Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Government The Internet United States

Google Asks Congress To Not Ban Teens From Social Media (theverge.com) 118

Posted by BeauHD from the plz-and-ty dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Google responded to congressional child online safety proposals with its own counteroffer for the first time Monday, urging lawmakers to drop problematic protections like age-verification tech. In a blog post, Google released its "Legislative Framework to Protect Children and Teens Online" (PDF). The framework comes as more lawmakers, like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), are lining up behind the Kids Online Safety Act, a controversial bill intended to protect kids from dangerous content online.

In the framework, Google rejects state and federal attempts at requiring platforms to verify the age of users, like forcing users to upload copies of their government IDs to access an online service. Some states have recently gone as far as passing laws requiring platforms to obtain parental consent before anyone under 18 is allowed to use their services. Google dismisses these consent laws, arguing that they bar vulnerable teens from accessing helpful information. "Good legislative models -- like those based on age-appropriate design principles -- can help hold companies responsible for promoting safety and privacy, while enabling access to richer experiences for children and teens," Kent Walker, Google's president of global affairs, said in the blog post.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Asks Congress To Not Ban Teens From Social Media More

Google Asks Congress To Not Ban Teens From Social Media

Comments Filter:

  • In other news... (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward

    In other news, drug dealers have asked law makers to allow them to sell to more people.

    • Re:In other news... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ranton ( 36917 ) on Tuesday October 17, 2023 @08:22AM (#63931255)

      If you want to compare this to drugs, there is a similar argument for not making contraceptive services require parental consent. There are no states that require parental consent for a child to get contraceptives, but there are laws covering HIV and other STD treatments, pregnancy care, adoption or many other medical services.

      The same could be done for social media content. Don't require parental consent for all social media content, but only for certain types. The problem is our society is very divided on what types of child education are appropriate. Google is obviously referring to educating students online about topics their parents consider taboo. This includes things like LGBT content, abortion information, (other) religions, etc. So if we start putting laws in place governing what types of social media content we allow for children, we could find those laws changing every few years as a new party gains control of the government.

      • There are no states that require parental consent for a child to get contraceptives

        Of course a lot of that has to do with an assumed federal right to privacy of medical information/decisions that would potentially be close to what was overturned re: Roe V Wade. Hard to say what will happen once lawmakers figure that out - very few are lawyers and someone would have to tell them.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tsqr ( 808554 )

          very few are lawyers

          Your definition of "very few" is suspect. Says here [congress.gov] (see page 2) that 30% of House Members, and 51% of Senators, have law degrees and have practiced law.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Google doesn't have a social media site. Google Plus closed years ago.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        have you heard of this new startup called YouTube?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Kisai ( 213879 )

      "Won't someone think of the children!?!" - the dog whistle of pushing or punishing something some religious or political faction doesn't like. "The Children" were not even in their minds when they proposed it.

      The only time "think of the children" should be invoked is when it involves CSAM.
      - Fictional people are not real, so fictional images, be it hand drawn or AI generated are not people, and aren't CSAM
      - Fictional stories about wizards going to school, isn't CSAM.
      - GLBT people just being people isn't CSAM

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DarkOx ( 621550 )

        what is to stop the parents from just paying, or even creating the account for their teen in the first place

        What is to stop parents from letting small children play with sharp objects, or buying their kids liquor to consume unsupervised etc? There isnt much we are going to do about negligent parenting we don't already do with reporting requirements, CPS etc.

        This is about actually given parents who want to parent some usable tools. Right now we have none - likely literally you have to cut your child off from anything attached to the internet or you have virtually no control. All these little closed down devices

      • If you're constantly thinking of the children... you might be a pedo.

      • Cory Doctorow covered this in his book 'Little Brother' https://www.gutenberg.org/eboo... [gutenberg.org]

      • not 18, actually 21, US drinking age) who they follow, and are followed by should be restricted.

        The drinking (and as of a few years ago, also smoking) age is mostly because the temperance movement never really went away in the USA, it just changed forms. At the root, it all basically stems from the puritanical idea that sky daddy doesn't want you having fun. At 18 you're able to vote, enlist, consent to sex in every state (some states actually have lower ages), enter a contract, and recently a state law restricting firearm sales to 21-year-olds was found to be unconstitutional. [apnews.com]

        If someone turns 18, they must do a social media quiz

        Have you even heard o

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DarkOx ( 621550 )

          If someone turns 18, they must do a social media quiz

          Have you even heard of the first amendment? That'd be blatantly unconstitutional to enforce

          I don't think its a good idea; but I doubt very much it would violate 1A. Restricting what someone can publish on their own site certainly would, but giving someone access to use your site/application/platform is commerce and that can be regulated all day long.

          Lots of adults don't have credit cards.

          Fun fact does not matter, you don't have a right to social media. I mean that is what the CDA-230 proponents say everytime that comes up and people say its unfair you can't share certain opinions on a given platform. Should a CC transaction be cons

          • I don't think its a good idea; but I doubt very much it would violate 1A.

            A law which says you have to prove you're competent to use social media is a barrier between a person and their ability to disseminate their speech. The 1A specifically says the government isn't allowed to do such things.

            Now again, FaceTwitTikTube can certainly implement something like that voluntarily, but it would be bad for business.

            Adults without credit are likely a valuable ad demographic so tech will probably ignore them.

            Notwithstanding what I'm assuming was a typo, people with bad credit are a very profitable demographic if you're in the right industries. If you were familiar with the "Boo

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dryeo ( 100693 )

            you don't have a right to social media

            No, but you do have a right called Freedom of Association, which not only includes not associating, it also includes deciding to associate and it is not the governments job to decide who people associate with or don't associate with.

      • For anyone else wondering
        CSAM stands for Child Sexual Abuse Material

    • Ah yah, using google search is the same thing as drug trafficking. Gotcha

  • I am little surprised at the resistance to age verification but the big players. I can't think of anything better for Google and Meta honestly; that is unless they know what they are doing is a lot more harmful, addicting, and behavior altering than they let on.

    Think about this - if you had to upload an image of and id, or take additional validation actions like some micropayment etc - that is a huge barrier to trying out some new site. You are just going to stick with facebook, youtube etc. Age verificat

    • Re:I am actually surprised at (Score:5, Insightful)

      by VeryFluffyBunny ( 5037285 ) on Tuesday October 17, 2023 @08:18AM (#63931241)
      If we do ever manage to see sense & look into the science behind how social media platforms work, i.e. How they increase "engagement", I hope we'll look back on this era with incredulity & say, "How did we NOT regulate social media the same way we do gambling, alcohol, & tobacco? Why did we ever listen to what are essentially advertising agencies for advice about what's good for our children?!"

      • The answer isn't to keep children off of them, though. The answer is to force social media companies to make their algorithms public.

        Their response will be that those are critical trade secrets. Our response to that should be that it is critical that they not be secret. The less effort they spend making them malicious, the less motivation they will have to hide them.

        • How will that protect children?

          • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

            by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

            How will that protect children?

            With the algorithms open they can be inspected by knowledgeable third parties, and the resulting information can be used to shape future legislation that controls what they are allowed to do with them.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by znrt ( 2424692 )

            well, believe it or not, most children have parents.

            my children were the first in their school to always carry a cell phone and had access to internet since they were physically able. in time i talked to them about what to avoid and why, i taught them how to proceed with their personal information (i.e., not to leak any) and why that was necessary, i warned them to never trust anyone and ask in case of doubt, and maybe most important of all i encouraged open conversation about their experiences, about what

            • Yeah, because gambling hasn't become a serious problem in the USA. Everyone knows how to self-regulate, be disciplined, & not get pulled in by those naughty gambling people... or.. erm: https://www.yalemedicine.org/c... [yalemedicine.org] Note that younger people are 7xs more susceptible to gambling disorder than adults. We have this data because gambling's regulated. Social media companies aren't (yet), & lobby & run PR campaigns like crazy to keep themselves away from scrutiny. I reckon it's a matter of time. Th
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • If we do ever manage to see sense & look into the science behind how social media platforms work, i.e. How they increase "engagement", I hope we'll look back on this era with incredulity & say, "How did we NOT regulate social media the same way we do gambling, alcohol, & tobacco? Why did we ever listen to what are essentially advertising agencies for advice about what's good for our children?!"

        Well, cults such as Scientology have been around for many decades longer than social media. Their inner workings, the manipulative techniques they use, and the damage they cause are common knowledge, thanks to insiders who saw sense and got out. Yet governments still allow them to exist and be exempt from taxation while they're destroying the lives of children and families. So I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that "look back on this era with incredulity" moment vis-a-vis social media - it will probably

        • Yeah, that's depressing. However, other countries are making moves, e.g. banning phones in schools or requiring social media platforms to implement curfews for children's accounts.

      • I hope we'll look back on this era with incredulity & say, "How did we NOT regulate social media the same way we do gambling, alcohol, & tobacco?"

        It's more likely to be looked at the same way as every other new thing popular with youth was considered a bad influence at the time. Depending on your generation, it could be things like comic books, radio, rock and roll records, television, music videos, video games, rap music. With hindsight, it seems like the fears over any of that stuff destroying society were completely overblown.

        • You think we'll look back on regulating gambling, alcohol, & tobacco as some quaint, silly, overly protective nonsense? I very much doubt it.
      • We removed the regulations on advertising to kids ages ago in the 80s to make way for 25 minute toy commercials. At the time experts said kid's brains didn't have the defenses. I can confirm they were right. Video games eventually killed them, and now we have loot boxes, Gatcha pulls and season passes in their place, but it's the same sort of thing.

        As for why we listened. Money. They bought off our government. And moral panics. We got distracted by several of them and voted for corporate tools.

    • Re:I am actually surprised at (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ranton ( 36917 ) on Tuesday October 17, 2023 @08:31AM (#63931281)

      I am little surprised at the resistance to age verification but the big players. I can't think of anything better for Google and Meta honestly.

      They aren't resisting all age verification. They are resisting blanket age verification. TFA states they suggest a risk-based approach when requiring age assurance. Like only requiring government IDs to access alcohol, gambling, pornography, etc. I assume since you feel this would be good for the big players you mean they would welcome regulatory capture, them wanting to make the rules even more complicated would qualify as that.

    • that is a huge barrier to trying out some new site

      That they don't is telling. You almost got there. They want to add people who haven't tried their site.

    • Because right after "you have to know whether someone is an adult" comes "you must not advertise this to non-adults". And that would be the death spell to a lot of their revenue.

  • arguing that they bar vulnerable teens from accessing helpful information

    Turning them loose onto social media is pretty much a crap-shoot from the point of view of being "helpful". Unless they are proposing restricting posters of such information to those with valid state certified mental health credentials.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DarkOx ( 621550 )

      arguing that they bar vulnerable teens from accessing helpful information

      A cynical think of the children argument from the sorts of person that that thinks all think of the children arguments are cynical. At least you can spot'em!

    • As always, Google is right if you see it from their position:

      ... arguing that they bar vulnerable teens from accessing helpful information. Helpful for Google, that is.

    • They're mostly referring to situations like LGBTQ+ teens who are living with homophobic parents. That's just a bad situation all around, since the internet really can't fix homophobic parents and there's very little advice that can be offered to the youth, other than "hang in there, work hard on becoming independent and things will get better when you're an adult."

      Imagine being such a terrible parent that you're afraid your kid might be told to try hard to be successful, so they can get away from you.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        Imagine being such a terrible parent that you're afraid your kid might be told to try hard to be successful, so they can get away from you.

        That's not a terrible parent. That's standard advice for any kid whose parent tells them "You can't do X while you're living under my roof!"

  • Google doesn't want to be seen as the arbiter of what is right and what is wrong, yet here they want to argue that they actually can arbitrate what is right and wrong and filter appropriately.

    And I question how parents will feel about this. While I vehemently disagree with everything they stand for, parents in the Westboro Baptist Church would want their kids to not see a lot of things that I, for one, wish they would be exposed to in the hopes that it would counter some of their extremism...

    • Google doesn't want to be seen as the arbiter of what is right and what is wrong, yet here they want to argue that they actually can arbitrate what is right and wrong and filter appropriately.

      They don't want to be seen as arbiters when people try to pin that responsibility on them - the downsides of taking on that task are cost and liability, and there is no upside. But when they're faced with the prospect of a drastic reduction in eyes-on-content; well, that's their entire business model in a nutshell, so they'll accept the gatekeeping responsibility because the alternative is to pack up and go home.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Water is wet! Film at 11.
  • Everyone under 25 is banned from the internet and must work in the salt mines.

  • Minors cannot legally agree to a EULA (Score:5, Interesting)

    by laughingskeptic ( 1004414 ) on Tuesday October 17, 2023 @09:00AM (#63931379)
    Joining social media is engaging in a contract with the provider. Minors cannot legally do this and should never have been allowed to do this. Parents should have accounts and like bank accounts for children, parents could have sub-accounts for their kids and the parents should decide how much freedom their kids have in that sub-account. That is the way social media access for minors should work -- in compliance with very long legal traditions. Like many "new" things, social media has behaved outside of the norms, it is past time to bring it under the umbrella of the norms of our legal system.

    • Wait, does this mean that social media companies don't actually have a license to content uploaded to their sites by minors, or that the license they were granted can be revoked at any time? IANAL, but that sounds like an enormous class for an enormous class action to me.

      • Yes, that is correct. Not only are EULAs super sketchy but even if they were legally solid, children can not sign enforceable contracts.

        There is no legally binding agreement in place between any of these companies and their minor users.

    • Yeah, I'm totally over 18 and agree to this.

      Adults don't read that shit, you think kids do? The first time they may be naive and click "I'm under 18" and be sent away, but no later than the second time they know that clicking that "agree" button is what they have to do to get where they want to go.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by RobinH ( 124750 )
      You are right. This is exactly how it should work. Then as the parent I should be able to set restrictions on what they can or can't access and be able to see a history. Given the mental illness factory that is tiktok and instagram, this can't happen soon enough.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

      Alternative suggestion: Normalize the laws around these things so that there does not need to be a contract for everything we do.

      Too many things today require contracts that state the obvious. When someone uploads a picture to place on the front page of a social media web site, the web site should automatically have the right to distribute that image for free. This is plainly obvious, so it should not need to be in an EULA. Video games should not need an EULA that says "Some players are jerks, and they m

  • Instead of worrying about teens on the internet I'd like to see them do more about scammers and theft on the internet but first things first, eh?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DarkOx ( 621550 )

      Instead of worrying about teens on the internet I'd like to see them do more about scammers and theft on the internet but first things first, eh?

      Because solving the problem of scams and thefts generally comes down to identity..Same as in meatspace. Most people don't steal stuff because they feel it would be wrong, the rest of them don't do it because someone would figure out who they are.

      You can't get half the people here, to accept an age verification scheme where the provided would be subsequently free to discard everything else they know about you after handing you your "I am an adult token" because "muh privacy", you will never solve the other problems.

    • Why can't more than one thing at a time be done? There isn't a queue of shitty things to be fixed one at a time.

      My queue would have sex slave traffickers, violent terrorists, ransomeware, all crypto based anything, and then various other financial scammers. Thankfully we don't ignore the others while working on the first one.

  • Protecting children is just a false flag talking point, so governments can force abusive, aggressive and fascist style control onto the internet. When you have to upload your ID to visit sexuallybroken.com or hucows.com, it's no different from having to upload an ID to visit a church website, or a text based blog. Governments want to control every aspect of their citizen's lives, from what they read, eat, to even what they think, and these ridiculous verification movements are just another level of force

    • ... government will ignore the concept of freedom.

      Translation: Government is evil. Something, something is good.

      Your rant for 'freedom' and anarchy ignores the fact someone will have more power, more mind-share, more rights. The purpose of government is separating that power from commerce and religion. (When they aren't, we have plutocracy/fascism or theocracy.)

      Government does take away rights, I can't shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, can't walk down the street with grenades. Most of these restrictions make life longer and less brutish/violent.

      • You're right, but at what point has the rights grab gone too far? Canada has tipped, and we're in a state where rights are decided by the government and the people are complacent, and even delusional. I don't get to decide how many genders there are, but I also don't have to accept your gender or pronouns of the hour, and I certainly get to decided how I refer to you. Sometimes the choice to change gender is rooted in reality, but a lot of time, and certainly in the present day, it's mostly delusional th
  • They wouldn't lobby so hard if they weren't.

    Leave the kids alone!

  • First, no such thing.

    Second, they'll just get a $5 VPN and become an instant foreigner.

Slashdot Top Deals

The 11 is for people with the pride of a 10 and the pocketbook of an 8. -- R.B. Greenberg [referring to PDPs?]

Close