Maybe we can also introduce an informedness test for voters while we're at it.

> We need to introduce social-media literacy tests that certify that you are capable of being a good valuable citizen on social media instead of a propaganda sharer and slop consumer.

... and force it first on Zuckerberg, Musk ... and Trump.

There are more options -

Banning advertising targeted at the user rather than the context

Enforcing Do Not Track

Enforcing GDPR (especially sites that use cookie banners)

de iure yes, prosecution would need to prove you was actually using the computer which posted whatever online

Given the track record of both the country and other EU attempts (despite the existence of a zero trust verification framework) I am quite sure this will be used to de-anonymize users online, see UK.

It is definitely technically possible, and it has been for some time in many places. But I doubt anybody (sm companies, state) cares to implement it like that, instead of taking it as a chance to increase surveillance.

It is not preemptive cynicism. My issue isn't with private corporations having access to my data, it's with my government having access to my social media profile.

American here. it's a very big deal.

Needing ID to buy a sim card was a big deal, though. Didn't seem like it because it seemed like we still had the internet for anonymous communication. That will be gone soon by the looks of it. Frog status: boiled.

When I show my ID at the cash register I assume the person working there doesn’t instantaneously memorize all my details and then write down when exactly I was at the shop, along with other details, to use this info later for their own reasons.

Whereas if I upload my ID to a tech company (that potentially answers to both my own government and foreign governments, as well as having its own ad-related agenda) I am a bit less certain about what will happen to this data.

Showing ID at a store doesn't de-facto make a copy. They don't associate my full ID to the purchase, at most a manually entered DoB.

And if you're suggesting Digital ID (EUDI style); showing ID at the store doesn't share metadata of that purchase with the government.

When traveling abroad, it always surprises me when I’m asked for my id when buying alcohol. That’s only a thing in my country when you’re in the age bracket in which it’s risky to tell your age just by your looks, but after that, I haven’t been asked for my id since at least I’m 20 or 21 (drinking age is 18 here).

Prescription drugs are different because those are tied to your name anyway, and that’s why medical information has a different protection standard.

As a parent of 2 I think it’s better to talk to your kids, check what they’re up to, and, you know, be involved in their lives. Also, as a former kid, if there’s something they want to do but you don’t want them to: they’ll do it. Better that they know they can trust you to say “I still want to do X” than have to do it in hiding and without your support if anything goes wrong.

I hope this is a satire post..

that's exactly my proposal with protecting children online - issue unique certificates for some symbolic price like 1EUR which will be sold over 18yo in shops exactly same as alcohol and cigarettes where nobody writes down your ID details, heck don't even have a look if you look old enough, that's as far as I am willing to go to protect kids (without this certificate) online, anything else is just internet deanonymization

The problem is that they promise to delete IDs but then don't, and get hacked, and then all that personal information is published to the dark web for nefarious purposes. If you need evidence, it just happened again to 70,000 Discord users: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8jmzd972leo

> Where does the mass deanonymisation enter into this?

How is it not deanonymisation when your tax ID is inextricably linked to your social media profile?

It's possible to build an identity system that can assert certain properties about a person (eg. "older than 16") without revealing any other details about that person. Similarly, it's also possible to build such a system where the identity system can attest these details without knowing which website is being accessed. That way, the social media site (or whatever other "adult" service) can validate the user is old enough, while the identity system doesnt track who is using what.

there is, identify users with anonymous code bought exactly same as cigarettes and alcohol in shops where they don't write down your data or don't even have look at your ID card if you look old enough

any age identification done online is not anonymous

Unless an exception is made these types of laws only make things much harder for small communities, since they can’t afford to implement the required measures and take on the legal liability. The result will be that everyone moves to larger platforms that are able to do these things

Personally I joined Discord servers for open source projects and this is how I got my start using GitHub, learning how code review worked and the process for communicating with other devs etc. I feel like I may not be in a software development career if these laws had existed when I was growing up

Autism is a wide-ranging spectrum, I find the idea that I should be “kept away from the Internet” because I have (high-functioning) autism quite patronising. Maybe this is true for some people, but my point is that these social media ban ideas are too indiscriminate

I would agree that addictive platforms are harmful for children, and I haven’t looked into this law so maybe it does make a distinction, but any online communication (e.g. GitHub) is sometimes considered “social media”. A lot of people seem to exclude the platforms they like from what they count as “social media”, as they see social media as the evil thing they look down upon

The cynical in me doesnt see that as the main problem, lack of diversity in thought and debate is already an issue, censorship laws about what subjects and what opinions are correct is an issue that will be exacerbated. To save the democracies you need, a better population who votes in competently and informed, as well as a public debate that is honest and doesnt decry any deviation from the standard as fascism. Far-right populism only exists in coutries where debate is not honest and pragmatic enough, and avoided in countries like Denmark because population and government are in a tight loop where each feels heard by the other.

A yes, we most protect others from being exposed to information that might make them vote differently from what we want. After all, democracy is all about getting the votes we want, right?

Very cheap way to appear to be doing something about anything. Lot of talk, a few memos. All implementation burden on private sector. Aimed at group that can't currently vote. Only ones against it on principle care about implementation not actually the ban.

And some of us think it doesn't go far enough. I would set limit to 18. Would solve lot more issues. Like make adult content fully allowable by default as everyone can automatically be considered to be an adult then.

Those things were pretty clear well before 2-3 years.

Social media is seen as a driver for people having opinions deemed a threat to the status quo. Western governments have been fighting a long battle to use these tools to control domestic influence and at times have probably thought they were winning, but recently things seem to be turn a bit.

"Think of the children" is obviously the oldest and most pathetic trick in their playbook. We know it's a bald faced lie because data and studies on social media harms on children has been coming out for well over a decade by now, and not a finger was lifted for years. So we know that is not the reason, and we know they are lying about the reason. Therefore we know the real reason is seen as unpopular with the electorate. And curbing foreign (including US government) influence and access to data is not unpopular anywhere.

Exactly - ban addictive dark patterns in ALL software for ALL ages.

Fair enough.

Typically what I call Social Media is akin to things such as Facebook, Twitter, etc.

Anything that has a personalized "feed" generated by an algorithm.

Old moderates forums had no personalized anything.

Incidentally, as much as I despise Reddit, this would exclude Reddit from being banned. Last time I used it, it didn't really have a personalized feed (unless things changed ever since).

I could subscribe to subreddits and see the activity on what I subscribed, but anyone with the same subscription list (fully controlled by the user) would see the same activity, so it was not a personalized feed per se.

Not that hard. Ban any social media that has a personalized algorithmically generated feed. Those things can be gamed for engagement and are poisonous both to the individual and to society.

HN, Reddit, PHPBB forums would be excluded. There's no personalization outside the user control on those as far as I am aware.

Last time I used Reddit, I could aee the activity on the boards I was subscribed to, but anyone with the same subscriptions would see the same activity. There's o dark pattern there.

And just to be clear, I absolutely despise Reddit. I don't even like HN all that much to be frank. I would be the last person that would try to protect Reddit. I am just being coherent with my thoughts on the matter.