2026-09-18 02:59 UTC
Replies (16)
-
@timagal@mastodon.social 2026-09-18 04:57
@markwyner@mas.to This woman is not very bright. She has to think of it and going out and showing everyone her ID, telling who her friends are, what she reads, what she bought the previous month, and who she voted for, amongst other things.
-
@muddle@infosec.exchange 2026-09-18 05:10
@markwyner@mas.to well-founded opposition is now "negative chatter?"
-
@romli@social.vivaldi.net 2026-09-18 05:45
@markwyner@mas.to we use age verification for loads of things already, why were people not up in arms about that. Buying cigarettes? Driving cars? Getting bank account? Voting? All your points apply to those. Why should we be challenged on any of those.
-
@theblufnews@mastodon.social 2026-09-18 06:08
@markwyner@mas.to There's a US bill doing this right now. S.5090, the Digital Age Assurance Act (bipartisan: Kim, Schiff, Lummis, Barrasso), requires every OS maker to gate first use behind an age-verified account — no carve-out for open source. California passed nearly identical language and already added an open-source exemption. The federal version hasn't. https://thebluf.news/p/digital-age-assurance-act-grapheneos-account-mandate
-
@shadows@beige.party 2026-09-18 06:14
@markwyner@mas.to 4-6 hours online a day seemed like a lot to me until I realized they’re probably including time spent doing school work online. I know when I was a teen I did not interact with other kids every day because: 1. I was a bit of an outcast. 2. We didn’t live close to other kids. 3. I got home from school around 5pm and still had homework to do and dinner to eat (this would have taken up at least an hour of my 4-5 hours available for the internet that day) My primary source of interaction with other kids was when I would go to a friend’s house on the weekend to play D&D, but I had initially been forbidden to play that because it was “satanic” and then had to hide it. Reminds me a lot of what’s going on now with the age gating for modern teens.
-
@Heinzenstein@f-ckendehoelle.de 2026-09-18 06:17
@markwyner@mas.to Also, technically, age restriction could be implemented simply as a setting on the consumer's device set by the admin aka parent. So that the only data saved would be "is allowed to watch stuff allowed for age 12" without any name, photo, biometrics or birthday. #AgeVerification
-
@leeloo@c.im 2026-09-18 06:46
@markwyner@mas.to 5. Every politician puts their communication on the worst of those horrible web sites (i.e. Shitter). If you want to raise a generation with political apathy and zero interest in democracy, banning them from following politics is how you do it. Xi would be proud. Is that where they got the idea?
-
@ee@phpc.social 2026-09-18 06:48
@markwyner@mas.to I really don't see any connection between your point and the post you quoted. "There is a real, serious problem" and "age verification is not a viable solution" are not incompatible positions.
-
@bovaz@misskey.social 2026-09-18 07:27
@markwyner@mas.to "Age verification puts the onus on people using the web instead of the people make parts of it horrible. We are victims of nefarious systems. We are not the problem. The systems are. That should be the focus of solutions." Yes, and fining the services/platforms when they are found to be non-compliant with whatever regulation this act would turn out to be is not it. At best, it turns into an operating cost for them, and it may also become an advertisement of the data they have in stock (see the recent 10B fine to Meta, that raised its market value).
-
@Kerplunk@mastodon.scot 2026-09-18 07:27
@mhttps://mastodon.scot/@hpod16@eupolicy.socialarkwyner@mas.to I get that the #EUKidsAct is getting a lot of negative chatter from the privacy advocates. But at the same time to you have to acknowledge there is a serious problem here. I go out in public, I see parents park their kids in front of a tablet to keep them calm, So explain how the EU Kids Act will prevent that. Educate Parents, ensure us networks are safe, or better ban them completely.
-
@joe@umbracocommunity.social 2026-09-18 07:30
Even forgetting the privacy side of things, purely from a protecting kids standpoint this is bad. Kids are getting round these bans (it’s not hypothetical) and now the platforms don’t have to protect them because “there are no kids on the platform”
-
@Gizmo@butts.team 2026-09-18 08:23
@markwyner@mas.to @darius@friend.camp What’s extra wild about this is the criticism is towards *parents’ choices* to “park” their kids with a screen, and the implication is “I don’t agree with how parents raise their kids so we need regulatory intervention.”
-
@michel_slm@social.coop 2026-09-18 09:18
@markwyner@mas.to the simplest thing to do is: all the safety things we require social media companies to implement for teenagers, just apply to everyone No age verification necessary No algorithmic feed by default
-
@felurx@troet.cafe 2026-09-18 09:30
@markwyner@mas.to Why is this a quote-retoot instead of a reply? Something that I didn't miss on here is a culture of slam-dunking folks to your audience without engaging with them, and this kinda smells like that :/
-
@Lightfighter@infosec.exchange 2026-09-18 11:28
@markwyner@mas.to As far as I can tell this whole age verification thing started being pushed by Meta around the time they lost their first case about how they make their products addicting, particularly to children. This appears to be nothing more than a way to shift liability away from those directly responsible and protect them from legal liability while they continue the same actions.
-
@romli@social.vivaldi.net 2026-09-19 09:57
@kawunngg@chaos.social @YinYinFalcon@mastodon.online @markwyner@mas.to Exactly, that is my point. Restrictions should be appropriate to the age of the child. The kids act proposes restricting social media for under 13s which seems appropriate in my view