Most in Germany want Australia-style social media ban: poll

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"?
- I think the question was; "how can we protect the kids when obviously their parents have failed?"
  
  Parent here. Having an extra reason to explain why my son won’t be doing something that some of his friends are is helpful.
- Censoring social media?
  Sounds like another benefit!
- It's not censorship. Social media isn't the street. It's mostly private companies and when you post something it's like saying something inside the building of a private company and not on the street.
  The law is about regulating the companies and who can access these spaces.
  Lots of countries have a similar law for work. You have age restriction and speech limits by law.
  And yes, you can ask for a physical ID and even mandate an in person account opening. Or, you built a national account and social media must use it to allow access.
  Most of the people where I live are in favor of this and even until majority including smartphones.
- 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.
  It is possible to verify age using a real ID without sharing other details from that ID with a social media company with apps like https://www.yivi.app/en/
  
  The politicians in charge of making the laws often lack the understanding needed to make privacy respecting laws. So it's possible, it's just not happening. They also listen to actual experts ready to little, but do listen to lobbyists.
  This also doesn't address the censorship side of the problems.
  Just for a random example, literally the first thing I thought of: let's say there's a youth movement to affect climate change, or some other issue. They organize general protests, boycotts on "bad companies" and are starting to get somewhere (politically and affecting the bottom lines of these companies). This is coordinated using some online communication platform, think Reddit, lemmy or whatever (Facebook, whatever). Those that want it to "go away" can just include that in the list of sites that fall under thes "youth protection" laws.
  Then there's laws like that being extended it abused to do things that weren't originally intended, which is also hard to safeguard against. Future legislation might extend the age range from 16 to 18, then to 21. With the list of blocked sites also growing conveniently alongside, and boom you got a nice censorship platform. Not saying that will happen, but making sure it can't is what's hard.
  
  yeah no way I'm trusting a corpo like that with my data thanks
  
  No it's not. It's literally impossible, that's the issue.

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.
- then it only effects the stupider children, not all children.
- Not that hard. When you allow reporting and then removal of their accounts. They may get through but their accounts are removed rapidly.
  
  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.

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!

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.
- I'm 63 and addicted to social media. Checkmate government lackey.
- Absolutely social media is the problem.
  The echo chambers, the propagation of facist ideology, the state sponsored misinformation campaigns, the anti-intellectualism, all made possible by social media. No where else could these banes on modern democracy and society have been so easily bred but on social media.
  
  The networks that do the most damage were specifically engineered that way due to the profit motive rewarding engagement of all sorts above positive connection. Social media is the problem, but it's only that way because of the economic and commercial factors involved. Individuals can always be assholes, but nobody has miserable memories of myspace and MSN online as genocide-facilitating false news propagators, because they weren't specifically designed to make people angry and breathlessly message everyone they know about a perceived problem.
  Social media has the capacity to connect disparate groups of people, become a forum for interests, and open the world up to new perspectives and information - the intentional monopolisation of that promise by frankly, evil, multinationals is the root cause of the issue - not the technology itself.
  Australia's new law will do fucking nothing, and as many experts have suggested, will probably make the issues worse. Bullying isn't limited to social media, so a child that previously found refuge by connecting with like-minded friends elsewhere or staying in touch when living remote, now gets to be 'saved' by being kicked off the platform and left with only the real-life bullying they endure at school. Counterproductive.
  Additionally, if the platforms are such violent cesspools for children, why is it then acceptable for them to continue with their perverse rage-bait designs, so long as the user is over 16? The government should instead be regulating the mechanics and algorithms of the sites to make them safer, more reasonable and positive entities - rather than just giving up on any meaningful regulation and saying that meta is fine, because a 17 year old can get bullied in person instead of a 35 year old having revenge porn posted of them, or a 72 year old falling down a facebook conspiracy rabbit hole is a-ok.
  This legislation was half-baked, forced through with little-to-no debate, stands to worsen the stranglehold of monopolised tech. It places the responsibility of parenting onto facebook, twitter, etc. which are the last entities in the damn world that should get to define 'safety' or police responsible usage. It does absolutely nothing to address the serious fundamental problems that pervade our modern, highly concentrated technology ecosystems, and actually gives them a free pass to allow the sites to fester even more (bringing in more profit as people doom-scroll longer, viewing more ads, when their specific fears and annoyances are deliberately tabulated and curated to make them as angry, paranoid, isolated, unhappy, and antagonistic as possible) by saying that it's a foregone conclusion that social media is evil, and we can't fix that, so why even try? /s
  If they actually wanted to fix this problem, investing in education and help resources, probing into the design and function of these sites would be the way to do it. We've just scored a massive own goal at Zuckerberg, et. al's benefit, by asking them to police themselves and sacrificing everyone over the age of 16 to the hellscape of media as it is, instead of as it could be.

