So... de-facto mass deanonymisation of all Spanish social media users? I see a lot of supporters of these policies either not acknowledge that you can't identify under-16yo without identifying over-16yos.
Age verification is possible without revealing personally identifiable information (beyond old enough yes/no, which is not in any way personally identifiable info) and from my perspective should be a strict requirement with any such laws.
In fact, if these laws make the requisite infrastructure (ID cards that offer that functionality) a hard requirement then creating an anonymous web that nevertheless has age checks easier, not harder.
What you basically want is an ID card where you as the owner can decide what you want to share with the private business. And for age verification that’s basically just requirement fulfilled yes/no.
So if the law is well written then this could be an advantage, not a disadvantage. Preemptive cynicism isn’t helpful here.
Given the track record of both the country and other EU attempts (despite the existence of a zero trust verification framework) I am quite sure this will be used to de-anonymize users online, see UK.
There it rears its ugly head again, the preemptive cynicism that prevents anything good from ever getting done.
It’s simple really: zero trust age verification should be a strict requirement of any such law and anything else illegal for age verification.
That to me is what has to happen and it’s important to me. That’s my perspective on this – not that‘s never going to happen anyway, so no point in trying to.
Social media is toxic to kids (and adults, but that’s a different matter), extraordinary measures are called for, even with risks. It’s hyper optimized to be the equivalent of a drug, and should be regulated as such.
Hacienda is the most extractive Tax Agency in the world. They have lobbied for ever more intrusion into private lifes of citizens in order to extract more money. Thus they have included a "lifestyle auditing" that has access to many cross-databases, utilities, insurance, etc....
If you set up a system of ID identification linked to your real ID and IP, Hacienda (and the police, and eventually private companies) will be able to backtrack.
The current PM's rother, wife and half of his cabinet are involved in corruption scandals linked to COVID funds given to companies that bribed people. This is the government that will implement such efforts. Would you be able to trust them ?
It is definitely technically possible, and it has been for some time in many places. But I doubt anybody (sm companies, state) cares to implement it like that, instead of taking it as a chance to increase surveillance.
It is not preemptive cynicism. My issue isn't with private corporations having access to my data, it's with my government having access to my social media profile.
It is not preemptive cynicism, it is also unprobable becaues the EUDI [0], tech specs and example source code are open source and available on GitHub for everyone to review [1]. The age verification is implemented in a pricacy-friendly way, you can't even obtain the exact age during the verification step. The are brackets (such as 13+, 18+) and all the verifier gets is a "yes" or "no". Not your name, not your age.
Please stop spreading FUD when the actual implementations behind the government initiative are actually open source and have been designed to allow anonymous verification.
Zero trust age verification means both sides don’t have to learn anything about each other beyond old enough yes/no. Should mean that.
I’m fine with age verification if it fulfills at least the same criteria that offline age verification does. When you show your ID card in a supermarket to buy alcohol or cigarettes or whatever then the government doesn’t learn anything about what you did and if the cashier doesn’t memorize and write down anything on the card the supermarket doesn’t learn anything about your identity. Here the digital solution can and should do better and close that theoretical deanonymization vector.
> Zero trust age verification means both sides don’t have to learn anything about each other beyond old enough yes/no. Should mean that.
Well, it doesn't. Absolutely none of the systems people are putting into place, or suggesting putting into place, are actually zero trust. The ones that claim to be are "somewhat lower trust if you don't think hard about how to exploit them". Yes, we know in theory how to do zero trust. The reality of these mandates is that people can easily get de-anonymized to all kinds of actors who should't be able to identify them.
It's also a "solution" to a massively exaggerated problem, one that's not in any way specific to any given age group. But that's unrelated to the fact that nobody is, in practice, doing or planning to do anything privacy-preserving.
Will age verification require the use of software I can't view the source of and/or can't patch (due to remote attestation), and presumably only runs on user-hostile systems (Android with Google Services and iOS)?
You need ID to buy cigarettes and alcohol, prescription drugs or to get sim card... you will need it to register for social network account... do not seem as big of a deal to me. Even less when considering all the positives.
When I show my ID at the cash register I assume the person working there doesn’t instantaneously memorize all my details and then write down when exactly I was at the shop, along with other details, to use this info later for their own reasons.
