EU Rules Would Ban Kids Under 16 From Social Media (theguardian.com) 161
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."
Good! (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Aside from the fact there is no "European" civilization (different parts of Europe are incredibly different, and you should know that), you are severely underestimating the east. Japan has more cultural wealth to it than most give it credit for, and has lasted (in a fairly contiguous form) for well over 2000 years. China's been around for over 10000. Korea has a history of almost 6000 years. All of them have a deep and complex culture, easily at the same level of Western civilization, and they've made many very important contributions. Native American tribes are among the oldest in the world, with many stories passed down through many thousands of years, and an immensely unique (if difficult) language. Africa falls into much of that too, with the world's very first humans having come from here, along with a wealth of natural resources. The Middle East has an almost as long ago history, with the world's very first civilization being founded here, and is filled with historic artifacts (or should I say, was). So yes, there is much more to the world than the little strip of land up north, and I say this as someone who is half from there.
And really, this is all irrelevant anyway, because there is no greatest civilization. You cannot objectively measure the greatness of a society, only its relative impact on the world, and that changes according to the viewpoint. I don't see why we have to get into arguments with labeling: it is stupid to think yourself better than someone else merely because yours has more inventions, and about the only thing that's useful for is measuring the level of someone's worldly ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
Jaysus! It's depressing when people don't even recognize the Third Reich references anymore....
Re: (Score:2)
Jaysus! It's depressing when people don't even recognize the Third Reich references anymore....
I know...I laughed, and then I cried. You could probably reprint Hitler's speeches, change a few key words, and the masses would gobble it up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't that what Trump is doing?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good! (Score:4, Funny)
Jaysus! It's depressing when people don't even recognize the Third Reich references anymore....
Oh.... I thought that was a quote from Donald Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought they were both rather reminiscent of Hitler.
"They [Japan and China] belong to ancient civilizations, and I admit freely that their past history is superior to our own. They have the right to be proud of their past"
Re: (Score:1)
Well, if you look around, almost everything that you see and use in our modern times has been invented by western civilizations.
There is a good book about the topic, "Why the West Rules (for now)", which goes into the details on why the West dominates the world today in contrast to the East (Asian civilizations). It really goes through all of human history to try and explain the situation we find ourselves in now. It's a good read. The conclusion is that westerners are not smarter or better than others, but
Re: (Score:3)
Nevertheless, the West did come out on top, and therefore made the greatest contributions to human progress by far.
And at the same time, we have also greatly damaged human progress in various ways (I won't speak in absolutes, because I'll frankly admit I have no idea who would "win" that particular contest for any given time period). E.g.
Re: (Score:2)
And really, this is all irrelevant anyway, because there is no greatest civilization...
That wooshing sound you heard before posting was the tongue-in-cheek Third Reich reference flying swiftly over your head. Since you've been modded up to +4, I'm guessing it flew over a lot of heads...
Re: (Score:2)
Think about it...kids could once again spend their formative years learning to meet, interact and deal with REAL PEOPLE in meatspace...and once again develop people skills.
I think much of that has been lost to the recent generations that still sit across the table from one another and FB/Tweet and text rather than actually talking to each other in person.....
Re: (Score:2)
The Lord of the flies called. They have a quarter. Two guesses what you're supposed to use it for. The second one is to use it as a fucking repository.
Re: (Score:2)
...what?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"The European youth needs discipline and direction. They are the heirs of the greatest civilization that has ever existed and will ever exist"
HAHAHAHAhaHAHAHAhhhaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
right....
Re: (Score:1)
Good! (Score:3, Insightful)
...and nothing of value is lost.
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
You're assuming that's something they actually need. They don't. People in general survived just fine before social media became a thing. It's not a necessity.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
As an older gay man, I'm sure that if there was any form of support in the `70's it would of been a good thing. Fortunately kids who need support on these issues have resources in libraries, school counselors and any number of phone support groups.
