Slashdot Mirror
EU Rules Would Ban Kids Under 16 From Social Media (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader sends word of new data protection rules up for vote in the European Parliament which would make it illegal for companies to handle the data of children aged 15 and younger. Currently, such data processing is prohibited only for kids 12 and under. This would affect European teenagers' ability to use Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, and many other social media services. This amendment has been opposed not only by the tech companies involved, but by many child safety experts as well:
Janice Richardson, former coordinator of European Safer Internet network, and consultant to the United Nations' information technology body, the ITU and the Council of Europe said: "Moving the age from 13 to 16 represents a major shift in policy on which it seems there has been no public consultation. "We feel that moving the requirement for parental consent from age 13 to age 16 would deprive young people of educational and social opportunities in a number of ways, yet would provide no more (and likely even less) protection." Larry Magid, chief executive of ConnectSafely.org, said: "It will have the impact of banning a very significant percentage of youth and especially the most vulnerable ones who will be unable to obtain parental consent for a variety of reasons."
The European youth needs discipline and direction. They are the heirs of the greatest civilization that has ever existed and will ever exist, after all. Obedience and a sense of purpose are important values.
...and nothing of value is lost.
Because that worked out great.
The actual rules are that if the member states don't set an age limit, the default is 16. Individual member states thus can have lower age limits.
At first I thought that would be good, but then I remembered I started visiting internet forums about gaming, programming and more when I was 11.
I wonder if forums count as social media too, or modern things like Reddit, where should our kids learn about these things before they are 16 now?
The ban is about third party companies (adults) handling data of people under 16. So if a Social Media product was P2P, or e2e encryption and was unable to snoop on it's users, then it wouldn't be an issue. I'd like to see this extended to all people under 120.
So basically: still lower than driving age without parental supervision, in most of Europe.
I'm not sure if banning social media for children that age is a good thing, but having seen and heard what it has become, it does seem to magnify some dysfunctional social interactions happening at those ages.
Even before the internet, teens went through a period of trying to measure and compare their social standing, but social media seems to have created a caricature of that. Now, it is "directly measurable" to them: my selfie got 50 likes in one day, and yours only got 28. People said, "OMG you're pretty!" to me, but only "you're pretty!" to you. Teens are getting obsessed with constant, real time monitoring of these things - by some attempts to measure it, checking likes to their selfies as much as every 2 or 3 minutes throughout their entire day. In class, waiting for the bus, it doesn't matter.
It's hard to see that as a healthy thing. Of course, it's tempting to view anything new and different as bad. It happens with every generation: rock and roll, computer gaming, etc. Still, I can't help but think this is different. This is:
* Permanent. What you put out there, good, bad, or ugly, stays out there. If it's embarrassing or hurtful, it will be used against you potentially for the rest of your life, rather than being forgotten as stupid shit used to be. Your name will be forever attached.
* Commercial. It's used to build profiles of kids to advertise to them, which will follow them through life.
* Direct. It seems to magnify whatever "popular vs unpopular" axis that has always existed at those ages. It makes the popular feel more so, and the unpopular feel even more alienated. And kids can be very cruel to the unpopular.
I'm not sure social media is anything good for kids, but somehow, banning it doesn't seem likely to fix those problems, either. Maybe the better approach is to help them deal with it in better ways. Like it or not, it's here to stay, and it is changing our culture. Best to try to to improve how that change happens.
You should stop reading Facebook propaganda and get the actual news. For one "social media" isn't "the net", the age limit of 16 isn't mandatory, it's only the default if the member states don't set an age of their own, and all the kids need to get access to social media is either parental consent or they need to state that they are older than 16. And we all know how hard that is....
Facebook lobbyists are once again blowing a small thing out of proportion to attack the agreement as a whole, which is far more dangerous for them. According to the agreement, companies can be fined up to 4% of their revenue for data breaches, and they are legally obliged to report data breaches, not doing so would result in a felony charge. That is what the lobbyists are after, but the "think of the children" card plays better
I'm sure that the 15 year old's with a smart phone would all obey the rule and not use a false date of birth
For all of you falling for the "think of the children" narrative, you are misled by corporate propagande. What the lobbyists want has nothing to do with children, no one really cares about that. The rule change is largely just a declaration of intent, and a measure to make sure that all member states at least have a minimum age defined. If you read closely, the member states are still free to choose their own standard, the age 16 requirement only applies if nothing else is defined
The real reason why the propaganda machine is running on full steam is the other provisions in the law, which would mean that it would become illegal to not disclose data breaches, hiding those would become a felony, and that companies could be charged with up to 4% of their total revenue for any data breaches. That is what the lobbyists are fighting against this draft law.
