World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
You're right. I'm not arguing that this whole thing is a good idea. I just pointed out that it would be possible to implement without sharing real IDs with the social media platforms. It would not be unenforceable as the top comment said.
yeah no way I'm trusting a corpo like that with my data thanks
Which corporation are you talking about? The app i linked is open source and originally developed by SIDN. You can verify what details it shares. In a case like this that should only be "the person logging in 16 year or older"
No it's not. It's literally impossible, that's the issue.
Of course you can. All you need is a trusted 3rd party (the organization who issued your ID, probably your government) to verify your identity and sign a statement that you are over 16 years old. Then you present that statement to the social media company and you've done it.
First off, how can you possibly trust any 3rd party with that information and whatever you're browsing. Secondly, as soon as you show a statement to this company, that is privacy invasive right there. Also how do you know they're securely processing this and deleting it when they're done? This is where is becomes insecure and creates a surveillance state.
By using an identifier like a session token the verifier never has to know what website you're visiting. You show the social media company a message containing this season token, an assertion that you are over 16 years old and a signature. You don't need it to delete or securely process that data, as the only thing it knows is that you're over 16 and it's required to verify this for all users.
Session tokens are valid because they come from the service themselves, that's how they know they're good.
That doesn't work here because if there's no identifying information in this token from a 3rd party service (the ID verification service), then it is useless because it can simply be reused by everyone.
So you'd have to create a unique one for each site, which would involve the login website and verification service to link to each other, which is extremely privacy violating.
If it is NOT unique (ex: anonymous person request verification for site A), then that service can reuse that verification token and break it. So identifying the sites together is required for this to work and is a massive issue.
The solution is simple on-device parental controls and have the browser flag this. Yes it can be cheated just like "are you 18+?" prompts, and that's how it should be.
It's also important to point out that you're saying social media. ID verification would not stop there, it would then be used for sites like porn, which nonsense laws have already passed for this without proper solutions. Which the government should have zero business seeing what legal porn you watch, nor is there anything wrong with porn that it should be banned.