this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2024

417 points (97.7% liked)

World News

39364 readers

2136 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

quinten@lemmy.world

NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

lemmyAtom@lemmy.world

FlyingSquid@lemmy.world

417

Most in Germany want Australia-style social media ban: poll (www.dw.com)

submitted 3 weeks ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

99 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Summary

A YouGov poll revealed that 77% of Germans support banning social media for those under 16, similar to a new Australian law.

The survey found that 82% believe social media harms young people, citing harmful content and addiction.

In Australia, the law fines platforms up to AUD 49.5 million (€30.5M) for allowing under-16s to create accounts, with enforcement trials set before implementation next year. Critics

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Creat@discuss.tchncs.de 80 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (13 children)

This sounds good on paper until you realize that what is considered "social media" is up to whoever happens to hold that position. Even ignoring the fact that it's unenforceable anyway, unless you require a real ID, wish is just straight up worse for all sorts of reasons.

The idea is nice, but actually putting it into law without opening the door to censorship and other side effects is just not plausible.

Edit: also, Everytime you read about a poll like this, ask yourself: what was the question they asked? Did it provide any context? Did it require any understanding of the actual underlying issues and laws? Or was it some variation of "think of the children"?

[–] x00z@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I think the question was; "how can we protect the kids when obviously their parents have failed?"

[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 weeks ago

Parent here. Having an extra reason to explain why my son won’t be doing something that some of his friends are is helpful.

load more comments (12 replies)

[–] corroded@lemmy.world 34 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

From what I understand of the Australian law, companies are prohibited from requiring a government-issued ID. In practical terms, how can this law be implemented, then? Bypassing a prompt that asks for a birthday is as easy as just lying. Other than requiring an ID, I honestly can't fathom a way this would actually work. I suppose you could require a active credit card number, but that would exclude adults and kids over 16.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 18 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It's Facebook, kids will post pictures of themselves.

now Facebook has to close the accounts that are reported.

[–] desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 3 weeks ago

then it only effects the stupider children, not all children.

[–] MyOpinion@lemm.ee 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Not that hard. When you allow reporting and then removal of their accounts. They may get through but their accounts are removed rapidly.

[–] thejml@lemm.ee 15 points 3 weeks ago

So you want people to report others accounts as being under age? There’s absolutely zero way that could go wrong or has ever gone wrong in history.

[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 3 weeks ago

Lets do it in the US too.

It's not like those republicans in government are gonna use this "kids addicted to social media" as an excuse to enforce ID verifications to go online, right? Think about the children!

[–] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 24 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

As an Australian social media isn't the problem, like the internet isnt the problem, its commersialisation thats the problem. The need to grow the custoner base sees outrageous behaviours from corporations like Meta, Google, Apple etal but that's what they're incentivised to do, so that's what happens.

This legilisation won't solve shit. The government and the polotical class forcing citizens to use Facebook or Twitter to get information, they could start there.

[–] Kintarian@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I'm 63 and addicted to social media. Checkmate government lackey.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] troed@fedia.io 21 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Lots of people believe things not supported by science.

News at 11.

[–] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 25 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

I mean science does show this generation has very high incidence of anxiety, depression, suicide etc. Not saying social media is all of it, but it's probably a very big cause.

load more comments (7 replies)

[–] leisesprecher@feddit.org 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

And even worse: bad polling amplifies the interpretation the pollsters want to see.

In this case, there's no link to or mention of the actual question. Just the in favor/not in favor distribution.

Did they ask "the government should implement laws to ban children" or did it say "rules to prevent children from signing up"?

Did they mention the age limit? Asking any children and teenagers might lead to very different results.

And so on. If you can't find the exact question, polls like this are useless.

[–] thallamabond@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

Important thing about these laws is that they are for everybody. I would find it interesting if they asked, "Would you be willing to show your ID to go online?". "Would you be okay with the government requiring you to show your ID to go on reddit?"

[–] Roflmasterbigpimp@lemmy.world 19 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

Urgh. This is a tough one. Social media has been a part of asymmetric warfare for at least the past ten years, and I don’t want my kids to be bombarded with propaganda from Russian and Chinese-funded far-right groups like the AfD.

At the same time, I understand how important it is for kids to explore the internet on their own.

If I had the choice, I would ban TikTok and Instagram.

But if that’s not possible – then honestly, ban everything. I will then work something out with my kids myself.

[–] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago

It used to be valuable to explore the internet but the internet has largely been corrupted by corporate greed.

By and large the experience Young folks have on the Internet is almost entirely through applications meant to abuse and take advantage of their underdeveloped brains. Behavior driven by algorithmic pressure.

This is bad news bears for society.

