Enforcing it is virtually impossible.
Norwegian government to set 15-year age limit for using social media
Submitted 3 weeks ago by Sunshine@lemmy.ca to technology@lemmy.world
Comments
Etterra@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
MoonlightFox@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
You are correct, but i’d like to expand a bit on how it could be solved.
It requires that all major social networks use BankID for all traffic from Norway.
Bypassing it would require a VPN, which is a simple hurdle.
But the major win here is that parents will enforce this. Parents can point to this law and say that they have to be old enough. As long as enough parents enforce this law and the VPN requirement is there, then it will probably be effective enough
01189998819991197253@infosec.pub 3 weeks ago
So you need a BankID to open an account on the covered platforms? That seems like a privacy nightmare.
GenXLiberal@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I’m not Norwegian or in Norway and I’m definitely doing this - my kids know of the problems of social networking (including the latest TikTok court docs and what the execs say.)
Some friends say that’s over the top; I just say it is responsible, involved parenting. I value their mental health.
funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
And a 14 year old kid using a VPN is probably not the target audience for a lot of the worst abuse.
Not saying it won’t happen, but a drastic reduction is better than none.
TriflingToad@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
+1, where I live they made phones during school hours illegal. Literally NOTHING changed it’s just that if they want to they can get people in trouble.
Agent641@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
How do you do, fellow Norwegian Lemmings? I sure do love being under fifteen, who’s with me, right?
RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Huh? So…only children get to use social media…?
Jyek@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Every finite range has 2 limits. A bottom limit and a top limit.
ripcord@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
This isn’t a finite range.
RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Ah, ok, so it might only be newborns.
scaramobo@lemmynsfw.com 3 weeks ago
Is it even possible to define “social” media? Media on the internet which allows you to connect with others? So the entire internet then? We always have had e-mail, IRC, newsgroups, IM, forums and later on voice calls, and every “new” platform is just an iteration or amalgamation of those early technologies. (Yeah especially you, discord, you worthless piece of shit)
It is a law that makes sense to me from a human standpoint, but looks impossible to uphold if you think about the practical implications. Everything is social. Pure read-only websites are vastly outnumbered. Even wikipedia allows discussions ffs.
That said, i would very much welcome an entire ban of minors on the internet. And while we’re at it, maybe more so a ban on data-harvesting, intrusive advertising and corporate driven monetisation of user created content. Earlier days of the internet. Ctrl-alt-del that fucker back to 1998 please.
Or you know what, just pull the plug. It was fun while it lasted but let’s not succumb to FOMO. The party has ended and yet we’re still on the dance floor with the lights on, clinging on to the last moments that already passed. There’s beer and someone else’s vomit on our clothes, a bunch of drunks stumbling and yelling racist remarks, your girl is riding some loser on the wet floor and the thick, putrid smell of lost hope and forgotten dreams hangs in the air. There’s no more music, just the drunken ramblings of those that also refuse to leave and some shouting reverberated in the now almost empty venue, and you feel the cold air and the humidity. You realise you haven’t seen your friends around for hours. How did this happen all of a sudden, it was so fun here an hour ago? It never really was. Let’s just go home.
avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
Here’s one way to do it. The legislators define a list. Products in the list are social media. The list is referenced in the law.
Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
That seems… Inefficient?
New Social media pops up every other year or so. Do they need to meet and vote to add new ones to the list every time?
fosho@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
I don’t think internet is as much the problem as phones.
scaramobo@lemmynsfw.com 3 weeks ago
Totally agree. The rise of the smartphone (be it the apps or just the access to the net at your fingertips) seems to at least partially coincide with the death of the classic internet.
rottingleaf@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Ban tools that pretend to be magic?
Just my guess. Butlerian jihad something. Not going to think further, I like this one fuzzy.
E-mail is just electronic mail. IRC is just electronic groupchat. Newsgroups is just an electronic notes board, like they may have on a residential building.
IM is like e-mail or IRC, but with bullshit. Forums are like newsgroups, but with bullshit.
Voice calls are like phone calls, but over the Web.
That said, i would very much welcome an entire ban of minors on the internet.
I’m split over that.
Reading fan fiction hurt me a lot - literature can be harmful, especially when it’s written by late puberty teens about situations they’d want to have, relating to late puberty social dynamics and which characters they’d want to have sex with. It has damage potential for some people.
But also most of the good things I’ve read were over Internet too. I’m already formed by it.
Let’s just go home.
I agree, but some of it was fun. The parts created by real people, using tools for their intended purpose. Webpages - to share hypertext-connected bunches of pages. Forums - to have text discussions separated by subjects. And so on.
It broke when someone really believed you can take the human out of the loop.
