Spain will ban social media for under-16s and require platforms to employ strict age verification tools, joining Australia, France and Denmark in moves to curb the influence of digital platforms on children.
“Our children are exposed to a space they were never meant to navigate alone. A space of addiction, abuse, pornography, manipulation and violence,” Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said Tuesday. “We will no longer accept that, we will protect them from the digital Wild West.”
Once determined their identity and habits, what measures are getting adopted on those countries to guarantee citizens privacy? Are they deleting logs? Are those verification traffic encrypted?
Honestly, I’m starting to see these age restrictions as a good thing. Twitter, for example, does a lot of harm and becomes dangerous for minors. The nudes images created by Grok a few days ago is a good example. On the other hand, yes, they ask you to identify yourself, but perhaps the solution is to stop using social media altogether. I kicked them to the curb a while ago.
If parents would quit the platforms, none of this would be necessary IMO.
Easy and simple to show the example to the kids.
Since the parents probably don’t want to, then you need to enforce it with BS regulations.
But yes, Twitter is quite hostile and damaged my mental health a lot (and that was even before all the ads and AI nonsense pushed there).
Governments using wrong solutions again I suppose. Would be nicer to educate rather than punish tbh.
Yes… education is undoubtedly important. In a thread about iPad use, we were discussing this topic. Many parents find themselves exhausted and don’t even have time for themselves.
In my opinion, the problem isn’t so much the age of the users but rather the ownership of those who control the printing press / algorithm / social network. However, those owners are more powerful than entire countries.
I’m French here. I am against this measure that will also come to us, but many around me are in favor. It’s funny (or rather sad) to see how people willingly accept losing a fundamental freedom. Here are a few points (some factual, others subjective) on the situation:
The only impact of this measure is that teenagers, who do not have income, will mostly use free VPNs. The majority of free VPNs are Chinese. This will therefore pose a huge problem for the future of our youth’s data, not to mention the potential deterioration of the French content creation economy (since traffic will no longer come from France). Since when do people think that banning something stops that thing? You can legislate a ban, but that only serves as a deterrent; the ban itself does not work (examples: tobacco, alcohol, cannabis; if numbers drop among minors, it’s because mindsets have changed, not the law).
I would also like to remind you that less than ten years ago, all Western leaders mocked China and its internet restrictions. Now that extremism is coming back into fashion and leaders are unable to solve problems in their countries, they prefer to silence people.
Let me give you some French context. Social media and local political structures (town halls, departments, etc.) are among the last barriers we have against the state. Macron has done a lot of harm to democracy and checks and balances. He has “Trumpized” our power by basing his policies on a lot of false information, approximations, and perverse measures. Now, almost everyone agrees that he is an unworthy president, and some have even sought to impeach him. Macron has been “reasonable” in the sense that he only uses what he has done to push through his anti-social reforms and limit protests, but we have a presidential election in 2027. Denying people access to the internet does not amuse me. The far-right of Marine Le Pen has never been closer to power; they are already very numerous in parliament. The picture is easy to paint: with people’s identities online, they can take down all their opponents. They already want to attack our Constitution; let’s not give them access to social media.
I’m sorry if I come across as the bad guy, but if parents are unable to educate their kids, it’s the parents who should be punished, not the state’s responsibility. The state should enshrine the ban in law but not take on the responsibility of enforcing it; it should provide resources to parents to help them act, not take their place.
Yeah I saw that one but refrained from engaging into politics too much.
My stance on that is pretty hardcore and set in stone[1] and I don’t like debating over those things for hours but I saw you writing there quite a lot yes.
We can blame platforms for a lot of things.
Yet, it is on the parents to decide to opt out, it’s that easy tbh.
It’s hard and you have some friends, family on it etc etc…sure, but it’s your own decision to not close your account.
Be better, turn off your phone and focus on your loved ones rather than eating the nonsense the algorithm is throwing into your face.
parents should be better and drop their phone while next to their children + not slap an iPad in front of their young eyes + I don’t really care if they do have the time or not for it, should have considered your initial resources in the first place rather than wait for the government to punish your own lack of education/resources/time/whatever is your best flavored excuse ↩︎
I think I saw something about Greece considering it too. It’s honestly spreading like a wildfire. I just hope my country won’t jump on the bandwagon, but seeing as European nations are increasingly embracing age verification, it’s only a matter of time.
Probably will reach everybody because it’s just easier to copy what the neighbors are doing because it sounds/looks healthy to your citizens as a president I guess.