Whereas if I upload my ID to a tech company (that potentially answers to both my own government and foreign governments, as well as having its own ad-related agenda) I am a bit less certain about what will happen to this data.
> Whereas if I upload my ID to a tech company (that potentially answers to both my own government and foreign governments, as well as having its own ad-related agenda) I am a bit less certain about what will happen to this data.
"A bit less certain" is a really mild way of putting it. I'd be confident that whatever ID I upload to the Internet is going to be stored forever, shared with "partner" companies, linked with as much data about me as those partner companies can find, and then eventually leaked in a security breach, resulting in the company issuing a press release telling everyone they "Take Security Very Seriously."
Needing ID to buy a sim card was a big deal, though. Didn't seem like it because it seemed like we still had the internet for anonymous communication. That will be gone soon by the looks of it. Frog status: boiled.
The problem is that they promise to delete IDs but then don't, and get hacked, and then all that personal information is published to the dark web for nefarious purposes. If you need evidence, it just happened again to 70,000 Discord users: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8jmzd972leo
When traveling abroad, it always surprises me when I’m asked for my id when buying alcohol. That’s only a thing in my country when you’re in the age bracket in which it’s risky to tell your age just by your looks, but after that, I haven’t been asked for my id since at least I’m 20 or 21 (drinking age is 18 here).
Prescription drugs are different because those are tied to your name anyway, and that’s why medical information has a different protection standard.
As a parent of 2 I think it’s better to talk to your kids, check what they’re up to, and, you know, be involved in their lives. Also, as a former kid, if there’s something they want to do but you don’t want them to: they’ll do it. Better that they know they can trust you to say “I still want to do X” than have to do it in hiding and without your support if anything goes wrong.
that's exactly my proposal with protecting children online - issue unique certificates for some symbolic price like 1EUR which will be sold over 18yo in shops exactly same as alcohol and cigarettes where nobody writes down your ID details, heck don't even have a look if you look old enough, that's as far as I am willing to go to protect kids (without this certificate) online, anything else is just internet deanonymization
There is a difference between "not all, by choice", and "absolutely none, by compulsion". This is something your average 4 year old can easily understand.
While I'm in favour of limiting social media for kids, there doesn't seem to be a right way to do it unless this system doesn't store identification data, just confirms their age and deletes everything.
It's possible to build an identity system that can assert certain properties about a person (eg. "older than 16") without revealing any other details about that person. Similarly, it's also possible to build such a system where the identity system can attest these details without knowing which website is being accessed. That way, the social media site (or whatever other "adult" service) can validate the user is old enough, while the identity system doesnt track who is using what.
there is, identify users with anonymous code bought exactly same as cigarettes and alcohol in shops where they don't write down your data or don't even have look at your ID card if you look old enough
any age identification done online is not anonymous
I am personally going to avoid anonymous social media as much as I can going forward. (Not counting topic-specific forums and such). They have all become toxic cesspools and now AI is making it all so much worse.
I’ve stopped using Facebook a long time ago, but started using a similar locally made social media app/site, which is based on logins tied indirectly to national ID. Holy crap it’s so much better. Only real people. No bots or scams. Even the ads are better. Actual relevant local businesses. And people hesitate before writing nasty comments. Not that I’m using it a lot, I’m still not a big social media guy, but having groups for the neighbourhood or town is nice for becoming aware of events and such happening nearby.
I still have the Facebook account for now. There’s a group or two I need to check in on sometimes. Every time I log in I get so confused why anyone would still use it.
This is a straw-man argument. A public service that can answer whether a one-time key provided by the user to the service fulfills a certain requirement would suffice.
False dichotomy. Plenty of governments have a digitalised id/login service to log into the tax office, government portals, whatever. This is usually also offered as a "single sign-on". After signing on, the website can request any piece of information, the list of those pieces is presented to the user, who clicks Accept or Go Back. Pretty standard stuff.
Meaning: these websites simply need to request 2 pieces of data: a boolean stating whether you are older than 16 or younger, and a UUID. Zero other pieces of identifying information. Where does the mass deanonymisation enter into this? What does it even mean in the context of using algorithmic social media whose entire business model is surveillance of its users?
