129
submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

Google urges US lawmakers not to ban teenagers from social media.::San Francisco– Google has asked the US Congress not to ban teenagers from social media, urging lawmakers to drop problematic protections like age-verification technology. The tech giant released its ‘Legislative Framework to Protect Children and Teens Online’ that came as more lawmakers, like Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), pushed for the Kids Online Safety Act, a …

top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

There's no way to enforce an age ban on anything Internet related without serious privacy violations.

[-] flamingarms@feddit.uk 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I believe the States have that already, with their age verification bullshit for porn. Doesn't seem like serious privacy violations are a concern for them.

There's nothing like that in the US that I'm aware of, though some states have tried.

I think Utah did it, or is at least experimenting with it

[-] Waldemar_Firehammer@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You're right, I didn't realize the lawsuit had been thrown out. The fact remains the law is completely unenforceable without serious privacy violations.

[-] abhibeckert@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago

The legislation doesn't ban teens from social media. It adds rules social networks have to comply with so they don't harm teenagers.

[-] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 7 points 1 year ago

Yeaaahhh... Have you been missing all of the news around KOSA? Google is a broken clock in this instance. KOSA is another one of those, "we'll use the kids to ban what we don't like" kinda laws. Wikipedia has a general overview of the criticism against it. The gist of it is that it's not only limited to social media, and it's worded vaguely enough that it gives the states the power to decide what's harmful for children.

Can you guess who's the most excited about it and why?

[-] APassenger@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I'm very disappointed that Warren is even part of this. Would be huge giveaway to pro-birthers and anti-equality people.

[-] Fal@yiffit.net 5 points 1 year ago

Those rules are harmful to teenagers

[-] abhibeckert@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The rules include things like "do not run ads for strawberry flavored nicotine vapes that are blatantly intended to be sold to kids". That's not harmful to teenagers.

There might be other rules that are harmful, I haven't looked over the whole thing, but if Google has a problem with them how about explaining that instead of making false statements. This is clearly not a blanket ban on social media.

[-] Fal@yiffit.net 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The rules include things like “do not run ads for strawberry flavored nicotine vapes that are blatantly intended to be sold to kids”. That’s not harmful to teenagers.

No, it's rules like "homosexual content is harmful to kids so it will be banned".

And adults couldn't possibly like strawberry. That MUST be about addicting kids! Not that that has fuck all to do with what we're talking about here. We're talking about banning kids from being able to talk about their sexuality and gender in safe spaces

This is clearly not a blanket ban on social media.

Not a blanket ban, just the likely result.

[-] teichflamme@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

No, it's rules like "homosexual content is harmful to kids so it will be banned".

That would suck

And adults couldn't possibly like strawberry. That MUST be about addicting kids

It's just easier to get kids addicted. That's why they need special protection.

Not a blanket ban, just the likely result

Honestly, not the worst outcome. Social media appears to do more harm than good, especially for kids.

[-] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 3 points 1 year ago

It's a, "we'll use the kids to ban what we want" kinda law. It's vague enough that it doesn't just apply to social media, but can be applied to other areas as well. Additionally, the way, "harm towards minors" is defined gives states a lot of wiggle room on how they interpret it, which means they can (and will) attempt to use the law to ban things like LGBT resources, critical race theory, black lives matter, etc.

Wikipedia has a summary of the criticism.

[-] h3mlocke@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago
[-] Fal@yiffit.net 8 points 1 year ago

The act in question is all but explicitly about banning lgbt content online, especially for kids. It will leave vulnerable kids with 0 ways to discuss their sexual orientation, gender, etc in a safe space away from their parents.

[-] AceTKen@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

Assuming the entirety of the rest of the world beyond social media doesn't exist that is.

[-] radix@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

What world, when you don't have money or privacy of your own? If there's not a good queer alliance club at their school, they're done for.

[-] AceTKen@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I mean, I'm 41 years old. My best friend in high school was gay. He talked about it with other friends, and I'm in a pretty right wing province.

The internet is pretty far from the only place that you can discuss these things, and the kind of parents that aren't going to give you the privacy to discuss also are definitely not the kind to just leave the internet alone and let you go crazy on it.

You're talking about extremely psychotic (and completely ineffectual methods of) helicopter parenting.

[-] Sethayy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Can't get em addicted as easily

[-] Fal@yiffit.net 3 points 1 year ago

Addicted to what? Being able to be able to discuss lgbt topics online where their parents won't beat them?

[-] Sethayy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I mean that short cycle dopamine that all apps are pushing towards like its the new micro transaction.

LGBT safe spaces are amazing, but aren't representative of 100% of online content

EDIT: I didn't read the article don't come at me I'm stupid n lazy, if its just another hidden homophobic law then fuck that, but IG you can't expect anything of lawmakers

[-] Fal@yiffit.net 3 points 1 year ago

EDIT: I didn’t read the article don’t come at me I’m stupid n lazy, if its just another hidden homophobic law then fuck that, but IG you can’t expect anything of lawmakers

I wonder how these lawmakers get away with passing their homophobic laws

[-] Sethayy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

In my defense I'm not even american

[-] BanditMcDougal@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Without teens and boomers, social media would be dead.

[-] leftzero@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

Good, ban boomers too, then.

this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2023
129 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59449 readers
2957 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS