Comment on Social Media Bans and AO3

  1. romana03 Mon 16 Dec 2024 06:57AM UTC

    Bertie Wooster looks confused.

    You've read the bill, have you? Want to point out where it says that?

    Comment Actions

    1. Riverinnit (Carosbee) Mon 16 Dec 2024 11:00AM UTC

      Have you seen the bits about the use of IDs?

      Comment Actions

      1. romana03 Mon 16 Dec 2024 08:44PM UTC

        Bertie Wooster looks confused.

        Yes, and you're talking rubbish.

        Comment Actions

        1. Riverinnit (Carosbee) Tue 17 Dec 2024 09:34AM UTC

          What the fuck do you call a total lack of anonymity online and the government matching everyone's IDs to an online identity??

          Comment Actions

    3. minharem Tue 17 Dec 2024 08:42AM UTC

      of course the bill isn't going to come out and say that lmao, look at history + what digital activists/privacy experts say about these laws and read between the lines

      Comment Actions

    4. LordiTheRailgun Tue 17 Dec 2024 05:36PM UTC

      It is important to consider what is not being mentioned with bills like this. Just because it doesn't label itself, doesn't mean there's no room for abuse or glaring security issues.

      It is similar telling that the writers of this bill and more like its ilk tend to ignore valid criticisms and concerns from experts on the field. Australia's bill is written in such a way where it'd have to obtain personal ID from anyone willing to use social media.

      A good example would be the KOSA bill which doesn't explicitly state its intention to censor LGBT people on the internet but the bill is designed in a way that would make it very easy to do so. A valid concern honestly.

      Comment Actions

      1. aquila_black Wed 18 Dec 2024 06:37PM UTC

        HP, unconscious, philosopher's stone in hand.

        Seriously.

        AFAIK, there's no proof that internet access harms children. The media has encouraged the belief that it does for decades, but the few studies that attempted to show any link failed to do so, and whenever governments try to pass these exclusionary laws, they're flooded with correspondence from young people who dread losing their friends and online social life. That input is unwanted, unreported, and ignored by everyone involved. Which leads me to believe "child protection" is only an excuse for what would otherwise be universally unpopular forced-identification.

        There /is/ evidence that making everyone stay at home and self-isolate for months during COVID was particularly stressful and traumatic for children and teenagers - yet we're supposed to pretend that their mental health would improve if it weren't for the evil internet. And, more nonsensical still, that kids face fewer threats from adults and peers who have physical access to their bodies.

        Danah boyd [lowercase intentional] recently said, "when we age-gate and think that people can magically wake up on their 13th or 18th birthday and be suddenly able to navigate digital streets just because of how many cycles they took around the sun, we’re fools. Socialization and education are still essential, regardless of how old you are."

        She also mentions something I've observed: the non-politicians who are keenest to restrict children's access to the internet are conservative adults who cannot stand the idea that "their" kids might interact with people who don't share their beliefs, before the indoctrination has solidified.

        Last Edited Wed 18 Dec 2024 06:38PM UTC

        Comment Actions

      2. MalcontentCatboy Thu 19 Dec 2024 04:31AM UTC

        It's in theory possible to implement an age verification system that respects personal privacy...

        I don't know why anyone would choose to believe they want to do that when spying on everyone is easier and cheaper. Three birds with one MOAB.

        Comment Actions