There isn't a whole lot of exploring to be done for the grand majority of kids on the internet. Instead they will be classified bucketed and used for further financial gain by a select few corporations.

[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

At the same time, I understand how important it is for kids to explore the internet on their own.

No more though. It's more important that they spend time at the fresh air & play. The internet has become pretty useless outside of wikipedia & social media, and social media has become pretty toxic outside of a few spots (like we can hopefully keep lemmy).

everything is ridden with ads
news websites locked behind paywalls
news websites reporting agenda-driven propaganda
major email providers auto-classify emails from smaller providers as spam (despite correct SPF entries)
every good service that is not decentralized, eventually gets hit by enshittification due reap profits

I would absolutely support a 100% social media ban for all centralized networks (corporation controlled). Because they are used not only to damage the brains of children, but those of adults as well (see Eastern German elections). Only federated chat systems / social media should be allowed. But that's where our fascist overlords have a conflict of interest - they desperately want to see everything we communicate - and chat control (literally, fuck you EU) is not possible in federated networks.

[–] Roflmasterbigpimp@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (12 children)

Oh, I have to disagree strongly. Precisely because the internet has gotten worse, it’s even more important for children to learn how to navigate it effectively.

Take my former colleague as an example: a 45-year-old downloading a “better zip tool” from a Russian website full of awful spelling and dubious claims.

Kids need to learn about ad blockers, VPNs, and how to identify fake news. Not teaching them these skills leaves them far more vulnerable to online threats than if they were taught how to handle these issues from an early age. And as many people tell you, the best way to truly learn about something is by doing it yourself.

The internet is only going to become more relevant in the future.

load more comments (12 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] etuomaala@sopuli.xyz 17 points 3 weeks ago

Those under 16 will definitely see this as patronising. In a way, they're right. Social media is bad for everybody—not just young people. It needs to be destroyed.

[–] assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Ffs. Don’t copy us germany. The social media ban is not a good policy.

[–] BlesthThySoul@lemy.lol 4 points 3 weeks ago

Not worry chap...Nobody ain't doing nuthin'

[–] cley_faye@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago (8 children)

It seems that most in Germany do not understand they'll give even more of their online freedom away for no net gain.

Let's mandate state-sanctioned age verification. Some service may accept this, other won't. First loss. Then, some kids will get around that with complacent parents. Other will be pressured into it. In the end, it won't work as a full ban. So, either turn a blind eye to the whole situation (then why bother in the first place), or make it worse: only one account per ID maybe. Big second loss there. And even if it works, it's ignoring that some sites that would qualify as "social media" are the only communication outlet some people have. Third huge loss.

This will only be a terrible annoyance to everyone, prevent some services from growing or even exist, to the benefit of kids using their parents accounts anyway or VPNing around it. They learned how to do that very quickly for other online content.

Laws and rules that are unenforceable at scale are only useful to pin more faults on people when needed, not to help them.

load more comments (8 replies)

[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

An even higher percentage — 82% — were "absolutely certain" or "somewhat certain" that social media use is in some way bad for children and teenagers.

What's the percentage of those who are "absolutely certain" or "somewhat certain" that authoritarian adults wanting to control teenagers' lives out of a belief that the former know what's actually best for the latter is "in some way bad" for children and teenagers?

Whatever it is, it certainly includes me.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] redwattlebird@lemmings.world 9 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

It makes me wonder if the result of this ban in Australia will see a rise in forums and chat rooms.

[–] bradd@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

One can only hope.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] abbiistabbii@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 3 weeks ago

I'm just waiting until people realise that it won't work.

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Banning social media is the easy cowardly thing to do. Are our representatives to afraid to regulate big tech?

Force these shitters to make their products healthier for all age groups. Yes it's hard. Grow the fuck up, put on your big boy underpants and do your fucking job.

[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Force these shitters to make their products healthier for all age groups.

There's a lot of nuance here, but in general I agree. Hank (of vlogbrothers and SciShow fame), summed this problem up brilliantly. To paraphrase: social media is engagement based, not quality based. Upvote/like content on all you want, but misinformation, propaganda, rage bait, and doom-scrolling fodder will dominate any platform where the only valued metric is eyeball time.

So, the top-down solution would be to somehow strictly define how for-profit ranked media feeds and news aggregators are allowed to operate. Unintended consequences of such a law aside, I think it's possible to legally define a "well-behaved" social media site, but it won't be easy.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] rzadkie@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

Libs will do anything but touch the corp :v

[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Real question: how is anyone supposed to implement this without eliminating anonymity for those services?

[–] derGottesknecht@feddit.org 5 points 3 weeks ago

German ID already has a feature for this if I remember correctly. You can use it to cryptographically prove your age without revealing your identity. Problem is, no one is trusting that it's really anonymous.

load more comments