@kazani

👶This isn't about children 1️⃣ Let's start with the obvious: Nobody denies the negative effect of social media on children (and also on adults). I myself have shared how Meta hid documentation about the harm it causes to young people. Anyone with half a brain should be aware of this. The effect on children is enormous in terms of concentration, complexes, etc. In short: mental health. It's also undeniable how certain people (and also the platforms themselves) can take advantage of a child's ignorance, precisely because they are children. 2️⃣ The problem isn't what it means for them, it's what it means for the rest of the population: The effect on children (assuming 100% effectiveness) would presumably be positive (if they're not looking for something else that could harm them mentally). But that's not the problem. The problem is that, to achieve this, the ENTIRE population would have to be identified; all the population that wants to comply with the law. That is, the p3d0f1l0 can look for other avenues: some forum that becomes popular, some decentralized social network, who knows... In the meantime, the law-abiding citizen will have to be identified, which leads me to the next point. 3️⃣ Hate trail: It's been said that something like a "hate trail" will be created for "hate" on the internet. It's a shame, but it's something deeply subjective in these days, given the extreme politicization. This could be used by any current or future government in a censorship and dystopian way. Don't think about the current government; think about the worst politician you can imagine in power and realize that you're giving them the tool to identify everyone on the internet along with that "hate trail". If you don't like the power this could have, maybe it's not a good idea. 4️⃣ You're making it easy for them: In some countries (not just dictatorial ones, far from it) your "digital footprint" is already being monitored, a footprint that you won't be able to hide. So make sure you haven't criticized the current president, because you might not get in. If this is extended and applied on a large scale, what will happen to certain profiles that may find themselves in sensitive situations vis-à-vis third parties (governments with totalitarian tendencies, harassers, etc.)? Obviously there are always ways to bypass certain measures, but not everyone knows them. 5️⃣ Excluding people: Yes, even being born in an "advanced" country doesn't make you consider it, but... there are people who don't have identification and find themselves in very delicate situations. Will that person not be able to use social networks? Does social networks include, for example, messaging apps with communities like WhatsApp itself? That is, the main method of communication for many (if not that other) would be unavailable to them, simply because they weren't born with the same advantages as you. 6️⃣ Only those who break the law would have privacy: It depends enormously on how the law is written, but if everyone has to be identified to access (not just to protect minors, but treating the rest as potential threats (possible p3d0f1l0s)), only those who break the rules will have privacy. Therefore, only obedient citizens will be identified. 7️⃣ Fundamental right: If we go back to the first writings on privacy regarding human rights (1948), they may be a bit outdated, but according to resolution A/RES/68/167 (General Assembly, December 18, 2013), the first resolution titled "The right to privacy in the digital age", it is reaffirmed that the same rights that people have offline should also be protected online, and mass indiscriminate surveillance is condemned. Unfortunately, the principles of "legality, necessity, and proportionality" that can be argued for certain applications are ambiguous and can justify almost anything depending on how they are implemented, so they're not very useful either. 8️⃣ The pot that's getting hotter: Yes, that's the case now, but as happens in France, it could be the VPNs next. Here, certain things are already being discussed about this too. What will be next? Everything can be justified for good reasons and that's how it's always been done, generally: national security and children (it can also be read negatively: people/agents from outside and pedophiles). And of course, these are valid reasons, but if it's not seen as good to scan all EU citizens' conversations for the safety of children (that they don't receive inappropriate content) and with the argument of the countries' own security, why is it seen as good to identify everyone by arguing how bad social media is? I suppose that "social media" seems more distant to people, and "my conversations" seem closer, but what this could imply isn't very far from each other. 9️⃣Think about the worst-case scenario: The world changes very quickly. You don't know what the situation will be like in your country in 5, 10 or 15 years. I repeat: if it's something that the worst politician, organization or person you can imagine could use incorrectly, ask yourself the following question: is there really no possibility that they could have the power to use it for evil in the future? An obvious example: censorship and persecution of people. Okay, you don't even believe it's possible. And what about data theft? Who guarantees you that there couldn't be a data leak, for example, a database full of ID numbers? Spoiler: they can't guarantee it. Obviously, they could do it in a very complex way, but what makes you think it will be done in the best possible way? 🔟What do I propose? It's good to criticize, but do you think there's a solution? Well, it's complicated, but I obviously consider that the responsibility lies first and foremost with parents. The easy thing is to blame the State and be able to "disassociate yourself", but I don't think that's the most effective solution. Proper education from schools is also key. If the education and development of the child were the real priority, we might not have such a disastrous education system in which, among other things, these issues could be addressed. And what about zero-knowledge identification? Obviously, it would require significant technical development, but the possibility exists. An open-source wallet where you can have your identity locally (issued in a similar way to a digital certificate) that allows you to know what data is being handed over to the platform; for example, if you're over 16 or not, just that, nothing about your name or anything else that identifies you. That could facilitate certain adaptations (although be careful not to fall into point 8), but of course, the easiest and most interesting way is another: hand over your ID card, your face and your entire identity... and let's hope there won't be any security problems later. Again, the purpose of limiting children's exposure to social media not only seems good to me, but it's something that needs to be worked on. Anyone who talks to me for five minutes about "the internet" knows it. But I think the only purpose isn't that, and even if it were, it's not something I'd like someone I consider my "worst enemy" to be able to "control" or "amplify", because I just think this isn't about children. I invite you to avoid the typical polarization: not everything is black or white, and defending or supporting one side or the other doesn't make you good or bad; they're points of view. Protecting children seems key to me and something that obviously needs to be addressed. Remember that your neighbor, even if they think differently, doesn't want to mess with you, but there are people who are interested in you not getting along with your neighbor. - Stark

0 reply

0 recast

22 reactions