Just a moment...
www.independent.ie

Full title: EU’s new social media child protection rules to require all social media accounts to produce state ID - Leaked documents suggest that some existing accounts will also be subject to identification checks

  • bigmamoth@lemmy.worldEnglish
    342·
    2 days ago

    My freedom shouldn’t be implied cause some parent can’t use a parental control which is already mandatory in the eu. Your kids isn’t my responsability.

    It s unreal that the “free world” want my id simply to go online.

    Also same shit as rgpd. Only bigger website and corporation can afford putting million toward implementing thoses policiesbwhile all other won’t bother and just cut acces to be in compliance.

    • recarsion@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
      51·
      16 hours ago

      I hate how effective the whole “think of the children” rhetoric is. Every person I talked to about this irl is either indifferent or even in support because they want children protected and they “don’t do anything they need to hide” anyway so they don’t mind presenting an ID… I agree children should not be on social media, but it’s kinda just the parent’s responsibility to not let them near it and the tools are out there. Plus let’s not pretend kids aren’t smart enough to figure out there’s alternatives…

      • Digit@lemmy.todayEnglish
        3·
        10 hours ago

        Even after explaining what I would have done to them,

        with that data, if I had the data, when I worked in advertising… [or even just explaining their basic human dignity of privacy]… the rhetoric remains strong enough to not have the cognitive dissonance be itchy enough to stop fallaciously repeating their mantra “nothing to hide”,

        … and so that’s why they’re fine with this dystopian nightmare, this single point of failure, this hijacking of humanity by totalitarian government (or at least just megalomaniacal parasites wanting total dominating control, even in banal mundane petty ways, like just doing their job, serving their client as best they can, maximally manipulating mentalities to maximise wealth extraction)?

        It does not make sense.

        As for who’s on social media… yeah, maybe lets not have a corporate attention snare that learned from the billions invested in Las Vegas casinos for their ability to snare and direct peoples attention, keeping them going back in for more, keeping them addicted, maximally extracting wealth from them. “Social media”, such an Orwellian marketing spin term. … The ambiguity and resulting conflations help camouflage what the crooks are up to. Not all “social media” are alike. As surely we here on the fediverse know.

        Children should not be on “social media”? Depends what one means… but typically I’d say children are due the same rights, and are not to be under classed. Y’know? Wanna take away children’s access to parts of the world? The parts that can be used for good too? … I just picture what that different world’s like, where Aaron Swartz gets denied access to something even younger… where that precedent goes, how much worse the dystopia can be, compared to what it already is. … Or… as you allude to… How much more fervently pursued, freedom is, by the young, the tighter they squeeze.

        • recarsion@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
          2·
          10 hours ago

          You raise a good point in that last paragraph, I’ll honestly have to think about that. When I say they shouldn’t be on social media, I specifically mean stuff like Instagram and TikTok and not the internet in general because as you say the internet can be used for so much good. But these slop machine type sites engineered for attention and addiction are honestly nightmare fuel, that shit is not good for any person, let alone someone whose identity and judgement is not yet fully formed. Not to mention how alarmingly common extremist ideologies are even on mainstream sites. So, while I understand what you’re saying, I know for a fact that if I was a parent I wouldn’t want my kids near that crap.

          • Digit@lemmy.todayEnglish
            2·
            10 hours ago

            I know for a fact that if I was a parent I wouldn’t want my kids near that crap.

            Yeah, it’d be some kind of non-mamalian (let alone inhuman) approach, to let your offspring freely frolic in dire dangers, and not actively protect and educate them. Roads. Crocodile infested rivers. Corporate “Social Media”.

    • Puddinghelmet@lemmy.worldEnglish
      34·
      15 hours ago

      How is your freedom reduced tho, an app produces a yes or no, how is that a reduction of freedom. Search for zero-knowledge proof and the techniques behind it
      Sources for ZKP: https://ageverification.dev/av-doc-technical-specification/docs/annexes/annex-B/annex-B-zkp/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic_Curve_Digital_Signature_Algorithm Vulnerabilities: https://www.encryptionconsulting.com/education-center/what-is-ecdsa/ [Api2025] Rutchathon Chairattana-Apirom, Franklin Harding, Anna Lysyanskaya, and Stefano Tessaro, “Server-Aided Anonymous Credentials,” available at https://eprint.iacr.org/2025/513, 2025

    • youmaynotknow@lemmy.zipEnglish
      9·
      1 day ago

      This is what it’s about. My daughter started reaching sites I had explicitly blocked in her phone and our home network (OPNSense + AdGuard Home) using a VPN.

      I dis not blame the sites, or the ISP, or even the VPN provider. She has a PC and Phone because we, her parents, allowed it, so that’s on her for choosing to circumvent the security implemented, and on US for providing the means.

      So, she has no access to any technology until further notice. Why the fuck does everyone have to pay because some of us are not parenting correctly?

      I certainly don’t want any company or government deciding what my kids can or cannot have access to, that’s my role, not theirs.