308
EU’s new social media child protection rules to require all social media accounts to produce state ID - Leaked documents suggest that some existing accounts will also be subject to identification che… (www.independent.ie)
submitted 1 week ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
62 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Full title: EU’s new social media child protection rules to require all social media accounts to produce state ID - Leaked documents suggest that some existing accounts will also be subject to identification checks

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 121 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Can they just stop pretending these laws are not about eroding privacy and be honest for ounce.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago*

    even taking the pretense at face value, this would just be adults damning kids who are queer, autistic and/or in abusive households/communities (among others) and patting themselves on the back

    always scrambling to "protect" kids without ever considering their needs or why they engage in the behavior they do at all

    (assuming they're not just seen as defective goods to be either "corrected" or disposed of, of course)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 118 points 1 week ago (7 children)

    Eliminating online privacy has always been framed as "protecting children" and it's always been 100% about surveillance

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 71 points 1 week ago*

    EU’s new social media child protection state surveillance rules to require all social media accounts to produce state ID

    FTFY

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 59 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    How else is Mrs. von der Leyen supposed to sue people that speak badly about EU politicians?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    If she wasn't corrupt and incompetent people wouldn't say that about her, so maybe she should improve her bad reputation or step down as incompetent supreme.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 21 points 1 week ago

    You're talking about someone that had her floor in the EU building fortified, only allowing access for a few selected people. Does that look like she intends to improve her reputation to you?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 47 points 1 week ago

    Well if everyone's identity is stolen then I guess your identity will mean nothing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 42 points 1 week ago* (5 children)

    That stuff would 100% get leaked and ruin many lives. Hell it would ruin lives even if only authorized authorities have access to it because some perverted cops or politicians will abuse it to stalk women and children. They‘re already doing it but getting a live feed of someone’s online activity by typing in a single number makes it so much more convenient for bad actors. And it would also get leaked on top of it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
    load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 40 points 1 week ago

    This will just push the actual criminals further underground, while everyone else gets spied on. lose-lose.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 37 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    Ironically, kids might still get around the new restriction by using a virtual private network (VPN) connection, which virtually positions the computer in another country, at the time of signing up.

    This is just going to be one long pointless game of whackamole and as effective as Prohibition was in the US.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    The US claim they are going after the VPN companies now too. Of course it could be all lies and deflection like most things they say now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    That’s nonsense, VPN is tool needed to run companies. Even if they make VPNs business only, people will just register fake businesses

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    There is no such thing as "fake business". The point is that the government identifies you when you want to use a VPN, so it's either gonna be through your personal ID or through a business where you also register with the government and then they obviously also know your identity.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    By fake I mean business which officially registered but effectively does nothing, files 0 profit tax forms and pays just enough fees to keep it formally open. It doesn’t hide your identity from government but it does allow you to access content via countries where there is no age verification thus companies don’t get your id

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago

    It’s not just about business use, but citizen access to content. I looked it up and this is the stage it’s at now https://gizmodo.com/the-first-us-law-targeting-vpn-use-takes-effect-september-3-heres-what-happen-2000805001

    The new law is narrow. VPN companies say they can’t do it. Fines for businesses that don’t are real. It’s all a little strange.

    Very few people will set up their own business or technical venture, though. That’s enough to have a chilling effect.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 33 points 1 week ago (8 children)

    My freedom shouldn't be implied cause some parent can't use a parental control which is already mandatory in the eu. Your kids isn't my responsability.

    It s unreal that the "free world" want my id simply to go online.

    Also same shit as rgpd. Only bigger website and corporation can afford putting million toward implementing thoses policiesbwhile all other won't bother and just cut acces to be in compliance.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 1 week ago

    This is what it's about. My daughter started reaching sites I had explicitly blocked in her phone and our home network (OPNSense + AdGuard Home) using a VPN.

    I dis not blame the sites, or the ISP, or even the VPN provider. She has a PC and Phone because we, her parents, allowed it, so that's on her for choosing to circumvent the security implemented, and on US for providing the means.

    So, she has no access to any technology until further notice. Why the fuck does everyone have to pay because some of us are not parenting correctly?

    I certainly don't want any company or government deciding what my kids can or cannot have access to, that's my role, not theirs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago* (3 children)

    I hate how effective the whole "think of the children" rhetoric is. Every person I talked to about this irl is either indifferent or even in support because they want children protected and they "don't do anything they need to hide" anyway so they don't mind presenting an ID.... I agree children should not be on social media, but it's kinda just the parent's responsibility to not let them near it and the tools are out there. Plus let's not pretend kids aren't smart enough to figure out there's alternatives...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Even after explaining what I would have done to them,

    with that data, if I had the data, when I worked in advertising... [or even just explaining their basic human dignity of privacy]... the rhetoric remains strong enough to not have the cognitive dissonance be itchy enough to stop fallaciously repeating their mantra "nothing to hide",

    ... and so that's why they're fine with this dystopian nightmare, this single point of failure, this hijacking of humanity by totalitarian government (or at least just megalomaniacal parasites wanting total dominating control, even in banal mundane petty ways, like just doing their job, serving their client as best they can, maximally manipulating mentalities to maximise wealth extraction)?

    It does not make sense.

    As for who's on social media... yeah, maybe lets not have a corporate attention snare that learned from the billions invested in Las Vegas casinos for their ability to snare and direct peoples attention, keeping them going back in for more, keeping them addicted, maximally extracting wealth from them. "Social media", such an Orwellian marketing spin term. ... The ambiguity and resulting conflations help camouflage what the crooks are up to. Not all "social media" are alike. As surely we here on the fediverse know.

    Children should not be on "social media"? Depends what one means... but typically I'd say children are due the same rights, and are not to be under classed. Y'know? Wanna take away children's access to parts of the world? The parts that can be used for good too? ... I just picture what that different world's like, where Aaron Swartz gets denied access to something even younger... where that precedent goes, how much worse the dystopia can be, compared to what it already is. ... Or... as you allude to... How much more fervently pursued, freedom is, by the young, the tighter they squeeze.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    You raise a good point in that last paragraph, I'll honestly have to think about that. When I say they shouldn't be on social media, I specifically mean stuff like Instagram and TikTok and not the internet in general because as you say the internet can be used for so much good. But these slop machine type sites engineered for attention and addiction are honestly nightmare fuel, that shit is not good for any person, let alone someone whose identity and judgement is not yet fully formed. Not to mention how alarmingly common extremist ideologies are even on mainstream sites. So, while I understand what you're saying, I know for a fact that if I was a parent I wouldn't want my kids near that crap.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago

    I know for a fact that if I was a parent I wouldn’t want my kids near that crap.

    Yeah, it'd be some kind of non-mamalian (let alone inhuman) approach, to let your offspring freely frolic in dire dangers, and not actively protect and educate them. Roads. Crocodile infested rivers. Corporate "Social Media".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 27 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    Ursula von der Leyen, making the internet progressively worse year by year. Cookie banners, GDPR consent dialogs, and now ID verification. Please just retire and take up a different hobby, like knitting.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Neither Cookie banners nor GDPR consent dialogs need to be bad. They are only bad because companies try to do their shit. It's companies not regulation that make Cookie banners and GDPR consent dialogs bad.

    That said, the id-verification stuff is just pure awful for privacy concerns.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 13 points 1 week ago

    Great, this might actually kill centralized social media in a long run. Future generations will grow up on decentralized web because it will be the only one they can access.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 10 points 1 week ago

    So Orwellian.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 9 points 1 week ago

    Yeah, no.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    load more comments
    view more: next ›