Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • A society whose individuals needs government laws to make good "choices" is probably doomed

    The only possible law is making bigco social media less addictive, and better controls for parents

    But maybe this is UK just exercising some soft power, since they have no tech to speak of

    by guilhas
  • Then we've been doomed since we banned children from buying cigarettes, or even further back, since we banned children from having sex with adults. Do you really think banning those things made society worse?
    by inigyou
  • I'm frustrated with how the various internet freedom orgs have handled this over the years.

    The writing was on the wall for years - it's not the 90s anymore and some compromise on anonymity and verification is coming. Frankly for good reason - I think the social utility of Big Social is massively negative, and even more so for kids.

    That was the shot of orgs like EFF to help shape the debate in a good direction. Zero knowledge proofs, anonymity preserving age checks, good govt regulation on this etc.

    Instead they all dug their heels in, refused to give an inch or even engage in the debate. If you wanted anything other that a Toresque utopia then you clearly want Big Brother to keep tabs on everything, and you're probably a moron who thinks you have "nothing to hide".

    So they vacated the space while Mumsnet users came to the only logical conclusion: let's ban social media for kids, with whatever method comes to their mind. Scanning their ID, face scans, fingerprints connected to a government DB ran by the cheapest contractor - who knows how this will materialise. And I kind of can't blame them. The adults of internet privacy vacated the room because they said everyone else in the room is too stupid. So they left and left the stupid people in charge.

    by rich_sasha
  • The same applies to the social media services themselves.

    Evidence of harm has been building up over the last decade, so there's been ample opportunity for them to develop effective systems to reduce or mitigate the problems. Instead, they've chosen to do the opposite.

    And, if anything, that process has only accelerated over the past 2-3 years - firing moderation teams, amping up the algorithmic feeds, refusing to engage with regulators.

    Did they really think their behaviour would have no consequences?

    by roryirvine
  • This does seem to be more of an effort to bring digital ID in via a backdoor - the proposal is less "under 16 social media ban" rather "over 16 will need to provide id to use social media"

    I'd prefer that we had some standardised governmental endpoint that can authorise against a site for us, rather than use multiple individual methodologies to prove

    by ddmf
  • The EFF believes the ends (freedom) justify the means (access to everything good and bad for everyone). Governments are pragmatic, not fundamentalist.

    This article addresses the technological flaws in age verification, then says “but even if there were, broad restrictions on social media will inevitably limit access to lawful speech, and valuable online communities, and arts and culture.”

    If the EFF care about freedom above all else (a reasonable position) muddying the waters with half-baked age verification isn’t perfect arguments is just sloppy.

    Why does the freedom matter above all else? That’s what voters need to be convinced of.

    by manwithopinions
  • > Why does the freedom matter above all else? That’s what voters need to be convinced of.

    Because without freedom, you cannot really have anything else. You are a slave. Is that really what you want to be? Or how we want children to be raised?

    by voakbasda
  • About 2 million adults in the UK don't have government-issued photo ID. Certainly many 16-17 year olds will have trouble verifying their age. They're blocking huge sectors of the UK population from being able to use the internet normally.
    by big85
  • Nobody needs to use social media though.

    Really they should just torch the lot.

    by ilovecake1984
  • Use *social media normally. Social media != The Internet. They’ll be able to use 99.9999% of the internet just fine.
    by rimeice
  • There is nothing good on the internet for kids. If we ban kids from the internet this will all go away. Make a smartphone every bit as regulated as alcohol or cigarettes or sexual intercourse. If a parent is found providing their kids alcohol, cigarettes, sex, or internet, we have to hold them accountable and rehabilitate the kids from their traumatic experience. These parents deserve serious prison terms, and those victimized kids will need to be institutionalized as they are now traumatized for life (plus their parents are deservedly now serving decades in prison for child abuse).

