Post by @romli@social.vivaldi.net

@romli@social.vivaldi.net

2026-09-18 10:02 UTC

@ibboard@hachyderm.io @markwyner@mas.to Would totally agree verification organisations should never be commercial entities. These should be government run, highly secure and not for sale, in the same way as driving or passport authorities. However, I don't think it's necessarily governments job to remove 'addictive behaviour' in total. We still have cigarettes, alcohol, gambling various things that are bad for you. Once someone turns 18 then it is kind of their responsibility to navigate harms in the world. Having said that governments certainly can, and should, seek to limit the risks for everyone. We would all be better off if certain forms of corporate social media were severely throttled.

Replies (2)

@ibboard@hachyderm.io 2026-09-18 10:25

@romli@social.vivaldi.net @markwyner@mas.to But cigarettes, alcohol and gambling are not "engaging with a community and learning stuff". Which is the positive side that blanket bans and age verification prevent. Treating social media like cigarettes, alcohol or gambling equates socialising with harmful behaviours and substances. But social media (and forums and BBSes before it) is not harmful in itself. It's Social Media Company behaviour that is harmful. It's the behaviour of some individuals that is harmful. You don't fix "could be exploited by surveillance capitalism, misled by disinformation or targeted by malicious and/predatory individuals" by banning the potential victim until they're 18 and hoping that it's all magically not a problem! And that's an important distinction in directionality. Legacy age restrictions are "you may harm yourself with this". Social media bans are trying to apply the same approach to "someone else is using this to harm you".

Open ##5043256
@sackofbones@kolektiva.social 2026-09-18 16:27

@romli@social.vivaldi.net > These should be government run Now, please, forgive me language, but are you a fucking moron? That's worse! I would rather have my privacy invaded for monetary gain than for the government to control me! Who in their right mind would ever trust the state to not abuse something that can track everyone on the internet doing anything????? They're abusing flock "safety" cameras to stalk women and children but you think they won't do the same with this???? > highly secure In no world would they be secure enough, it's simply not possible. > not for sale Impossible under capitalism. Everything is for sale. @ibboard@hachyderm.io @markwyner@mas.to

Open ##5043263