In my opinion, there is no freedom if the public space for discussion is in the hands of four billionaires with very similar interests. But let’s go point by point:
The impact of this measure is going to be strong because teenagers, right now, have no idea what a VPN is or how to use it. Some will look for ways to bypass this measure and will succeed. And certainly they will expose themselves to the sale of their data. But they were already previously exposed to this when using those services.
The economy will surely suffer, no doubt. But not everything is about the economy. And the mental health of children and adolescents is more important.
Banning something doesn’t stop it but it greatly reduces its consumption. Besides, are we going to defend the commercialization of drugs when it’s something negative? By the way, their prohibition would also “hurt the economy.” Furthermore, in the same way that tobacco, alcohol, and gambling cannot be advertised, we should also regulate these supposedly “free” spaces.
Without a doubt. The politicians we have in Europe are incompetent and hypocritical.
The situation you have in France is, unfortunately, very similar to what we have in Spain. But if we go to the root of the problem, what is it? Who foments these hate speeches? Until now I’ve only responded with subjective opinions but let me give you a fact: fascism is driven by big corporations when they feel their power is in danger. It happened with previous fascist regimes and it’s happening now in the USA and Europe. And what’s happening in Europe, in part, is being driven by tech oligarchs who promote these types of discourses and control the public space of political discussion. As an example, we can see Musk giving conferences and supporting the German far-right.
Regarding the parents issue, I don’t want to go on as much as in another thread . To summarize: individual responsibility exists, without a doubt. But from a realistic political point of view, let’s stop trying to wish that people were different and pay attention to the structural problems that our socioeconomic system presents. The easy way out is to point to parents (with some reason), the difficult one is to point to poverty, long working hours, job insecurity, the double shift that some women suffer, deteriorating mental health, poor nutrition, pollution, the price of electricity, poor public transportation in large cities, etc.
To finish I’d like to say the following: I don’t like this measure, but I believe it’s the lesser evil. I don’t mean to say that I’m right, but the damage that social media causes with these owners who seem to ignore the laws of other countries is something I’m seeing in high schools. Teachers have to attend to many children and adolescents who, let’s say, try to hurt themselves a lot when they separate from their parents. It’s an absolute epidemic: of mental health and addiction. Moreover, the fundamental freedom you spoke of at the beginning, and which has been talked about so much throughout history (freedom of expression, of thought, of the press), is fundamentally flawed. Content recommended by an algorithm designed to ideologically direct a tired and discontented population, as well as to make them addicted and consumers, implies that 1) the product being sold on social media is not freedom of expression or thought, but rather it’s the magnates themselves who sell the “idea-filled” heads of users to the interests of the owners and investors of the moment and 2) the interests, tendencies and desires that are constructed and directed to create imaginary needs so that “the economy” keeps spinning endlessly at an increasingly dizzying speed. Finally, I’d like to mention that, in Spain for example, none of the largest newspapers are profitable: they survive on public subsidies and private investments that determine (not just “condition”) freedom of the press. We can ask ourselves the same thing about Twitter and TikTok. Are they profitable? What interests are there in maintaining business models that apparently aren’t as profitable as they seem? Both platforms racked their brains trying to insert ads much more effectively but they’re not able to because of the immediacy involved in using these platforms.
I wish for social media where discussion isn’t directed, with regulated algorithms. I’m afraid that for this we would have to expropriate these immense whales but here I’m already venturing into my utopian dreams.
Nobody cares. Everyone is about we care about the children while yeah, it’s just a popularity thing honestly. They need to stop with that BS excuse used for everything.
Another joker card is drugs or terrorism, the holly trinity of quick simple excuses to justify nonsense bills.
Still waiting for the lobbies to be broken apart and governments to forbid smoking yes.
Oh wait, it’s legal and advertised? I guess it’s good for kids too?
Why would it be legal otherwise?
Defeated the boss with basic logic in 5s, what a speedrun to prove the nonsense.
As Nate said a few times, it’s also about not knowing better, not being in the thick of it and being poorly advised with malicious consultants selling their crap/products as a magic snake oil healing all diseases. Like banning everything and control-ID’ing everything too.
Damn, point 6. was dark and 7. was sad.
Here are some cute whales to make it a bit less painful.
I guess a solution to some of those problem is educating the people and give the tools/knowledge for them to fight back by building/using their own stuff and getting rid of the platforms as much as possible.