    Why are we pushing our kids onto the internet? There is nothing there for them. Any politicians pushing for kids internet access are probably doing it for nefarious reasons in my opinion. The internet is not really all that safe for adults either, why are we pushing kids onto it?

    by cowboylowrez
  • Banning kids from alcohol, cigarettes, and sex sure did work. I can't think of a single kid I went to school with that did any of these things (and certainly not me). All those laws and rules were absolutely effective in preventing us as kids from doing them. /s
    by Eddy_Viscosity2
  • I don't think internet puritanism imposed by government will protect anyone.
    by duxup
  • I was afforded limited exposure to alcohol and sex starting around age 13, and I've got a vastly healthier relationship with the two than the rest of my society.

    I think the internet, however, is a much greater threat to growing minds.

    by rexpop
  • Related petition to be debated in parliament: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/757233
    by throw5
  • These never ever accomplish anything
    by 0-_-0
  • Probably an unpopular view, but why not fix the issues with social media.
    by CrzyLngPwd
  • This is the best thing to do IMO
    by Nippon_anzai
  • This is the start
    by stranded22
  • Banning or regulating algorithmic feeds would be an excellent start.
    by timmytokyo
  • I really wish we could just pass "common sense" laws. Like, you just can't use addiction to make money, full stop. You can't use any kind of trickery in marketing, in particular anything trying to circumvent people's rational brain and preying on the weak animal brain underneath. Marketing and advertising would be gone overnight - good riddance -because anyone can write an honest advert.

    The problem with us is we get stuck in local optima and we just can't get out. We're like ants in a death spiral. It takes some enormous external shock to get us out, like a world war. Even a financial crisis or global pandemic isn't enough any more, unfortunately. Individuals just can't accept less and no leaders appear to be able or willing to explain to the concepts of global optimisation or long term plans etc. So we get stuck with shit on top of more shit.

    by globular-toast
  • "This week, politicians in the UK pushed forward with plans to eviscerate privacy and free speech on the internet by announcing a ban on social media for users under 16 that is set to take effect in Spring 2027."

    Is "social media" the internet

    Does "social media", i.e., "Big Tech", preserve privacy or eviscerate it. "Internet privacy" is been in direct conflict with their "business model". They engage in sweeping data collection and mass surveillance of internet users to support invasive "personalised" ad services

    It seems like most people engaging in "free speech" on "social media" are not anonymous, not really interested in "privacy"

    In many cases, they "share" their every thought

    40 ways to share information over the internet without age verification

    https://decss.zoy.org

    This is old and could be updated with more

    by 1vuio0pswjnm7
  • C'mon ppl, nothing new. China, N. Korea, Iran, Russia ... to some extent Turkey. So what? Adapt. We've been there before.
    by pbgcp2026
  • Canadian federal govt just pushed thru a slew of similar legislation - absolutely unprecedented assault on privacy, tools for tracking everyone all the time, minimally constrained, giving broad leeway to a three-person unelected body to implement the actual details.
    by btbuildem
  • If governments want to set up online age gates, they should be responsible for providing an electronic ID system and enable privacy preserving age verification (zero knowledge proofs)
    by cbdumas
  • It's coming to European Union citizens. Any day now.
    by thrance
  • Implementation detail. Fine companies that allow minors access and they'll find a way to verify age by themselves.

    For liquor for example I don't think the govt actually specifies that you shall check ID they specify that you shall not sell to minors.

    by 2OEH8eoCRo0
  • That is what I have been saying: we need ZKP! I highly doubt they will implement it though.
    by johnisgood
  • Zero knowledge proofs don't accomplish the ID checking that the governments want.

    The reason all of these improvised ID check systems require you to do things like submit a video of you moving your face around (which has its own problems) is because they want to get closer to proving that the ID you submit is actually the ID of the person holding the phone, not just some ID (or zero knowledge proof) you copied from the internet.

    by Aurornis
  • Who is "government" Is it not the people? The people don't want this crap. It's a few zealots with their motives that are pushing this down society.
    by segmondy