189

I'm asking for public policy ideas here. A lot of countries are enacting age verification now. But of course this is a privacy nightmare and is ripe for abuse. At the same time though, I also understand why people are concerned with how kids are using social media. These products are designed to be addictive and are known to cause body image issues and so forth. So what's the middle ground? How can we protect kids from the harms of social media in a way that respects everyone's privacy?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] Ash@piefed.social 1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

I think we should reframe the question.

How can we protect adults from the harms of not being able to post meaningless bullshit anonymously to online anonymous strangers we never agree with without sacrificing everyones children's mental stability?

Maybe put childrens rights before adult rights. Adults had fun and got along fine without social media back before the 2000's. I refuse to believe that we are no longer capable of that. Especially if it means kids get to to go back to using the internet as a resource for homework and playing outside and using their own imaginations. Adults too.

[-] shaggyb@lemmy.world 23 points 2 days ago

Stop. Giving. Them. Phones.

Stop whining. No they don't need one. NO THEY DON'T.

No.

No they're not special.

No they're not too busy. Neither are you.

No iPad either.

Stop. Shut up. No. Phones.

[-] ErevanDB@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 days ago

I agree, if you limit "phones" to "smart phones and portable computers". There are reasons to give a kid a small, no internet dumbphone. But yes, don't give kids unrestricted access to the family PC, and DEFINITELY dont give them their own.

[-] YeahIgotskills2@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

That's the tack I'm taking. My eldest goes to high school next year and most of his peers are automatically getting a smartphone at that point. He'll be 13. He can forget it. A dumb phone at a push, for safety. That's it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago

ban social media metrics and information trading/markets. make it a truly anonymous service like it was in the early 2000s.

if protecting children was the point they would stop corporations from identifying all users and selling their identities/profiles online.

but, protecting the children is NOT the point. the point is control of freedom of speech, or rather who gets to have the freedom of speech.

[-] Fleur_@aussie.zone 1 points 2 days ago

Most people don't want social media to be anonymous. They want to be themselves and connect with real people. How exactly is an anonymous tinder supposed to work?

[-] Corporal_Punishment@feddit.uk 3 points 1 day ago

Glory holes

[-] nuggsy@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

Blind dating

/s

[-] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

the great thing about the early internet was that you had the choice to expose yourself.

now you don't even need to be a member to be exposed.

[-] Fleur_@aussie.zone 1 points 1 day ago

And banning non anonymous social media is supposed to bring the choice back?

[-] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

ban social media metrics and information trading/markets.

try reading that again.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ameancow@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

You can't, however you frame this issue there's going to be a sacrifice. We have to all digest this.

The best kind of sacrifice you can make though for the best outcome is to limit your child's screen-time, AND ALSO YOUR OWN. Spend more time together, practice what you preach, you are also a child being harmed by social media.

[-] Kissaki@feddit.org 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

The German passport allows services to verify age through you NFC reading your passport on your phone and confirmation of validity through intermediates state service. All they see is a confirmation of age requirement met. No name, no age, no address, no face.

Some other countries have similar systems. It's already a EU directive to be implemented on a broader European level.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] FlyingSpaceCow@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago

Governments need to setup a digital ID using a trustless authenticator.

Government issues a one-time verified credential (tied to real identity verification, like a passport or SSN check). You get a cryptographic token on your device. When a platform needs to know "is this a real adult citizen?", you present a zero-knowledge proof — yes/no, nothing else. No name, no IP, no persistent identifier the platform can track. The government isn't contacted. The platform learns nothing except the answer to their question.

[-] modus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Can I buy one of these Cryptographic Tokens on the dark web?

[-] FlyingSpaceCow@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

You can't just buy one on the dark web because the credential is tied to a private key — you'd need the actual device or key, not just the token.

A government-issued cryptographic credential lets you prove you're a real adult citizen without revealing your identity. It eliminates bots and foreign actors, protects children, and preserves privacy — because the government only gets involved once at enrollment, and platforms never see who you are, just a yes/no proof.

(I'm not an expert, so if anyone has input please correct)

EDIT:

The one-time government verification moment is a major privacy chokepoint. Who runs it? How is that database secured? History is not encouraging here -- government identity databases get breached, misused, or quietly expanded in scope. "The government only gets involved once" is doing a lot of work

[-] Corporal_Punishment@feddit.uk 1 points 1 day ago

Would be doable in the UK.

All citizens can register for a Government Gateway account to help you manage your tax affairs so it is indelibly attached to your identity.

Once you have registered it wouldn't be too difficult to add a link that lets you download this key thing you mentioned.

[-] DFX4509B@lemmy.wtf 102 points 3 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Parental controls have been an effective way for decades. In combination with actually looking over your kids, of course.

[-] osanna@thebrainbin.org 57 points 3 days ago

yeah, but that would require, you know, parenting, which is something we can't do.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Kazel@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 3 days ago

Maybe its time for parents to parent their fucking kids...