Education/being knowledgeable is the antidote to fear, maybe?
You raise very interesting points, I agree with some of them. Let me just clarify (since you emphasized the economic aspect several times) that I don’t consider it paramount, I only mentioned it as an additional consequence. Of course our teenagers’ health is more important than the bank accounts of content creators, but I honestly don’t think such a ban would have much impact. We are already seeing feedback on social media bans in Australia: the effect is very small, teenagers have found ways around it. These measures are primarily publicity-driven and aim to instill the idea that our leaders are protecting us, which is increasingly untrue with each passing day.
On the health side, which is the real point of disagreement between us, I strongly disagree that banning a substance reduces consumption. There are many counterexamples, starting with all contraband (the American Prohibition, to name just one). I know this topic fairly well because I studied medicine and addiction. The view you describe of addictions is inaccurate. I invite you in particular to look into drug decriminalization in Portugal (it did not cause an increase in drug use, there is a slight decrease among adults and a sharp decrease among teenagers, who tend to seek out “forbidden” substances). You can find other studies, notably from the University of Zurich. In short, when you don’t know a subject, read Wikipedia before posting…
Social networks are not chemical addictive substances, but they are designed to create dependence. This issue should therefore be treated as we treat other addictions: explain, prevent, inform, and provide support. This problem will be resolved by talking about it with teenagers and by creating psychiatrists and psychologists positions, not by banning it. The Internet is just a new dimension of our society: parents have always protected their children from the outside world, and they must do the same for this new dimension. To give a more concrete example: parents have always been responsible for and capable of managing tobacco and alcohol for their children, so they will be responsible and capable of managing social networks for their children. Social networks are a public health problem that, in many aspects, look like a drug. We must treat and prevent, not repress. It has never worked: believing we will save people by forbidding something is an illusion we must discard if we want to move forward and protect our youth.
Well, I actually think it’s a problem they’re trying to solve but don’t know how. Or they do know, but they don’t have the courage (or the sovereignty) to do it.
I would also love for it to be banned.
What “boss”? I don’t know what you’re talking about.
Who’s going to give them the education? The same adults who are equally or more sick than the adolescent children? I don’t know if you know many others with a lot of knowledge about privacy and computing, but we’re four geeks
So the problem remains. You talk about education as if adults were educated or, rather, well-educated in political, historical, computing matters, etc., when… let me tell you that’s not the case. So I think we’d do well to think about this whole “educating” thing. Trump became president for a second time in the USA despite supposedly having one of the most educated populations in the world. What happened? Ah, I think social media has something to do with it.
Finally, you can keep your sarcasm to yourself. I find it a bit ridiculous to have to debate like this.
Wow! What civility we have here! When some people disagree with your opinion you resort to mockery and dismissiveness. I thought we could debate something but fine. If you want I’ll give you the point, you’ve won.
Mostly referring to leaders of governments that come up with nonsense ideas like that.
If they do care that much about the health and wellbeing of our kids, they wouldn’t bother losing a bit of money is what I overall meant.
I still that talking about that around us is still better than nothing.
Can help some people and they might even resonate with us? Then it’s a positive contagious thing speading.
Maybe too optimistic I know I know.
Not qualified enough on that topic to have an opinion but even if it is or not, doesn’t matter: we should still try to keep sharing around us so that people willing to learn, do.
Ah? Sorry if I said or did something that hurt you.
[the whales part was to bring a bit of positivity to the discussion and bring up the mood, I do agree with you on the sad parts of society but prefer to focus on the bright side to not drown in misery]
Agreed, teenagers won’t be stopped with a restriction anytime soon. Quite the opposite, will push them to fight back even more. Or to expose themselves by faking their ID/sharing it to companies that don’t really know how to keep it secure.
I am overall also quite worried about the damages caused by AI, being misinformation, lack of effort or plenty of other things related to that. Not sure if there is a way to limit that spread but this should also be a thing to focus on and maybe not being on the platforms might help with it somehow? Hopefully?
My advice was sincere: go read some articles or just a Wikipedia entry on this topic, and you will understand that your reasoning has a problem.
I thought like you for a long time: as soon as I studied the subject and faced patients, I changed my mind. I know it’s very hard to accept on the Internet in this kind of forum, but we can be wrong (me first). I myself have been wrong in some previous threads I participated in here. Forums work much better without our ego.
Especially when we’re bombarded with “I” statements.