> Where does the mass deanonymisation enter into this?
Via the UUID. Also via the fact that the authentication service sees what you're logging into, regardless of whether the social media site does or not.
This isn't complicated. It's obvious if you're not desperately trying not to think about it.
The UUID is unique per service. All it tells you is that two people are not the same person.
The "authentication service" is the national id. The tax man already knows your name, address, date of birth, financial possessions, income, family members, etc etc. There is no further information, apart from which website you logged on and when. This quite literally the standard of Signal [1]. And this is of course assuming the worst from the national id implementation; any sensible law would require the id provider to delete all information as soon as the login is complete.
There was a point in time where I though of social media as an invention that facilitates the freedom of speech.
Recent years changed that perception completely. It's a platform where russian oligarchs create discord in Europe cheaply (and the West in general) and American oligarchs profit from it.
I don't have any hopes left that the business will deliver us freedom of speech in any form. Next best bet is democratically elected government.
When you put on top of this how some things like youth suicides, youth grneral mental health decline, number of people killed in school shootings in US correlates with development of social media I will happily see it burn.
Good, heavily in favor. Social media has just become media, the social aspect is mostly gone. Especially since all of them just try to shove down 30sec shorts/reels/tiktoks down your throat. I have not a single real-life friend or family member (except those, that are under 16 and use tiktok) that ever recorded a short.
I want to see regulation of the algorithm. Something like forcing a chronological feed, or somehow nerfing the recommendation engine. Figure out a way to make it boring, bypass the whole censorship debate.
Not great, because they promise to delete our IDs but don't, and get hacked (see Discord hack from a few months ago where 70k users had government IDs leaked).
To reiterate what I wrote above: We need to ban addictive dark patterns on ALL platforms for ALL ages.
I think the opposite is in order. Ban phones with screens for those over 18 (driving limit). Phones are a drug that people cannot seem to let go off. Even when driving. Kids don’t have cars. Perhaps a trade? A phone or a car?
Yeah. We need to introduce social-media literacy tests that certify that you are capable of being a good valuable citizen on social media instead of a disinformation sharer and slop consumer.
> We need to introduce social-media literacy tests that certify that you are capable of being a good valuable citizen on social media instead of a propaganda sharer and slop consumer.
... and force it first on Zuckerberg, Musk ... and Trump.
This is really globally coordinated, isn't it? I'm just not sure why now and not previously. Is it just that Twitter went over the toxicity threshold that everyone noticed?
Why now? Because in the past 2-3 years it has been made abundantly clear that:
(a) Social media operators choose to do nothing at all against coordinated influencing operations, unless the influencing goes against the interests of very specific countries and groups.
(b) US government most likely has unfettered access to social media data. As if this isn't bad enough, they will probably give them out to Palantir for "data integration" and under uncertain terms.
Those things were pretty clear well before 2-3 years.
Social media is seen as a driver for people having opinions deemed a threat to the status quo. Western governments have been fighting a long battle to use these tools to control domestic influence and at times have probably thought they were winning, but recently things seem to be turn a bit.
"Think of the children" is obviously the oldest and most pathetic trick in their playbook. We know it's a bald faced lie because data and studies on social media harms on children has been coming out for well over a decade by now, and not a finger was lifted for years. So we know that is not the reason, and we know they are lying about the reason. Therefore we know the real reason is seen as unpopular with the electorate. And curbing foreign (including US government) influence and access to data is not unpopular anywhere.
Very cheap way to appear to be doing something about anything. Lot of talk, a few memos. All implementation burden on private sector. Aimed at group that can't currently vote. Only ones against it on principle care about implementation not actually the ban.
And some of us think it doesn't go far enough. I would set limit to 18. Would solve lot more issues. Like make adult content fully allowable by default as everyone can automatically be considered to be an adult then.
Maybe it's because now we are starting to realize the effects that social media exposure have on human brain, specially on teenagers. Legislation always lag behind.
Definitely tickles all kinds of conspiracy theory senses.
Of course it could just be law makers seeing one country do it and then going "wait, you can do that and people will go along with it???". I'm not sure if that's any better than a global conspiracy though.