I approve of separating the younglings from some parts of the web, at least until their brains have stabilised enough not to believe they are evil scum if they're gay, or that as a muslim they must support DAESH, just because someone said so.
Re: (Score:2)
And you're assuming that it's something they don't need, when you have no idea if that's true. People in general have had to cope alone with all sorts of problems since time immemorial, but that's not a very good argument for saying that they should have to keep coping alone now that social media exists.
Sure they do - but the company hosting the help system doesn't need any of their personal information. The AA doesn't need your personal information. The suicide hotline doesn't need your personal information. Why would some hypothetical "gay kids seeking support online" social platform need their personal information? Let alone Facebook?
Re: (Score:1)
In fact, social media have so far mainly contributed negatively to society. "Social media" is to "media" like "social science" is to "science".
Re: (Score:2)
People survived before the car, train, and electricity as well. Tell me how far you would make it in the modern world without it.
What people "need" changes with a changing civilization. In the modern socially connected world isolating people from the ability to use an incredibly popular medium leads to them being treated as "different". No it won't kill them but it will have an effect on them.
I'll get off your lawn now.
Re: (Score:2)
"You're assuming that's something they actually need. They don't. People in general survived just fine before social media became a thing. It's not a necessity."
And the youth runs in droves from Facebook anyway, it's no longer cool since peepaw and granny friended them.
Re:Good! (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, because gay kids seeking support online is valueless, right?
They still can seek support online, also without parental supervision. This ruling only states that Facebook, or any other company or organisation, cannot require them to divulge their personal details (at least not without parental consent). And yes, that does sound like a good thing to me, especially for kids that may be insecure about their sexuality.
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, as usual this is just more anti-EU tosh from Slashdot.
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.
The fact that means social media would have to stop providing the service to kids under 16 is a function of the fact sites like Facebook insist that they must collect personal information. Kids will still be perfectly well allowed to use such sites if they can use anonymous aliases, and if their data isn't harvested to build a profile on them. They can still advertise to them, it just can't be based on personal data.
The fault here is entirely on social media companies for insisting that they should be able to collect every bit of personal data about every person no matter what. As you say this law actually protects kids not old enough to give consent more than anything - a social media site requiring personal data is a far greater risk to a kid than a site that allows them to provide no personal data because there's always a risk that that personal data will be leaked.
This is actually less restrictive than America's COPPA which has been active for 15 years now, the only areas it's more strict is in the fact it uses an age of consent of 16 instead of 13.
I don't see the problem here, but as usual big tech abuses it's hefty media presence to play the victim and blame the EU again.
They have already decided not to do this (Score:4, Informative)
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 [bbc.co.uk]. 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.
Re: (Score:1)
No, gay kids seeking support is not valueless.
But social media like facebook are the LAST place where they should seek that support.
Re: (Score:1)
No, it isn't, you're right on that example. I cannot see why some one would flag your comment as trollish.
Nevertheless, I happen to be quite a bit around kids from 10 to 18 and I have yet see more than perhaps 1% of intelligent use of that stuff. On one hand they use it as a de facto replacement for email which imho is bad becuse of the walled garden of FB and the like but still a valuable communication tool. On the other hand it's largely used for hesaidshesaid-stuff which I'd rather see happen live from f
Re: (Score:1)
They use the phone... you know... the thing in your hand that replaced your brain... to call friends and family.
Uh... no, they don't. Or at least only very rarely. The primary means for young people to communicate now is social media, NOT voice phone calls.
If you don't know that, you are sufficiently out of touch that your opinion can be safely discounted.
Restricting them from social media DOES curtail their socialization.
Re: Good! (Score:1)
Well, they'll have to cope. They will adapt and we will finally go back to a saner, healthier time when people actually would look each other in the face and talk. It's time to put the internet folly behind and start living again, under the sun, as we're supposed to.
Re: (Score:1)
You appear to be delusional.
The internet is not going to get "put behind". It is here to stay. Cutting kids off from their primary means of socialization IS HARMFUL.
Tell me, how is it to be an idiot? You seem to have a lot of experience.