Lots of people believe things not supported by science.
News at 11.
- 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.
  
  "Probably"
  This is your definition of scientific?
  Thanks for proving my point.
  great account to follow regarding the science on the subject: https://ohai.social/@Garwboy/113554246823274751
- 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.
  
  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?"

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.
- 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.
- 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.
  
  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.
  
  It most definitely is possible in federated networks to be clear.
  Federated networks are extremely vulnerable to bots. And "organic" online narrative is easily manipulated with bots and bot driven content.
  We see this in centralized platforms like Reddit which have mature and centralized bot detection and control mechanisms which are largely ineffective in an ideal scenario for them to be the most effective.
  The only saving grace for federated services right now is that they are simply far too small to be worth the time and money to manipulate narratives on. The user bases are infinitesimal in comparison to mainstream social media.
  This changes if their popularity skyrockets. The only thing it takes to manipulate opinions and narrative is money and a vulnerable target. The fediverse is largely a vulnerable target and current mega corporations have more than enough money to do what they need done a million times over.
- The True Problem, is that an actual-safe-space is required, for kids,
  & that costs investment to produce, & to maintain.
  We pay for kindergarten & schools to be safe-spaces, don't we?
  Children's forming brains require healthy place, right?
  Same is required for internet, for them.
  So, a "walled garden" with wikipedia ( not the gore-centered stuff, & there seems to be some of that on there ), & TVTropes,
  etc, is required for them to develop their minds healthy,
  but the only "successful" walled-gardens were made with machiavellian intent, thus-far..
  Apple's walled-garden, Microsoft's, AOL's, Google's, etc..
  Nobody's done a not-for-profit edition for humanitarian reasons..
  Big Tech'd sabotage it any way they could, in order to "prove" it "doesn't work"
  ( it'll never be seen in Google News, Facebook may well disappear all references to it, Apple wouldn't permit it on their platform's App Store, etc.. )
  Exterminating-alternative is required when the stakes are world-possession, right?
  NO competitor allowed, right??
  Nobody's got the spine to create the required walled-garden which simultaneously gives children
  access to meaningful friends
  lots of learning opportunities & learning-means
  gamefied learning, like projects-done-together on interesting-to-them subjects, with real accomplishings, like Science Fairs can be, irl
  systematic stomping of abuse, predators, bullying, etc..
  systematic training them in sane privacy-habits, device-health habits ( update your apps weekly! Reboot your device weekly! Use antivirus! )
  systematically training all children in critical-thinking, dismantling ideology-programming as completely as possible, from the next-generation
  etc.
  & if anybody did have the spine, then it'd be force-disallowed by Big Tech.
  Humankind waited too long to care, & now the bad-guys own the whole "game", it looks like, to me..
  Human children never will know what honest, proper, supportive systematic-development through interesting challenges, & safe growing-up can be, because our-generations wouldn't do what was required, when we had leverage to be able to do it.
  "fighting over crumbs" is all that's left, it looks like..
  ( lobbied "representatives" wouldn't allow world-integrity to violate their owners' interests, either, obviously.. )
  Sorry for my bitterness, but I'm old.
  _ /\ _

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.

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

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.
- All they have to do is say they are doing it to protect their children and the pitch forks come out.
- The thing is, older people can remember what life was like before the younger people were born.
  For me, I had to find a playboy out in nature, which was like winning the lottery, or you had to know someone, which was weird. Nowadays you just google it and you can watch grandma scat porn on auto for days. As a fully grown adult I know which life was actually better, the one with less granny scat. I didn't jerk off as much but I went outside and socialized with people and played hacky sack because that's what my friends did or looked through their mtg cards, or waxed a curb and tried to pull off some rondey mullen shit.
  The internet as we know it and the world we built around it is not good for people, the kind of social media that we have is not good for people. I don't think we need government regulations, in some ways sure, but what we really need is education and understanding. We need a pro-people movement that prioritizes quality of life in a meaningful way.
  
