undefined

points

[-]

That might be an argument if it wasn’t already happening. US social media platforms already kowtow to domestic and foreign policy and you need look no further than the suppression by Google and Meta of content about Palestine.

What’s fascinating to me of that there are people who win vehemently oppose age verification yet have no absolutely no problem with anti-BDS laws, Gaza suppression, etc. Or worse, they’ll support those things.

by starik362 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> suppression by Google and Meta of content about Palestine

That is nonsense. This type of content appears on my TikTok/Reels feeds nonstop even if I don't interact with it.

by jmyeet1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Oh we're using anecdotes as evidence now are we? How about more comprehensive and quantitative analysis eg [1]? Former Netanyahu staffer, Jordana Cutler, now Meta's Public Policy Director for Israel and the Jewish Diaspora, just came out and said that's what they did [2][3][4].

More evidence: leaked audio from ADL Chief Jonathon Greenblatt saying "we have a Tiktok problem" [5]. Kinda weird that within a few months later Biden signed a hastily passed law to force a sale of Tiktok. Weird.

Need more? Twitch updated it's Hateful Conduct Policy to say "Zionist" is "hate speech" [6]. This is for a political designation not a religious or ethnic one as evidenced by the fact that Christian Zionists outnumber Jewish Zionists in the US by about 30 to 1 [7].

[1]: https://theconversation.com/social-media-platforms-are-compl...

[2]: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/metas-israel-policy-chi...

[3]: https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/20/meta-systemic-censorship...

[4]: https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/hrw-inve...

[5]: https://x.com/snarwani/status/1725138601996853424

[6]: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/twitch-changes-hateful-content-...

[7]: https://www.trtworld.com/article/15656249?_rt=1

by akoboldfrying5 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

I agree. But it's not clear to me that the downsides of this outweigh the upsides.

The government has control over many areas of life, and in most cases I feel that to be on balance a good thing, even though governments can be corrupt or inefficient.

Consider some other domain, like roads. In every country, the government issues licenses that include photographic ID to residents to drive on roads; driving without a license is illegal and can result in fines or even imprisonment. But this level of government control feels normal to people, and most would say the safety benefits outweigh the government interference.

by stronglikedan3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I can walk those roads, or in many cases use a vehicle that doesn't meet licensing requirements such as a moped. Vehicles that do require licensing requirements do so because they've met a minimum threshold for potential danger. All this to say - none of that is like age gating the internet.

by recursive-call4 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

That’s because the consequences of unsafe driving is people dying or being maimed. Other than suicide and that one incident with facebook, people do not die in appreciable numbers due to things that happen on the internet.

by probably_wrong3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> Other than suicide and that one incident with facebook, people do not die in appreciable numbers

Is your argument that "no one is dying other than those who are dying"?

I became radicalized against social media when I saw the statistics for suicide rates in teenage girls [1]. With Facebook having been found legally guilty of addicting teenagers, I can't in good conscience say "kids will figure it out" when there's clear evidence that the richest men alive are investing millions and armies of behavioral scientist to keep them addicted.

There are most definitely consequences for things that happen on the Internet, including depression and death. I don't like that age verification mechanism are raising so many problematic issues, but I also don't like that so far we've tried nothing and are running out of ideas.

[1] https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2023/05/03/suicide-... or https://archive.is/wY1OH

by akoboldfrying4 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

People die on roads anyway, even with government control. And if there were no official government control, most roads would still not be a free-for-all -- in most places, informal community standards for road use would have developed in their stead. It is only the difference between these two states of affairs that government control of roads buys us. (FWIW I certainly think the difference is likely very large and government control of roads is therefore warranted.)

One of the consequences of the government knowing who wrote or said everything on the Internet would be that it would be much harder for organised crime like drug and human trafficking to operate. Of course, another well known consequence is that the opportunity for government corruption is greatly magnified. My point is that the safety improvement is significant enough that the debate is worth having.

Attitudes to government involvement vary from place to place. In Germany, you need to register your home address with the local government; while most Americans would chafe at this level of government "surveillance", a majority of Germans are comforted by it.