It does seem to be, yes. Sweden will also fall if the leftist side wins in the september government election.
They will end up banning sites allowing purely anonymous comments. (This might include HN.) This is the consequence of the ambition that is already clearly anounced by the opposition leader Magdalena Andersson of the social democrats.
These anonymous comments are incidentally their current worst enemy. The are really good at amplifying stories that the 3 (three!) national news publishers (government/public service, Bonnier News, Schibsted) decide to ignore or deamplify for ideoleogical reasons.
Well COVID green pass didn't work out to save us all from deadly flu with 0.31% fatality rate[1][2], so now they are trying it to save our children with digital ID...
Shock at how many people believe Palestinians are human got the ball rolling, but now its prepping for the fallout of the release of more and more Epstein files.
Seems easier to justify if social media owners are hanging out with child sex traffickers and enabling features that let you undress anyone who posts photos to the site.
Ooohhh I finally get it. It's another "protecting the children" guise when in actuality they want to introduce new mechanisms to control speech, classify what they don't like as "hate speech", fine/punish companies for hosting content they've decided is "hate speech", etc. How naive of me to think it was just about protecting the kids.
The issue I see here is: what counts as social media?
Is this site social media? Will anything with a comment box be banned? If yes, what about online newspapers? If not, how will they prevent almost-social-media sites from popping up?
How will they deal with mastodon? If I have an instance in my home server at home, do I need to check people reading my posts are over 16 or is the onus on the servers where they are logged in?
For the record, I'm totally in favour of banning social media for kids and, contrary to other people here, I think it can be done without deanonymising anyone.
I just don't think it is possible. Ban facebook, x, and bluesky and tomorrow all the cool kids will be using facemagazine, y, and greensky.
I feel like people avoid the elephant in the room that social media companies became too influential and too big that going after them for addictive and dark patterns is not possible. Specially that most of them is in the US with current political situation it will not be possible anyway.
So they are taking half measures that are more problematic on different aspect like privacy.
Not to praise China, but it seems they seem to do doing better job against their big companies to prevent such situations (please don't pass the point here).
I think things would be much better if these companies is to be held accountable for their actions beyond the current fines that they just consider it now cost of doing business.
In total social media has long surpassed drug addiction in bad effects in young people (mental, psychological and physical). Together with the economic situation they are the cause of the unfortunate state of youth today.
Banning them is in the right direction even at the cost of any deanonym. A dozen entities, both public and private, know us very well already. They know that eveyone watches porn, now they will know how offen.
This sure will imply that over-16 users will have to also authenticate themselves using some kind of personal id (DNI, I guess?)
As a non-user of social media (only have an anonymous Facebook account to check some hobby groups) this doesn't directly affect me but I'm starting to feel like a frog on a pot of what was tepid water and now it's starting to feel kinda hot.
Of does affect you, it has always done. Not using social media has been a marker, placing some negative incentive on joining social media will help normalize people like you
Surely this should be for parents to decide? Even if the infra is in place for social media services to check IDs.
It seems quite bizarre to ban it since the vast majority use it safely.
Social media is the double edge sword I avoided MySpace, Facebook etc entirely. But I can understand people finding communities online they can't access in their location.
Oh well. I'm sure those that want to will be able to bypass it, and I've also no doubt that social media at a population level is a net harm. Even if this feels like overreach.
What seems truly harmful is the 12month old who is handed a tablet with YouTube running constantly depriving their brain of the big early exposure to the real world.
I haven't set up my kids on social media. They haven't asked either. I do worry that banning kids from doing something makes it all the more intriguing to them when they are then allowed... Or makes the kids that lie and get on anyway "cool"
I do hope it works out, though. I think Social Media is one of the main reasons for depression.
A lot of teenagers complain they spend too much time on social media and this will put some friction that wasn’t present before. I assume this will put a dent in traffic for companies like SnapChat etc. so I wonder how those companies will react.
This seems to be gaining momentum. I think it's a good thing in the absence of banning ads altogether on social media and forcing it to be subscription-based only, which I think should be the goal. That de-incentivises media platforms from always increasing engagement because revenue isn't directly tied to time spent on the platform (in fact, the more someone is on, the more it incurs cost without increasing revenue).
