Age verification proposals are often presented as a simple tradeoff: sacrifice a little privacy to better safeguard children online. But that framing overlooks a more fundamental question. What happens to people who cannot verify their age at all?
I know what social media is. You are painting a strawman of how the laws might get abused with further law which nobody is suggesting, aside from fear mongerers like you. And while focusing on that straw man you completely ignore the very real problems that social media brought into the world.
Nevertheless, even if you were right, the internet is still much larger.
This is the EFF. These people know what they’re doing and talking about.
But sure, I’m painting a strawman. Let’s take a look at how the UK defines “social media service” in one of their tax laws!
(3)“Social media service” means an online service that meets the following conditions—
(a)the main purpose, or one of the main purposes, of the service is to promote interaction between users (including interaction between users and user-generated content), and
(b)making content generated by users available to other users is a significant feature of the service.
Why is the EFF is concerned with tax laws? The traditional slippery slope is to use concerns about child safety and extend it to places where child safety is hardly a topic.
You should have cited instead the Online Safety Act 2023 which does not even use the term social media platform. Instead it uses user to user service, which is even broader.
But it also brings across the point better, and it aligns with science that tells us where childrens safety is a concern.
maybe, before you rant against governments addressing a problem that is reported from medical professionals, first take a position around the real problems that these social media platforms bring. You are certainly not on Lemmy because you are happy how Instagram and Reddit function. Are you only concerned about moderation at all, and not so much about the content they promote? For me it’s primarily the latter. In my eyes moderation is a necessary feature, and I think the only places that are even more toxic than the corporation controlled platforms are places without any moderation.
Read the fucking article. The EFF is not talking about tax laws but freedom of association without government identification. I was merely using the UK’s tax law definition of “social media” to demonstrate how easy it is to establish an overly broad definition of something either accidentally or maliciously.
Do you want a free internet where people can associate without the government’s permission? Or are you privileged enough that you’ve never had to worry about your rights and privileges?
EFF has long warned against age-gating the internet. Age verification technology itself is often inaccurate and privacy-invasive, and as more countries considering implementing ID-based checks, the risks move beyond censorship and surveillance toward excluding some people entirely.
From the fucking article, since you won’t read it, you philistine.
I know what social media is. You are painting a strawman of how the laws might get abused with further law which nobody is suggesting, aside from fear mongerers like you. And while focusing on that straw man you completely ignore the very real problems that social media brought into the world.
Nevertheless, even if you were right, the internet is still much larger.
This is the EFF. These people know what they’re doing and talking about.
But sure, I’m painting a strawman. Let’s take a look at how the UK defines “social media service” in one of their tax laws!
source
The internet is much larger, until that part gets thrown down the slippery slope too.
Why is the EFF is concerned with tax laws? The traditional slippery slope is to use concerns about child safety and extend it to places where child safety is hardly a topic.
You should have cited instead the Online Safety Act 2023 which does not even use the term social media platform. Instead it uses user to user service, which is even broader.
But it also brings across the point better, and it aligns with science that tells us where childrens safety is a concern.
maybe, before you rant against governments addressing a problem that is reported from medical professionals, first take a position around the real problems that these social media platforms bring. You are certainly not on Lemmy because you are happy how Instagram and Reddit function. Are you only concerned about moderation at all, and not so much about the content they promote? For me it’s primarily the latter. In my eyes moderation is a necessary feature, and I think the only places that are even more toxic than the corporation controlled platforms are places without any moderation.
Read the fucking article. The EFF is not talking about tax laws but freedom of association without government identification. I was merely using the UK’s tax law definition of “social media” to demonstrate how easy it is to establish an overly broad definition of something either accidentally or maliciously.
Do you want a free internet where people can associate without the government’s permission? Or are you privileged enough that you’ve never had to worry about your rights and privileges?
From the fucking article, since you won’t read it, you philistine.