacy and security will be a multi-generational effort, but ultimately society will be better for it. The alternative is still sticking our heads in the sand, and allowing corporations to continue to, as you have agreed, abuse their power and take advantage of both adults and children who get past the filters.
Furthermore, I have no interest in making criminals out of children who circumvent any such laws, and they will circumvent these laws, and en masse. The law is simply unenforceable at scale, and the effect would be to conditiona an entire generation to normalize criminal action. Is that what we want?
Young people have always congregated and that, in itself, isn't a bad thing (quite the opposite - they absolutely need to socialise). The issue we have is that current social media is a far too effective vector for bullying, exacerbating mental health issues and, of course, discovery and sharing of abusive material. Those are some of the problems we need to solve for.
As I say, I sense there may be a net benefit to a ban for younger people, but I could be mistaken - for example, there could simply be greater restrictions or regulation of social media use by young people that would make it safer/better - and would welcome evidence that proved me wrong.
At some point we just have to acknowledge that young teenagers are going to use it no matter what. So maybe we should focus more on education and harm prevention as opposed to trying to ban it.
Unless of course we ask adults to provide their credit card or driver's license to sign up. Which I suspect they won't.