Google Asks Congress To Not Ban Teens From Social Media (theverge.com) 118
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.
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.
In other news... (Score:2)
In other news, drug dealers have asked law makers to allow them to sell to more people.
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
I don't know what the answer is.
It's to allow information to be available, but also to prosecute fraud with a strong will and a firm hand. Fact should be an absolute defense against fraud or slander/libel accusations, but all three of those things should otherwise be vehemently opposed. Restricting information holds back progress, but restricting disinformation is a necessity.
Re: (Score:2)
Google doesn't have a social media site. Google Plus closed years ago.
Re: (Score:1)
have you heard of this new startup called YouTube?
Re: (Score:2)
Strange, I've never seen these popups and I've used uBlock Origin for years. Hold on. I just went there to double check, no weird popups threatening me.
Re: (Score:2)
I started getting them a couple of days ago; youtube videos would not load as long as my adblockers where active.
On top of that every single video gets cut into segments interrupted by commercials.
I only watch youtube when my kid wants to share something with me, or the occasional linked video from a post or friend so I really don't care all that much; but for people that spend hours watching youtube videos it must be infuriating.
Re: (Score:2)
"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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
If you're constantly thinking of the children... you might be a pedo.
Re: (Score:2)
Cory Doctorow covered this in his book 'Little Brother' https://www.gutenberg.org/eboo... [gutenberg.org]
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
For anyone else wondering
CSAM stands for Child Sexual Abuse Material
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yah, using google search is the same thing as drug trafficking. Gotcha
Re: (Score:2)
In other news, old obsolete idiots continue to demonize every generation of youth culture dating back to the Stone Age. Congrats, youâ(TM)re just as dumb as your parents.
They're not obsolete if they hold all the power. There should be a balance between oversight & surveillance of kids online & too many parents have no clue what they kids are up to, or the danger they're in.
Re: (Score:2)
Parenting is hard. Ask any parent.
I talk to my kid about her internet usage semi-regularly, I spot check the router logs, and I sometimes look through her computer, phone, papers, etc to see what stupid shit she's up to. So far, all good, but you never know and yes it makes me feel squidgy to look but better that than find out too late she's fucking up her life in any of various ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Are parental controls any good? I thinking about getting a child and I am wondering if it would help.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't use them. By the time they're a teen they'll find a way around and most of the older pre-teens ones will, too.
Be a parent. Don't leave it to a computer to do it for you if you have kids.
Re: (Score:2)
And if he was arguing for kids to be allowed to play outside, you'd say he's just a guy in a van with candy. All of us have been kids at some point and recognize things that kids want/need without you having to be afraid of it.
i'd be pretty happy with that daystar play (Score:3)
I suspect most people would.
Kids are exceedingly poor judges of apropos behavior. That's sort of the point, actually.
Re: (Score:2)
Kids are exceedingly poor judges of apropos behavior. That's sort of the point, actually.
Which is precisely why parents are a thing. And I'm sorry, this whole "I just gave my kid a steamroller and he crushed the neighbor's car with it! The government needs to do something!" argument is stupid.
If you give your kid something that can be used inappropriately and your kid is too immature to use it appropriately, you aren't doing a great job as a parent.
Re: (Score:2)
Lmao, one of my hateful European stalkers following me around flagging silly posts as over rated every day. You've been doing this for quite a while. Your obsession with me is delicious! Living rent free in your head.
Business model depends on it (Score:2)
That was easy.
Re: (Score:1)
People of all ages have been communicating for probably at least a million years. The weird barrier between old and young being discussed here, is new and arbitrary. If a parent wants to sequester their kid, they should be able to, but that certainly shouldn't be the default expectation!
And young people should be allowed to use the web without uploading any personally-identifying credentials, just like how in the 1980s I didn't have to tell BBSes my real name or show proof of age. If some parents feel a ne
Re: In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not that, it's that any age verification that works worth a shit basically kills privacy online.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you can get privacy even if you don't reveal your proper name. Even though I use e-mail aliases everywhere on the net, I wouldn't be surprise if Facebook had profile of me.
Re: (Score:3)
Facebook certainly has profiles of me. Plural. Ok, Facebook doesn't know that all of them is me, and they're probably scratching their head concerning what kind of fucked up shit I am interested in, but that's what happens when you have a script that harvests pages that contain some Facebook links and randomly visits them.
The only thing worse for a statistician than no data is poisoned data.
Re: (Score:2)
The internet is a public place. Don't do anything on the internet you wouldn't do on the street corner, on live television, with your name at the bottom of the screen.
Re: (Score:2)
How would you know? There aren't any age verification systems that work worth a shit.
Re: (Score:2)
id.me certainly works worth a shit.
That said, it's highly intrusive, since it doesn't just verify your age -- it verifies your identity (and your age is just a part of that), or to use the words of the person you were replying to, "it's that any age verification that works worth a shit basically kills privacy online."
I'm not sure how any age verification system could be made that didn't verify your identity, but it's not like we have to go far to find a working system that verifies one's identity (and there
Re: (Score:2)
Conversely, why is it important to you that other people's children do NOT have access to an adult not in their immediate RL social circle?
Re: (Score:3)
Why is it so important that you have access to other people's children online?
Put your strawman back out in the front yard with the rest of your Halloween decorations where it belongs. The majority of the population isn't made up of children. You want to keep kids off certain parts of the internet? Fine, let the parents do it at the device level. Don't inconvenience or trample on the privacy of the adults who make up the bulk of the user base.
You want to raise a kid that is ill-equipped to live in the real world? By all means that's your right as a parent. It is perfectly legal
Re: (Score:2)
Just FYI, nobody wonders why your ex divorced you. We have a pretty good idea why.
Re: (Score:2)
Excuse me but GenX was too busy trying to find jobs in the shit economy they graduated into. They didn't have time for bullshit.
aye, that's the key word (Score:1)
"richer"
I am actually surprised at (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
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)
Re: I am actually surprised at (Score:2)
The easy way is rarely the right way and will be even less effective both now and in the future
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
well what exactly do Youtube and Facebook have in common, other than a profile and comment sections?
A focus on using psychological techniques, and effective algorithms driven by unimaginable masses of data, to manipulate participants into staying "engaged". Also, profiling users to improve the effectiveness of targeted advertising, and gathering personal data for purposes that decidedly aren't in the best interests of the true and natural owners of said data.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Difference is, an average website is not performing the behaviour tracking itself. Scripts do it as third party.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We've accepted that gambling addiction is real & harmful.
The government is perfectly happy to let people gamble so long as the government is the one pocketing the cash. Most states have lotteries. And money is the only reason the government is involved in gambling laws at all. It is perfectly legal to offer simulated gambling so long as the potential for winning real money has been removed from the games.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You think kids don't make bets or play games for a reward, which is legal where I am. Perhaps we should outlaw monopoly like Castro did, it is a form of gambling as it ultimately depends on the roll of the dice assuming equal skills.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
cool story bro - what state allows minors to gamble again?
Re: (Score:2)
cool story bro - what state allows minors to gamble again?
The OP moved the goalposts. First they referred to "gambling addiction" (an obviously adult affliction), then tried to claim they were referring to gambling as it relates to children.
I can play this game too. Look over there, a squirrel! (I never said I could play the game well).
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Transformers, GI Joe, TMNT (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Vulnerable teens (Score:2)
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)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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!"
How hypocritical... (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Breaking News! (Score:2)
Make it stronger (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
oooo, so much salt!!!! yes please!
Re: (Score:2)
Would the world be a worse place if social media didn't exist at all?
What counter balancing societal value does social media provide to make up for the toxic shit it fosters?
Minors cannot legally agree to a EULA (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
Re: (Score:3)
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 this... (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
The internet must be free and open! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Google Is Addicted To Kids' Metadata/Usage/content (Score:2)
Leave the kids alone!
Forced to upload copies of their government IDs (Score:2)
First, no such thing.
Second, they'll just get a $5 VPN and become an instant foreigner.
Re: (Score:3)
Despite you trying to make a sarcastic, disingenuous argument, you're accidentally correct. Requiring an ID will prevent anyone who cannot procure such an ID from using all of the internet. Will that affect minorities? If there's any cost behind an Internet Certified Adult ID, then poor people probably will be less likely to get the ID. A greater percentage of minorities tend to be poor, thus minorities are disproportionately affected. QED.
The next question is, does that matter? We require IDs for lots
Re: (Score:2)
Remind me again how much it costs to go vote? The reason people aren't making the argument that requiring an ID when processing a transaction or opening a bank account is discriminatory is because you also need money in those situations. It is not discriminatory to tell people they don't get to participate in capitalism due to their lack of money. You don't, however, get to tell people they can't participate in democracy because they're too broke.
The history books say we did originally require land owner
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly voting isn't an zero cost exercise and it was never will be. It is a right so government should not be able to place 'undue burden' but can't be responsible for some perfect equality standard. As you say if I am block further from the polling place than may neighbor am I being disenfranchised - obviously not.
Reasonable assurance of the identity of the person casting a ballot is requirement for basic administration and integrity of our elections. It is not unjust expectation to require persons votin
Re: (Score:2)
If it's really not about disenfranchising people for being poor and you truly believe there aren't really that many adults who are bona fide US citizens but for one reason or another can't afford to get their ID issues sorted out, what'd be the harm in having Uncle Sam pick up the tab for them? I don't know about you, but I really wouldn't mind my driver's license renewal costing a buck or two more to recoup the costs of helping poor people get an ID card. As you've already said, not having one locks a pe
Re: (Score:2)
If you're buying gas or taking time off from a place of employment, you obviously already have valid ID.