[-] lemmy_outta_here@lemmy.world 29 points 3 days ago

Kill the engagement algorithm. Your feed should contain a chronological list of posts made by people you subscribe to. In one stroke you could end the doomscroll - not just for kids, but for everybody. Also, infinite scrolling should be banned.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] epicshepich@programming.dev 10 points 2 days ago

The book The Anxious Generation by Jonathan Haidt had a really clever idea. Create a regulation for operating systems that requires that their parental controls include an option that labels a device as belonging to a kid. When that option is toggled, requests will include some sort of header that labels the request as originating from a kid. Then, place onus (probably through some sort of legislation) on web platforms to restrict what content is shown to kids.

[-] shneancy@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

consider though - politicians nowadays don't think. they think so little, in fact, that the last time i checked websites for self harm/sexual assault support or reporting were considered "too adult" for kids to have access to in the UK

if it was about kids' safety, this wouldn't have been omitted

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] BashakHimanself@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago

Just normalize talking about those online irl abuse/exploitation stuff instead of yelling at em nor grounding. And stop victim blaming even some of the professionals do that.

Maybe we should do normalize about talking about other stuff too, to body images in head including "problematic" ones to in some anormal/atypical attraction types to possible self diagnosed but not so loud neurodiversities such as realizing you are might be plural or have too specific kinds of ocd.

Ive seen many abusers online are aiming kiddies online with those stuff and since there are not much help and many stigma surrounding mental health and bs kind of therapists that does victim blaming, they will have either to go online with predators watching em and prey on them for those vulnerabilities thrn thus preds will shift blame to those kids or smth.

Ive seen kids young as 12 or smth in some high risk mental health communities. You can tell someone did not wanted em but predators def do. Basically do not give birth to kids if you cant accept em in any way, if you think your kid becoming dangerous after some time, methinks you are also responsible for some aspects of it if they are under some of age.

[-] gukleszl4hs48ughgxhr5xgd@fedia.io 49 points 3 days ago

By not allowing parents to outsource the responsibilities of being a parent.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] curiousaur@reddthat.com 7 points 2 days ago
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Burn it with fire?

Honestly there needs to be an honor system in place for the internet.

I think access needs to be granted through some branching moderation. Like one person vouches for two and they can then vouch for two each. If ever one person is found doing wrong, that whole branch gets skewered at the person who vouched for them.

Sure its not perfect but it's a system that doesn't immediately jeopardize your anonymity.

[-] Bazoogle@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago

Lmao, now you've created a perfect relationship map for advertising/tracking who knows who.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] KingOfTheCouch@lemmy.ca 9 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I like to think I'm a tech savvy parent and the amount of tooth gnashing to setup and maintain child accounts is incredible. I'm convinced the foxes guarding the henhouse are using dark patterns to make parents give up.

Why can't I just get a notification on my phone saying "Hey, kiddo wants to have screen time. Approve?"

Hell, I'd love a notification saying "Kiddo started watching Mr. Blah." If I got the notification and I didn't want them watching that, I could block the video, or creator with a click. WHY ARE WE NOT AT THIS LEVEL OF CONVENIENCE?

A LOT of these concerns would go away if phones/tablets/tv's had these simple controls. Move those privacy controls into the home and MAKE them so easy a neanderthal could operate them.

If I have to *.newsocialbook.com into my router, you can bet your damn ass that "LiveLaughLoveMom<3" is going to keep demanding that someone else do it for her.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] pir8t0x@lemmy.ml 13 points 3 days ago

Best solution IMO: Don't let them use social media. If they really need to communicate, just buy them a SIM and or let them use your phone and SIM to contact them directly.

And if you must let them use social media, set up parental controls on your router. I suggest NextDNS for this. And basically, monitor everything your child watches or interacts and engages with. If they're using YouTube, check their accounts to see what content they're consuming.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Nalivai@lemmy.world 22 points 3 days ago

There is no "harms of social media" per se. There are harms of unregulated companies that purposefully create addiction machines that are harmful to everyone, young and old alike. Our collective grandma became an antivaxer at the ripe age of 71, our collective dad became racist not at 13 either.

[-] socsa@piefed.social 9 points 3 days ago

I cannot emphasize this enough: I do not give a single living fuck what other people's children do on the Internet.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social 29 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

By getting rid of shitty corporate social media that makes money by exploiting people.

This is like suggesting that the solution to protecting your kids from tigers roaming the street is to lock them in their rooms. Nah, just rid of the fucking tigers.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 32 points 3 days ago

People said the exact same thing about books, radio, TV, movies, video games and music.

You come up with some sort of arbitrary rating system. Any child with intent will find a way around it, and eventually they'll try to find a way to protect their kids from something else.

[-] ageedizzle@piefed.ca 33 points 3 days ago

Social media does seem unique though just because of how addictive it is. If you look into the details of how meta targets children and intentionally tries to addict them it paints a pretty sinister picture: https://techoversight.org/2026/01/25/top-report-mdl-jan-25/

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)

The answer is that we shouldn't have most social media to begin with and parents need to actually fucking parent their kid's usage. Social media is just the television replacement.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2026
189 points (97.5% liked)

Ask Lemmy

38016 readers
1124 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS