this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2024
515 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

59689 readers
3152 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

This is technically feasible, and bussiness don't need to know your id. If anonymous government certificates are issued.

But I'm morally against it. We need to both educate on the dangers of internet and truly control harmful platforms.

But just locking it is bad for ociety. What happens with kids in shitty families that find in social media (not Facebook, think prime time Tumblr) a way to scape and find that there are people out there not as shitty as their family. Now they are just completely locked to their shitty family until it's too late.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 22 minutes ago

I've said this before, and I'll keep saying it, we need better terms than "social media." Tumblr, Reddit, and Lemmy I don't think should be in the same group as Facebook, Twitter, etc. Social media that uses your real life information should be separate from basically forums that use an online persona.

I don't know what this legislation says, but I agree with you. It should be limited to restricting the "personal social media," not glorified internet forums.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 hours ago

Pssst! Hey kid, wanna buy some memes?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

Well that's not going to work out.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

The fact that people even considered this with a straight face, discussed it and passed it is just indicative how tech illiterate we've become.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I don't know how they are going to do over there.

Here the plan for the same goal is force any social media company to request a digital certificate when entering, or directly overtaking the ip of the social media and force a certificate check to let the user through. This certificates would be expedited by the government to people over certain age.

The haven't implemented yet, as they were going to start using the system to ban porn for minors and got a lot of backslash.

It's technologically doable, some kid will always find a way to enter but vast majority will not (next to a bunch of adults that will stop using them because they cannot be bothered with the same system). Moral considerations aside.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 50 minutes ago

It's technologically doable

I'd disagree here. Sure in theory you could design some system that authenticates every user on every connection but in practice it would be impossible to maintain without complete authoritarian oversight like North Korea. Even closed authoritarian countries fail to achieve this (like Iran or China).

This would cost billions of not trillions in implementation, oversight overhead and economic product loss. That money would be much more effective in carrot approach of supporting mental health institutions and promoting wholesome shared culture, anti bullying campaigns etc.

It's not a new problem either. We know for a fact that the latter is the better solution and yet here we are...

[–] [email protected] 23 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I support this move. Some here are delusionally arguing that this impacts privacy - the sort of data social media firms collect on teenagers is egregiously extensive regardless. This is good support for their mental health and development.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 5 hours ago (3 children)

This ban does nothing.

Anything that does not force ID verification is useless.

Anything that does verify ID would mean that adults also have to upload their IDs to the website.

What will happen is either this becomes another toothless joke. Or the government say "okay this isn't working, lets implement ID checks", and when that law passes Lemmy Instance Admins would be required to verify ID of any user from an Australia IP.

Y'all want that to happen?

So what hapoens if other countries start catching on and also pass such law?

Eventually the all internet accounts would be tied to IDs. Anonymity is dead.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Government provided open id service which guarantees age. Website gets trusted authority signed token witch contains just the age. We can do this safely. We have the technology. They could even do it only once on registration.

Digital id's exist already in the EU, and many countries run a sign on service already. We aren't far from this.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Depending on what the token contains.

There are two implementations I could think of:

"This user has been verified to be at least [Age]. Sincerely, [Government Authority]" Assuming this is an identical token thats the same for everyone? Sure. I'm not opposed to this.

"This user has been verified to be at least [Age]. Unique Token ID: 23456" Hell No. When the government eventually wants to deanonymize someone, they could ask the website: "What was the token ID that was used to verify the user?" then if the website provides it, now the government can just check the database to see who the token belongs to. And this could also lead to the government mandating the unique token id to be stored.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

If i recall correctally, Australia tried to fine adults if they didnt have thier phone with them. Ive heard a relaible youtuber say it, but i couldnt find a news article to confirm it.

Went to look for the article. Found something even worse https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-24/can-border-force-search-your-phone-when-you-travel-to-australia/100774644

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

This ban is a wake up call to Tech Industry to implement and enforce rules against hate speech, grooming, fake news, etc. They surely cannot verify the age of a human without any official ID made in the real world. This leads to other problems but that's not the concern of the government! Social Media wants it's users, not the government.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 hours ago

This ban is a wake up call to Tech Industry

what? Why would tech industry care? If anything it'll have the reverse effect and dimiss tech role in brain rott because "see, kids are not on it! It's all good here"

[–] [email protected] 40 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

The second i have to hand over my id to a tech company is the second i leave and never come back.

Also how they gonna manage the fediverse? Can someone get fined for providing social media to themselves if an under 16 sets up their own federated instance?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

In my country they talked about this. And they thought of a different approach.

The government were to emit anonymous digital certificates after validate your identity. And then the websites were only required to validate these anonymous digital certificates.

Or even it was talk that the government could put a certificate validation in front of the affected ip.

So the bussiness won't have your ip. Only a verification by the government that you are indeed over certain age.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

performative nonsense which does nothing for kids or their mental health and harms queer kids who lose one of the first places they can find community.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Then it seems there is something other to fix in society than making sure facebook knows anything about that kid.

The Zuckerbergers of the world aren't the ones to trust with that.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

This is just abstinence education all over again

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

I always wear a condom when I log into Facebook, so I should be safe

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 60 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Now ban parents posting pictures of their children under 16.

I DGAF about your kids.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah I agree with you on this. It'll protect them from the being de-clothed using AI as well. I understand wanting to share moments with your family because kids grow up fast but sharing it with these companies as an intermediary is not a good idea. Sadly I don't have a solution for them aside from setting up a decentralized social network like Pixelfed or Frendica but that requires skill and patience.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 hours ago

Frankly, decentralized networks make it even harder to take content down.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 hours ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 hours ago

You know in the eyes of government, Lemmy is also social media.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 hours ago

People should be allowed to do as they please. I think, however, people should be presented with all the potential risks in very clear language if they're going to, in the same way a pack of cigarettes has a warning, access to social media should present similar disclaimers.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 hours ago

Good. Now block Shitter.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Not a bad idea all things considered

Edit: Save for the "Showing your ID" part, anonymity is healthy for the net and far too rare these days

[–] [email protected] 31 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

The ban and age verification requirements apply to pretty much all services which allow communication of information between people, unless an exemption is granted by the minister.

There is no legislated exemption for instant messaging, SMS, email, email lists, chat rooms, forums, blogs, voice calls, etc.

It's a wildly broadly applicable piece of legislation that seems ripe to be abused in the future, just like we've seen with anti-terror and anti-hate-symbol legislation.

From 63C (1) of the legislation:

For the purposes of this Act, age-restricted social media platform means:

  • a) an electronic service that satisfies the following conditions:
    • i) the sole purpose, or a significant purpose, of the service is to enable online social interaction between 2 or more end-users;
    • ii) the service allows end-users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end-users;
    • iii) the service allows end-users to post material on the service;
    • iv) such other conditions (if any) as are set out in the legislative rules; or
  • b) an electronic service specified in the legislative rules; but does not include a service mentioned in subsection (6).

Here's all the detail of what the bill is and the concerns raised in parliament.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›