Kids shouldn't be banned. "Real name" policies should be banned. Parents know who their kids are, no one else needs to, or should. And the idiocy they get up to online should not follow them forever, if they don't want it to.
Corporate control of social media should be banned. Probably any centralized social media should be banned! But of course, now I am dreaming...
Asia considers Europe as a bunch of dinosaurs, soon to be extinct. I must agree. Seriously. Imagine that this WILL come true and our kids will be banned from the 'net till 16. What will be the effects of competitiveness and innovation - not to the kids but for the Europe itself? We will deprive our next generation from the ability to learn and develop, whereas other continents encourage their youth to go forth and change the world.
The Chinese and the Japanese hold a great respect for the various European civilizations, and I stronglysuggest you don't put words into their mouths.
This article specifically mentions social media, not the internet in general, so you apparently think Facebook == the entire internet, and if that's the case you wouldn't have gained anything from it anyway. Or, perhaps, you didn't bother to read even the summary before writing that slew on nonsense? I disagree with it too, but at least make a well-reasoned argument. They should be allowed to do so because a 14 year old can freely talk to anyone on the street, and there's no difference speaking with strangers in real life than online. Furthermore, it deprives them of the chance to meet people from far away, which people never did before without traveling themselves (unless you were one the few who had a "pen pal" and it actually worked out). Your argument is simply an emotional appeal to inertia, and you do realize 40 years ago they were complaining about how setting a minimum age for smoking would heavily cripple the United States of America's youth?
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
There's nothing as pathetic as a Freddie Mercury reach around.
Ban them from online gaming as well? My mother has apparently been around the world a fair few times to my surprise.
The EU isn't banning kids from doing anything, it's banning companies from harvesting personal data on kids who aren't old enough to give consent to have their data harvested.
Actually, it isn't even doing that. It was considering doing so, and has just decided not to. The first formal step to confirm this is expected tomorrow.
The mandatory increase in age limit was opposed not just by tech business as you might expect, but also by online safety advocates concerned that it would backfire.
Nothing to see here, move along.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Can we ban them from the streets as well? I'm tired of the little shits in this neighborhood.
Kids need to learn how to interact with other human beings in real life before they start doing it online. "Kids these days" are completely dysfunctional in person and have no idea how to handle personal social interaction.
How about banning people who ACT younger than 16 from social media?
The stupidity in this sort of proposal is mind-bending on so many levels.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
I was on IRC when I was about 9 years old. The internet was so new, my parents didn't know anything about it. Even at the young age, I knew not to give out any personal information.
When I see those phone-junkies getting younger and younger, and kids having problems letting their phone go even for a short period of time, a blanket ban of Facebook & Co for minors in general would be an excellent idea.
The article states that child safety experts as well as tech representatives stated objections but then only quotes two tech oriented people. I am left wondering if any child safety experts disagree with the proposed rules other than a person with a website that obviously has an interest in young people using social media or a tech consultant who has operated what looks like a PAC or political "thinktank." If there were any legitimate voices raised then why are they not in the article?
How can any child safety expert possibly disagree with the proposal? There really can be no argument that young children just don't understand that maybe it is a bad idea to broadcast their personal information, address, pictures, and what fancy new home theater stuff their daddy got for Christmas all over the internet. If you tell them, they still won't get it, because social media is a feedback mechanism that makes them feel accepted when people view, like or share their information.
Before the internet, we would have kids bragging about all the stuff their mommy and daddy had to all their friends, and that was dangerous enough. Now they brag about it all over the world.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
I've always thought that companies should not handle anyone's data, but centralization is quite efficient, so alternatives never gain traction. This sort of push could help people learn about the benefits of privacy, decentralization and data protection at a very young age.
This is totally unenforceable without some sort of invasive internet user identification system to prove the age of somebody signing up for social media. Without it, all the little angels have to do is lie about their age & boom social media account created.
Does the proposed rule actually absolve the company of liability if the child lies?
How does the EU handle things like statutory rape and minors entering into contracts? In the US, the minor lying about their age isn't necessarily a valid defense.
If the child claims to be 16 and posts selfies of their clearly-not-16yo self or discusses age-revealing things, can the site claim that it's not liable? The fact that the posted information is probably being actively mined makes it even less likely that the site can claim ignorance of the child's lie.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.