Age checks are only for minors. Parents have full control over their children's devices. If they wanted to, this could all be done without any new legislation - the EU makes some easy-to-use filtering software (whitelist, blacklist, time limits, etc.), parents can (if they want to) install it on their children's devices (it could even come preinstalled, with sensible defaults, since we can all agree on what is "harmful content"), and voila - the child is "protected".
That they instead chose to expand surveillance [1] tells me they have ulterior motives.
[1] They claim it'll be privacy-protecting. I'll believe it when I see it.
redczar · 2d ago
Not all parents are responsible. FB, Google, and others have shown no desire to combat mass manipulation or to combat the psychological harm their services can do. It is appropriate for society to force the issue.
like_any_other · 2d ago
Then that is those parents right. It's not up to a supra-national entity to step in and decide how their children may be raised. And please don't "well we already forbid child labor and sex abuse, so why not pick which websites they're permitted to access or books to read" motte-and-bailey this.
redczar · 2d ago
All societies enforce standards of care for kids and all societies try to intervene when those standards are not met. In the U.S. we require that parents educate their kids. We require that parents provide a level of care for their kids. We require parents to use safety devices when their kids travel in cars. We don’t allow parents to give pornography to their kids. We don’t allow parents to give their kids beer.
It is reasonable for society to set standards. Enforcing online standards is appropriate in my opinion. It isn’t in yours. I hope your view does not have broad support.
like_any_other · 2d ago
> It is reasonable for society to set standards. Enforcing online standards is appropriate in my opinion.
What those standards are, and how they are enforced, matters. We got a glimpse of what can happen with the UK online safety act, as websites went offline or left the UK - even when their content was as mild as a bicycling forum, they couldn't handle the burdensome bureaucracy and vague demands [1] imposed on them. Laws have consequences beyond their stated intentions. And this seems ripe for such abuse - corporations will be falling over themselves to keep the under-18 market, and the call-out to "harmful content" tells me they'll do their best to ban topics that whoever is in power currently could deem "harmful".
You don't trust parents to enable a filter on their kids' devices. I don't trust the EU to shape online discourse and determine what is harmful information, to act as censor for the coming generation's upbringing.
[1] They don't tell you exactly what to do or what is banned, but give vague outlines, forcing you to guess. If you guess wrong and censor too little, you are liable. If you guess wrong and censor too much, no problems.
redczar · 2d ago
…and the call-out to "harmful content" tells me they'll do their best to ban topics that whoever is in power currently could deem "harmful".
Parents can teach their kids the topics that government bans on social media.
like_any_other · 1d ago
We know the power of defaults.
TFYS · 1d ago
If online discourse is not shaped by the EU or European governments, it will be shaped by even less trustworthy entities. It will be shaped by US, China and Russia based organizations, and they will tear the EU apart from multiple directions. The EU needs this if it's to stay alive, even with the risks involved. We just need to be extremely careful that we don't let undemocratic parties get control of this system. That will be easier if we have better control over how much disinformation other powers are able to feed us.
JPLeRouzic · 2d ago
> "Parents have full control over their children's devices"
Do you have experience as a parent with teens?
like_any_other · 2d ago
Why don't you hold my hand through the scenario? Parent buys phone/table/computer for their child, but retains admin control so the child can't disable the filter. Now what?
Sure, some kids will find a way to get an unlocked device, and use it enough to cause "harm", but they would have probably found a way onto foreign sites that don't comply with EU rules anyway. I don't see why we should assume this digital ID check will prevent "harm" so much better than the alternative I proposed, especially without even trying the alternative first.
JPLeRouzic · 2d ago
You may have misunderstood my question. I am also against the EU micromanaging our lives. I agree that "technically," it's possible for parents to control their child's devices.
But it seems impossible for me to imagine that parents could manage teens' devices. I saw numerous examples of teens evading their parents' or society's authority. Teens do many weird things that are impossible to imagine as an adult.
like_any_other · 2d ago
It doesn't have to be impossible for teens to evade. Just hard enough to significantly reduce usage.
fuzzfactor · 1d ago
>They claim it'll be privacy-protecting.
It's always possible that a more accure translation into common English would be "not as privacy-compromising as it could be".
That they instead chose to expand surveillance [1] tells me they have ulterior motives.
[1] They claim it'll be privacy-protecting. I'll believe it when I see it.
It is reasonable for society to set standards. Enforcing online standards is appropriate in my opinion. It isn’t in yours. I hope your view does not have broad support.
What those standards are, and how they are enforced, matters. We got a glimpse of what can happen with the UK online safety act, as websites went offline or left the UK - even when their content was as mild as a bicycling forum, they couldn't handle the burdensome bureaucracy and vague demands [1] imposed on them. Laws have consequences beyond their stated intentions. And this seems ripe for such abuse - corporations will be falling over themselves to keep the under-18 market, and the call-out to "harmful content" tells me they'll do their best to ban topics that whoever is in power currently could deem "harmful".
You don't trust parents to enable a filter on their kids' devices. I don't trust the EU to shape online discourse and determine what is harmful information, to act as censor for the coming generation's upbringing.
[1] They don't tell you exactly what to do or what is banned, but give vague outlines, forcing you to guess. If you guess wrong and censor too little, you are liable. If you guess wrong and censor too much, no problems.
Parents can teach their kids the topics that government bans on social media.
Do you have experience as a parent with teens?
Sure, some kids will find a way to get an unlocked device, and use it enough to cause "harm", but they would have probably found a way onto foreign sites that don't comply with EU rules anyway. I don't see why we should assume this digital ID check will prevent "harm" so much better than the alternative I proposed, especially without even trying the alternative first.
But it seems impossible for me to imagine that parents could manage teens' devices. I saw numerous examples of teens evading their parents' or society's authority. Teens do many weird things that are impossible to imagine as an adult.
It's always possible that a more accure translation into common English would be "not as privacy-compromising as it could be".