We just need a distinct definition first. Moderated forums were kind of great in general. Early social media with chronological feeds of your friends were useful too. The nebulous algorithms pulling people into reinforcing rabbit holes of trash or simply optimizing for "engagement" (outrage) is the primary issue IMHO.
If we can only ban the bad stuff, great, but it's rarely that easy.
Typically what I call Social Media is akin to things such as Facebook, Twitter, etc.
Anything that has a personalized "feed" generated by an algorithm.
Old moderates forums had no personalized anything.
Incidentally, as much as I despise Reddit, this would exclude Reddit from being banned. Last time I used it, it didn't really have a personalized feed (unless things changed ever since).
I could subscribe to subreddits and see the activity on what I subscribed, but anyone with the same subscription list (fully controlled by the user) would see the same activity, so it was not a personalized feed per se.
that's great idea until you will try to define what is social media - HN, Reddit, youtube, various PHPBB forums? so pretty much ban any human interaction online other than 101?
Not that hard. Ban any social media that has a personalized algorithmically generated feed. Those things can be gamed for engagement and are poisonous both to the individual and to society.
HN, Reddit, PHPBB forums would be excluded. There's no personalization outside the user control on those as far as I am aware.
Last time I used Reddit, I could aee the activity on the boards I was subscribed to, but anyone with the same subscriptions would see the same activity. There's o dark pattern there.
And just to be clear, I absolutely despise Reddit. I don't even like HN all that much to be frank. I would be the last person that would try to protect Reddit. I am just being coherent with my thoughts on the matter.
A yes, we most protect others from being exposed to information that might make them vote differently from what we want. After all, democracy is all about getting the votes we want, right?
The cynical in me doesnt see that as the main problem, lack of diversity in thought and debate is already an issue, censorship laws about what subjects and what opinions are correct is an issue that will be exacerbated.
To save the democracies you need, a better population who votes in competently and informed, as well as a public debate that is honest and doesnt decry any deviation from the standard as fascism.
Far-right populism only exists in coutries where debate is not honest and pragmatic enough, and avoided in countries like Denmark because population and government are in a tight loop where each feels heard by the other.
You can only have a democracy when the vote actually matters. In a representative democracy where representatives are not held accountable to their campaign promises that can hardly be said to be the case.
I hate social media and never used it, and I am in favor to ban it entirely, however, we all know this is not about “protecting the children!!!”, but the old school government’s way for more monitor and control.
I worry that these measures (if they actually work, which is unlikely) will isolate people who struggle with real-life interactions. I remember reading somewhere that autistic people tend to find community in online spaces, and it seems like a lot of people gain their tech skills that way, including me. So indiscriminately banning young people from these spaces will prevent them from finding community and people like them
What real life interactions? With scammers, bots or troll farms? Facebook from first years is long gone. I am pretty sure that autistic people as easy target should be kept away from internet for their own good. There is nothing good to find there.
Personally I joined Discord servers for open source projects and this is how I got my start using GitHub, learning how code review worked and the process for communicating with other devs etc. I feel like I may not be in a software development career if these laws had existed when I was growing up
Autism is a wide-ranging spectrum, I find the idea that I should be “kept away from the Internet” because I have (high-functioning) autism quite patronising. Maybe this is true for some people, but my point is that these social media ban ideas are too indiscriminate
I would agree that addictive platforms are harmful for children, and I haven’t looked into this law so maybe it does make a distinction, but any online communication (e.g. GitHub) is sometimes considered “social media”. A lot of people seem to exclude the platforms they like from what they count as “social media”, as they see social media as the evil thing they look down upon
I guess it depends on which spaces they're banned from. Before Facebook, online communities were bulletin boards and chat rooms. They weren't hyper-addictive social media platforms designed to suck as much attention as possible; they were genuine places of connection.
My hope is that children being banned from the mega platforms would lead to a growth in less harmful online communities for folks who can benefit from it. But I don't know.
Unless an exception is made these types of laws only make things much harder for small communities, since they can’t afford to implement the required measures and take on the legal liability. The result will be that everyone moves to larger platforms that are able to do these things
Spain to ban social media access for under-16s, PM Sanchez says | HN Companion