  I absolutely agree that the modern internet has been turned into a corporate rage-bait hellscape, but do keep in mind that every generation that's ever lived feels that their childhood was better and safer than what exists today. It's human nature to prefer our fondest memories at our most carefree point in life - but although ipad babies are a scourge that terrify me, it's important to remember that children aren't all drooling fortnight zombies these days either.

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.
- You forgot the /s. "Unexpected end of line error in line 182"

It makes me wonder if the result of this ban in Australia will see a rise in forums and chat rooms.
- One can only hope.
- Ain't that still social media, same with multiplayer games though I don't know the law itself I could be wrong.
  
  No, social media is driven by algorithms that control what you see and how much you see. Chat rooms and forums are old school, more analog. You chat with other people in realtime and are able to choose the posts you want to see.

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

Libs will do anything but touch the corp :v

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.
- 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.
  
  Begin with the "cherry-picking":
  Disinformation gets cut out.
  Fact-checking is protected-speech, not immediately-auto-deleted-because-it-harms-profitable-disinformation.
  Ideological-prejudice gets cut out.
  The major racisms: sex/gender racism, skin racism, class racism, & national racism, get stomped.
  Correct & true journalism ( going to require independent ratings for individuals & organizations & for sub-branches-of-organizations ) gets automatically & consistently boosted.
  You put those in-place, & MASSIVE improvement is inescapable.
  The Problem(tm)??
  Big Tech WON'T TOLERATE anything interfering with their highjacking of the world, with their asserting their claim to monarchic/polyarchic world rule.
  EVER.
  Try linking a Wikipedia article, to fact-check something, on yt..
  Autodeleted!
  Rabies is their means-of-gaining-possession-of-the-world, & NOTHING can be tolerated to interfere with their rabies/means.
  No matter how many humans die, in which circumstances their platforms helped enforce.
  For-profit-corporations are psychopaths, by default..
  So long as we continue maintaining-otherwise, they continue winning..
  until it's too late.
  ( & we don't get told when it is too late, either: that's movie-fantasy plot-point, not reality )
  _ /\ _

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

i dunno ab this bc social media is vague. corporate sites that pump out politically divisive content, misinformation, harmful content, etc. should be a bigger target? when i was a teenager, using social media platforms to connect to queer spaces was essential for me, but i was on reddit and tumblr rather than instagram or tiktok. its a tough line between protecting minors and restricting their freedom on their behalf. sucks that parents cant just step up and do what's right, because the law can be unnecessarily suffocating. at the very least, seems like its the companies, not the kids, who'd be punished. curious to see how this plays out.
edit: spelling is hard

Get off my lawn kids!

Queer kids and kids in abusive households can just die, apparently.
- What are you on
  
  Some vulnerable people (yes, that include kids) are manipulated and cut from external contacts, and sometimes online services are their only way to communicate. A lot of such services could fall under the "social media" category indiscriminately, making it harder to use, and cutting their only source of communications.
  Think like countries banning TOR and the like to root out journalist, but on a smaller scale.
  
  Is empathy a drug now?
- No ban is proposed on IRC or email.

In a country were people believe that practice of safe sex can be taught by 14, I can't fathom why they think responsible Internet practice can't be taught earlier than 16.
EDIT: Noticed a typo. They always seem to be in bad places... Changed to why they think responsible Internet practice CAN'T be taught until 16, that there are commonly considered more serious things set at a you get age.
- You know that 14 is the Age of Consent to have sex with other 14 year olds?
  We learn about Sex in the 3./4. Grade, (8-10 years old) and more in the 5. Grade, and even more in terms of genetics in later Grades.
  So maybe check your facts before you post missinformation.
- how do these relate?
  
  I'm pointing to the fickle nature on how we determine what age people should be allowed to do different things, which is particularly ironic in Germany.
  I also agree that social media have a lot of risks, but 16 for social media seems very old compared to what we should do about it.

Whatever it takes to make the kids support genocide.
- What is the connection between kids using social media and kids opposing genocide? It seems to me like the exact opposite is more likely, among kids and adults using social media.
- I thought kids online were supporting Palestine.