I was reading some news about Australia banning < 16 years old from social media and it got me thinking about this topic again. And I’m curious to know what the people here on the forum think about this issue.
So, here’s my question: in a hypothetical scenario where we have a technological solution to get a user’s age without risking leaks or sending documents, would you be for or against sites restricting access based on age?
Again, leave aside the concerns for how can this be done from a technical standpoint. I’m asking a conceptual question here related to web access.
I would always recommend less time on social/media or the internet in general for kids, there’s just a lot you have to learn in your immediate environment: boredom is often the catalyst of incredible shit I came up with as a kid on my own or with friends. Also there’s really no more kid-centered places on the internet, they are immediately thrust into spaces catered only to adults.
However, the truth is that ‘banning’ kids from anything always has the same issues: 1) They will absolutely find a different way to access what they are banned from, often in more dangerous ways. 2) It creates a precedent for people to demonize things that are not at all harmful to kids as something harmful, such as same-sex representation being inherently labeled as ‘adult’ even when nothing sexual is depicted and 3) It’s sort of impossible to put the technical stuff aside completely, because even if it was done perfectly it would still result in some kind of database (maybe it would be a database without bias run by software and not people that has no motive to collect or sell your data but it would still exist) that has information about everyone, even if it is only age
I grew up in the early 2000s and I did have social media but honestly… it was kind of boring. After scrolling a few profiles, playing a few online games I would run out of activities pretty soon. There weren’t infinite scroll mechanics on GirlsGoGames dot com LOL. I also had a safe environment where I was often without my parents and I could either sit and draw for hours or go outside and literally do whatever. Obviously this really depends if youre lucky enough to live somewhere like that so it always returns to quality of life improvements for me. Banning kids is a bandage solution that will likely breed even more problems. Obviously you guys all know the internet doesnt have to be the way it is: it doesnt have to be corporate, time-sucking, etc. It could be both fun and boring, I mean that the fun is not ‘infinite’, a website can have an endpoint. And if parents weren’t so overworked they could spend more time with their kids or teach them healthy online use. And if governments spent more on public programs that maybe don’t even yield professionals but just make people spend their time developing themselves for the hell of it and kids could go to camps, parks, clubs, whatever. Now that I wrote it down it sounds so idealistic that I feel really dumb but I just don’t see what else could be a real fix.
As an Aussie, be privacy thing is a nightmare, but putting it aside.
Algorithmic social media is addictive and destructive in the same way gambling is, so I think restricting young minds access to it is a good idea. (And tbh, platforms should have a moral obligation NOT to create addictive things in the first place but that is a whole other thing)
I’m addition, I think it is also entirely reasonable to have separate spaces for children and adults, I think “social media" would be a healthier place if we could discuss sex, violence and whatever other mature topics we wish without breaching the “family friendly" values of Facebook, and equivalently, children should have moderated spaces which do not expose them to those topics
So, the thing about banning is interesting. You are absolutely right that banning in general can become the reason one someone becomes interested in something. At the same time, some things are banned and we have zero problems with it generally speaking.
You can’t drive and get a license till you’re 18 here. That’s accepted by society, almost everyone is ok with it and it’s not a problem. And I don’t know if the difference is just that in that particular case there’s no moral judgment involved. It’s not like we’re saying “driving at 16 is bad for you”. We needed to draw a line somewhere and we decided to pick 18 since it’s the same line we used for a lot of other things.
it would still result in some kind of database
This to me is such a non-issue from a conceptual standpoint because that database already exists: my government already has a list of all the people who are born and have all those dates. I absolutely agree that private companies having such a database could be problematic. But the concept of a database with names and dates existing is really not something I lose sleep over since it’s been like that since forever.
Granted, creating a secure system to access that data would be a massive challenge which is why I didn’t want to drag that part into the conversation.
I think the right approach is to regulate the hell out of these social media sites to not make them so addictive and bad for the brain, but give how rich and out of control they have become, maybe we need a band-aid solution for the time being.
I imagine if a government tried to regulate Facebook, they would be met with a swarm of lawsuits from Facebook. We’ve given them way too much power, and we should look into ways to reduce said power, but I digress.
I would support doing this for social media. Porn sites obviously do this and society just accepts that you shouldn’t be using said sites if you’re not old enough.
The same could be done for social media, no? It’s not going to eliminate young people on social media, but maybe it will at least minimise the problem.
This is such an interesting example because before the web, this was definitely not how it worked. If you wanted to buy porn you had to prove you were 18. It wasn’t just a matter of saying “yes I am 18” and off you went.
And it’s interesting to me that when it comes to the web we approach this differently. I assume it’s because we don’t really have a global, reliable way to prove age or identity (we do have something here in Italy but I don’t think this is something you can reasonably scale at global level)
Meta should be legally dissolved. Governments issue corporate charters, without which a corporation cannot exist. Those same governments have the authority to revoke corporate charters.
Against an age-gated web, pro-parents properly educating their kids on the risks of social media (instead of, y’know, constantly pacifying them with screens).
The moment I have to start uploading my government IDs to any website to prove my age just because someone’s child could be using that website inappropriately is the moment I no longer visit that website.
Yes, I think the difference with driving and alcohol is that its very easy to do both to your own detriment, it’s negative influence is very obvious and clear: such as drinking a lot or very young taking a huge toll on health and cognitive abilities. There is a less clear link with uninhibited online use, though there certainly are very good studies that connect poorer mental health and unrestricted use of apps/social media etc but it’s not taken very seriously unfortunately. But the internet also has much more to offer than drinking or driving does, especially to kids, so an outright ban can hurt them in the long run.
As for the database thing, it’s not an issue to me as well personally. I just kind of played the devil’s advocate with that point. Since many governments bend to the will of corporate interest now, even a government database feels very exploitative but if it was purely for things like census and record-keeping I would never be against such a database as well.
I assume you mean age gating in the context of the web and not just in general correct? I also find it fascinating that you consider age part of online anonymity.
Totally agree. An imposed ban is quite stupid. Which is why I framed the question differently and I asked from the point of view of the sites themselves.
If sites owners, based on their own decisions, started to age restrict access, would you be ok with it?
I guess if I want kids to have the freedom to roam the web it makes sense for sites to have the freedom to also chose whether they allow minors on their sites or not. Since there are currently no viable alternatives for kids I wouldn’t advise it (if kids were restricted from YouTube or something now, they wouldn’t really have a safe space to go to watch videos for example) but if there were websites where kids could interact with each other (without creepy ass adults pretending to be kids) I would not have an issue with individual website owners choosing to age-gate.
Even with that caveat in place, I’m still against age-gating on the internet, because unless we’re talking specifically about keeping kids away from potentially damaging communities that they shouldn’t be part of (or its inverse: keeping predatory adults away from communities designed for children), age is often arbitrary.
I would find it terribly ridiculous if I was, say, 29 years old and 11 months and not “allowed” to post on an age-gated forum for people who are 30+.