Re: (Score:2)
"Cutting kids off from their primary means of socialization IS HARMFUL."
Wtf are you smoking??
Re: (Score:2)
You have that backwards. If you go outside, and not live in a basement, you can actually socialize with real people, like people that you know and stuff. You can make real friends that aren't just a "friend request" and people will give (albeit subtle) indicators that they like stuff. I'm gonna patent the idea, actually.
Let's also ban alcohol and weed (Score:1, Interesting)
Because that worked out great.
It's not exactly as stated in the post. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's not exactly as stated in the post. (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed and the bill also wants to harmonize the data privacy laws across the EU so we don't have another facebook incident over a court ruling.
For those who don't know (warning: soap drama): Facebook was sued in Belgium about using tracking cookies even for non-members of facebook. Facebook argued then that it complied with the privacy laws in Ireland and therefor it should also apply in Belgium. They lost and now they say those cookies are for security and will block public facebook pages for everyone in Belgium. The belgian privacy commission contacted their counterparts and now France, Germany, Netherlands and Spain joined and are asking to apply the ruling.
*dramatic soap drama voice*
What will happen? Will facebook also block public pages in those nations? Will those nations back down for their facebook addicted non-member citizens?
Re: (Score:3)
Will facebook also block public pages in those nations?
We can only hope.
Seriously, even if you don't despise Facebook, let's at least try to make privacy the default.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, even if you don't despise Facebook, let's at least try to make privacy the default.
But isn't privacy antithetical to the very concept of Facebook? I mean, seriously -- if you want to keep something "private," you don't post it online in the first place. If you do, why would you use a website whose founder has openly said that he disagrees with the idea that you should have "multiple online identities," which would be the true online equivalent to having different "private lives" that you share in different ways with different people.
And even if you're willing to go along with that stu
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I actually looked, but not fully read TFA. It states in the first couple of paragraphs, that only parental permission is required for underage kids to use Internet services.
So this is like a:
"Mom, can I use Facebook . . . Dad said it is OK!"
This is a tempest in a teapot.
Re: (Score:2)
My concern is how they will require the permission to be granted. Will the parent need a Facebook account themselves, or will a simple "I have permission" tick box be enough?
I'm also concerned that parents shouldn't be able to give permission for children. Google was suggesting making a G+ profile for newborns and storing all their baby pics onwards on there. A lot of people oppose things like the Right to be Forgotten, wanting to archive every mistake anyone ever makes... Like circumcision, I don't think p
Re: (Score:2)
Like Religion, I don't think parents should be able to inflict that on their kids. Wait until they are 16 or 18 and are responsible enough to decide, at least.
FTFY
Re:It's not exactly as stated in the post. (Score:5, Insightful)
For that, any company needs parental agreement until the age limit. Any company that doesn't ask personal information and does not require them to access the services it offers is free to accept any user at any age (if the services itself don't violate any other age limits).
Is the really a good thing? (Score:1)
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?
Re: Is the really a good thing? (Score:1)
This is about companies handling kids' data. I'm sure the forums you frequented did not ask about your real name or sexual preferences. I guess the startING point of this discussion was when minors started posting pictures of themselves everywhere. They do not understand the implications.
Re:Is the really a good thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
The easy and obvious solution would be to not require fucking logins for everything. You should know. You posted anonymously.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with a lack of logins is that it doesn't allow for tracking of social media. And by tracking I don't mean corporations (although as a side effect that happens) but tracking from a personal point of view.
By logging into Slashdot I will be able to find this comment again and see who replied to it. You on the other hand wouldn't even be able to find this comment today if it weren't for the fact that it is currently +5 insightful. And not authenticating like some of those "enter username to post" co
Re: Is the really a good thing? (Score:2)
It's not about social media. It's about the age of consent for data processing. Basically before you reach that age your parents have to consent for you in privacy related things. Which is technically not a bad thing IMHO.