But all these tools are only meaningful as an extension of the human. Mail doesn’t make sense if you put a bunch of text generators that would mail each other nonsense, even if it is plausible nonsense.
We the humanity have tested ourselves with enormous computing power and have found out our worth. Here ends the optimistic age, and the pessimistic age starts, which won’t be the first time they change even in the last century.
We have been weighed and found wanting. Isn’t this sobering and beautiful? Only I’d like this to have happened earlier. Like 10 years ago.
postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
How are they going to write a law that bans social media while allowing online school?
scaramobo@lemmynsfw.com 3 weeks ago
Thats my point. You can’t. Everything on the internet is “social” nowadays. The best they can do is something like banning access to services that don’t follow a strict set of rules/laws, for instance regarding data collection or selling etc
UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
Governmental overreach. Good luck trying to enforce this shit.
Social media isn’t bad inherently. Addictive algorithms, violation of user privacy, etc. is bad.
Kids should be taught how to make use of social media for good. I was bullied quite a lot as a kid. Social media is what kinda brought me out of it.
Social media told 13 year old me, that it is alright to be gay. Social media is what made me interested in politics. A huge part of who I am today is because of the nice people I met online. Fuck the government for trying to take it away from others like me.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Social media isn’t bad inherently. Addictive algorithms, violation of user privacy, etc. is bad.
Cigarettes aren’t bad for you. It’s just the burning tar and the nicotine.
Nalivai@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
But social media don’t have to burn tar. They chose to because this way they can get more money, but it’s not an inherent part of the system, it’s an exploitation of it for profit, and can be separated
drmoose@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
comparing substances to social media is fucking stupid and you should feel bad.
0x0@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
And here you are, spewing bullshit analogies on social media…
hogmomma@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Don’t stop at social media. Put that same limit on religion, too.
Emerald@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Are you pointing out how you don’t like this law or are you actually suggesting we ban religion for kids?
lepinkainen@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
People should be of legal age before officially joining a religion.
hogmomma@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I’m gonna go with what home dude below said. “People should be of legal age before officially joining a religion.”
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I’m thinking neither one is really enforceable.
BruceTwarzen@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
It’s norway, so that’s kinda pointless
hogmomma@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
You’re right. I was just talking in a broader scope.
cy_narrator@discuss.tchncs.de 3 weeks ago
How do they define what a social media is?
pastermil@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
And most importantly: How would they enforce that? Kids have been lying about their ages since the dawn of internet.
fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc 3 weeks ago
I don’t think they really need to.
Laws are often just an acknowledgement of a society’s expectation.
“We’ve all decided that kids under 15 using social isn’t great.”
The fact that this law exists makes it infinitely b easier for parents to establish and maintain rules in their household, because peer pressure is minimised.
Yes, some kids will still use social before they’re 15. Perhaps most kids. However, I think harmfully excessive use will be minimised.
RootBeerGuy@discuss.tchncs.de 3 weeks ago
The enforcing part is where this is likely to get shitty. Once they establish this as a law they maybe will try and sue companies that don’t provide an age check on their websites. Now if that is possible I am not sure, seeing as many of those are having HQs in Ireland or Netherlands due to tax reasons.
But if that is successful it would mean they actually have to check everyone’s age by some means, which means collecting IDs. Which definitely is bad news for users, we all know that data won’t be securely stored or deleted.
Not sure how else this could go down.
fatalicus@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Would probably require the sites to use Bank ID during signups from Norway.
Bank ID is a national system for confirming identity.
Oaksey@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Since Leisure Suit Larry at least. ;) Since alcohol sales were restricted to adults? Since… ?
cy_narrator@discuss.tchncs.de 3 weeks ago
I know I have been surfing the hub ever since I was 13
jagged_circle@feddit.nl 3 weeks ago
Yeah I want to know if YouTube and any website with comments (eg all news sites) are social media
ravhall@discuss.online 3 weeks ago
It will just be the ones they don’t get kickbacks from.
cy_narrator@discuss.tchncs.de 3 weeks ago
What about Ecommerse site where you can interact with other buyers, talk to the seller and reply to people’s reviews? Isnt that a social media?
Urist@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
Probably networks where users post personal data in conjunction with chat features. Obviously Wikipedia is not social media in this regard and neither is a mailing list.
sandbox@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
If anything, it would be far better to ban people above a certain age from social media. I’ve seen far more older people get sucked in by online misinformation and become extreme conspiracy theorists than kids.
ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
It’s not the government’s job to tell adults to not partake in self-harm. Kids don’t know better.
sandbox@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Sorry, but that logic is absolute and total bullshit.
Adults are extremely bad at making decisions in their best interests too. Why does the government have to oppress kids to protect them, but you when the exact same logic is applied to adults, that’s a problem?
