Google urges US lawmakers not to ban teenagers from social media.::San Francisco– Google has asked the US Congress not to ban teenagers from social media, urging lawmakers to drop problematic protections like age-verification technology. The tech giant released its ‘Legislative Framework to Protect Children and Teens Online’ that came as more lawmakers, like Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), pushed for the Kids Online Safety Act, a …

  • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    The legislation doesn’t ban teens from social media. It adds rules social networks have to comply with so they don’t harm teenagers.

    • Mossy Feathers (She/They)@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeaaahhh… Have you been missing all of the news around KOSA? Google is a broken clock in this instance. KOSA is another one of those, “we’ll use the kids to ban what we don’t like” kinda laws. Wikipedia has a general overview of the criticism against it. The gist of it is that it’s not only limited to social media, and it’s worded vaguely enough that it gives the states the power to decide what’s harmful for children.

      Can you guess who’s the most excited about it and why?

      • APassenger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m very disappointed that Warren is even part of this. Would be huge giveaway to pro-birthers and anti-equality people.

      • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The rules include things like “do not run ads for strawberry flavored nicotine vapes that are blatantly intended to be sold to kids”. That’s not harmful to teenagers.

        There might be other rules that are harmful, I haven’t looked over the whole thing, but if Google has a problem with them how about explaining that instead of making false statements. This is clearly not a blanket ban on social media.

        • Mossy Feathers (She/They)@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s a, “we’ll use the kids to ban what we want” kinda law. It’s vague enough that it doesn’t just apply to social media, but can be applied to other areas as well. Additionally, the way, “harm towards minors” is defined gives states a lot of wiggle room on how they interpret it, which means they can (and will) attempt to use the law to ban things like LGBT resources, critical race theory, black lives matter, etc.

          Wikipedia has a summary of the criticism.

        • Fal@yiffit.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The rules include things like “do not run ads for strawberry flavored nicotine vapes that are blatantly intended to be sold to kids”. That’s not harmful to teenagers.

          No, it’s rules like “homosexual content is harmful to kids so it will be banned”.

          And adults couldn’t possibly like strawberry. That MUST be about addicting kids! Not that that has fuck all to do with what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about banning kids from being able to talk about their sexuality and gender in safe spaces

          This is clearly not a blanket ban on social media.

          Not a blanket ban, just the likely result.

          • teichflamme
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, it’s rules like “homosexual content is harmful to kids so it will be banned”.

            That would suck

            And adults couldn’t possibly like strawberry. That MUST be about addicting kids

            It’s just easier to get kids addicted. That’s why they need special protection.

            Not a blanket ban, just the likely result

            Honestly, not the worst outcome. Social media appears to do more harm than good, especially for kids.

        • Fal@yiffit.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The act in question is all but explicitly about banning lgbt content online, especially for kids. It will leave vulnerable kids with 0 ways to discuss their sexual orientation, gender, etc in a safe space away from their parents.

          • Ace T'Ken@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Assuming the entirety of the rest of the world beyond social media doesn’t exist that is.

            • radix
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              What world, when you don’t have money or privacy of your own? If there’s not a good queer alliance club at their school, they’re done for.

              • Ace T'Ken@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I mean, I’m 41 years old. My best friend in high school was gay. He talked about it with other friends, and I’m in a pretty right wing province.

                The internet is pretty far from the only place that you can discuss these things, and the kind of parents that aren’t going to give you the privacy to discuss also are definitely not the kind to just leave the internet alone and let you go crazy on it.

                You’re talking about extremely psychotic (and completely ineffectual methods of) helicopter parenting.

          • Fal@yiffit.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Addicted to what? Being able to be able to discuss lgbt topics online where their parents won’t beat them?

            • Sethayy@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I mean that short cycle dopamine that all apps are pushing towards like its the new micro transaction.

              LGBT safe spaces are amazing, but aren’t representative of 100% of online content

              EDIT: I didn’t read the article don’t come at me I’m stupid n lazy, if its just another hidden homophobic law then fuck that, but IG you can’t expect anything of lawmakers

              • Fal@yiffit.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                EDIT: I didn’t read the article don’t come at me I’m stupid n lazy, if its just another hidden homophobic law then fuck that, but IG you can’t expect anything of lawmakers

                I wonder how these lawmakers get away with passing their homophobic laws