Social Media can still work (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Social Media can still work (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
How hard would it be to build a Facebook-like platform without all the bullshit? All most people want is the basic activity feed with comments and pictures, this can't be rocket science? Where are the FB competitors?
So basically: still lower than driving age. (Score:2)
So basically: still lower than driving age without parental supervision, in most of Europe.
banning vs dysfunction (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes that would work (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Yes that would work (Score:1)
Heck, my kids have each had a gmail account since age 0. Urrr, age 18.
It was kind of fun registering email accounts for my kids on the day of birth, then sending out an email from them announcing their own births. They haven't sent email in the decade since, and still technically don't qualify for a gmail account.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that children are banned from using social media, though the article make it look that way. On the contrary, companies are forbidden to ask the children for personal information, compile a database of it and sell it to affiliates and third parties, except with parental permission.
So yes, 15 year olds will still access sites which require those by providing bogus information. But then, the value of the information is nil, and companies themselves will set up meas
Re: (Score:2)
Except they'd likely provide all true information except for their date of birth. So while the "People aged X-Y like this" metrics would be useless, the "this person likes Z so show ads for related products" wou
Re: (Score:2)
Not so much. You can guess an age range from plenty of data other than the birthdate (How many thirty-somethings will like or follow Diplo, Justin Bieber, or Meghan Trainor on Facebook, and pepper their posts with words like "ratchet", "yolo", and "bae"?). A margin of a few years either way is close enough for targeted advertising. And it's not hard to guess what birthdays will be the bogus ones chosen. Birthday listed as January 23rd, 1945, June 9th, 1969, or April 20th of any year, and the user's prof
Re: (Score:2)
15? Try "anyone old enough to type".
It takes exactly one age-related rejection from trying to sign up for a site, before kids learn to just lie about their age online.
Good idea, EU, but unless you also require sites to allow people under 16 to sign up without being tracked (which opens another whole can of worms, not least of which, I can see an awfully lot of adults suddenly lying about their
Re: (Score:2)
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
Yes, I have previously conjectured that a lot of people are going to be permanently stuck with an online presence that represents them as 10+ years older than they are because they lied on a social media site at some point. It's going to be hell on dating sites. The only people that will show up as being in their mid 20s are actually underaged minors that got a social media account at 6,
That's not the end of that story... (Score:2)
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 ca
Re: (Score:2)
Misinformation propaganda (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
The data breaches part is especially interesting to me, and I highly hope this gets passed. 4% revenue is also a decent punishment, as that can add up to a substantial amount, and hopefully enough to actually be a deterrent to large and wealthy corporations for whom it's otherwise cheaper to just break the law and pay a measly €300 fine.
"real" name policy (Score:1)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with you in principle, the problem with anonymity on the Internet is that there is no shortage of people who abuse any opportunity for anonymity to act like assholes, sometime causing measurable harm to others who would be unable to take legitimate recourse because there is nobody to take such recourse against.
If people could always behave responsibly online, I doubt using aliases instead of real names would ever would have become a contentious issue, but like so many other things, a few pr
Re: (Score:2)
Strawman
I did not suggest that the argument I presented should be applied to that context.
Re: (Score:2)
Hive mind of neckbeards (Score:2)
There's nothing as pathetic as a Freddie Mercury reach around.
Can we (Score:1)
I like it (Score:2)
Can we ban them from the streets as well? I'm tired of the little shits in this neighborhood.
Good Move (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Hasn't seemed to work for previous generations lol
Re: (Score:1)
You're probably correct about people who experience awkwardness when interacting with said generations.
Note that I never said that I personally experienced any social awkwardness when interacting with said generations.
Alternatively (Score:2)
How about banning people who ACT younger than 16 from social media?
Oh sure (Score:2)
The stupidity in this sort of proposal is mind-bending on so many levels.
Basically a good idea (Score:1)
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.
Potentially good unintended consequences? (Score:2)
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.
Massive upsurge in 99 year olds on Facebook (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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 mor
Re: (Score:2)
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-reasone
Re: (Score:2)
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,