It’s all oppression. It’s all wrong. Kids should have autonomy too.
clutchtwopointzero@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
But government can take away the means or incentive for self harm. It is just a matter of society agreeing. That will never happen in the USA and Americans are fine. Norway agreed and they are fine.
RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Ok? Well that’s what an age limit would imply, isn’t it?
geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
Get off my Lemmy kids
VintageGenious@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Sad to see people here supporting the same kinds of policies that are diametrically opposed to privacy on the internet.
Parental control softwares are always parents failing to take the time to properly educate themselves and their children to the internet, as well as trust issue towards their children, which is bad parenting since it leads children into lying to them and finding alternatives as well as feeling seen “as a child”, bad for teens…
Moreover those softwares are, as I said earlier nearly malwares
phoenixz@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
Most parents don’t know, don’t care. Social media has been proven to be bad for kids, it’s nothing new, this is a good thing
VintageGenious@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Social media has been proven to be bad for kids Way too broad statement, which social media, which kids, how “bad”? There’s no scientific statement without those precision, and the broad opposite of your broad statement could as well be “proven” using studies
drmoose@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
That ship has long sailed. Most teens will find a way and the ones that don’t will be social rejects.
Social media is fundamentally a part of our social fabric. There’s no going back on that. Instead, collectively we should promote healthier social networks not prohibit them. Norway is fucking stupid here.
theherk@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
We don’t have to accept corporations selling ads that target young people and using algorithms to take advantage of them.
And Norwegian parents are doing what many are doing; caring for their kids to the best of their abilities. That oil money has provided good social services and these teens do have access to healthcare, including mental, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t teenagers still. They necessarily require some independence. That’s growing up, so you can’t just parent around every problem. Hence restricting some things, like cigarettes and alcohol for example.
I don’t see this much differently. It is a hazardous drug that warrants some consideration. Enforcement is fraught but that doesn’t mean we should just sit on our hands and accept it as is.
drmoose@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
prohibition simply doesn’t work. Especialy with social constructs. Try telling teens that they shouldn’t listen to a specific music genre lol
There are million other better ways to handle and this law just seems like a bunch of populist drivel:
Therefore, the next step will be to push forward an age verification solution specifically for social media.
So, now because some parents suck at parenting I should provide my ID to Instagram? How incredibly dumb is that?
As a prent myself I’m so tired of shitty parents ruining it for everyone. Just talk with your kids, it’s really not that hard.
fosho@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
personally I think it’s the phone that’s more the problem. the persistent access seems like it contributes more to habit forming than the nebulous definition of social media. and that’s much easier to define and possible enforce.
foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
We shouldn’t blocked the social media, they are pure shit, don’t get me wrong, but we should only educate correctly the people to show them how bad it is
angelmountain@feddit.nl 3 weeks ago
With that logic we should give everyone a nuclear bomb and teach them not to press the button. Let’s see how that works out.
Big tegh companies spend billions on ways to influence your behaviour, making it even difficult for adults to not fall for their traps, let alone kids with still very much underdeveloped brains. Just look at all the stupid things you had done when you were a kid.
0x0@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
With that logic we should give everyone a nuclear bomb
And in here lies the problem of using bad analogies.
0x0@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
What?! Are you implying the parents should educate their kids better? How dare you!?
manuallybreathing@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
Its possible to have back and forth conversation on a wikipedia user talk page, are they banning wikipedia too? The comments section on a news website? Desktop email clients and hotmail accounts?
I can’t see a way where this doesn’t end up being used to restrict information from wider society. Even just banning kids from the internet, is restricting millions of people who deserve to be able to access the resources on the www
nemno@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
What a weird take…
lepinkainen@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
You’re acting like Wikipedia talk pages and especially news site comment sections are some bastions of discourse 😆
They’re all cesspools of shit that don’t bring any joy to anyone except trolls, pedants and energy vampires
Squizzy@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
They are allowed on the web, they are not allowed sign up to be members of social media websites. Information should be freely available without being logged in, if it isnt then maybe the platform if the problem not the person or government.
Im eager to know if you are just a negative person looking for flaws or have some legitimate concern you failed to express.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
Government doing parenting now? Bad idea.
IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Is it? Not dealing with “the other kids have social media so I can too”!
Governments have always been involved in parenting and the education of kids.
wholookshere@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
What exactly do you think schools are?
IcePee@lemmy.beru.co 3 weeks ago
schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 3 weeks ago
Oppression of young people is the only one that seems to get worse over time
0x0@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
Oppression?! FFS… can’t even look at 'em the wrong way nowadays and it’s oppression… i guess it’s better than repression!
sandbox@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I would highly recommend listening to the If Books Could Kill podcast about the book “The Anxious Generation”. I feel like it’s probably one of their weaker episodes, if I’m honest, because they kind of have a preconceived bias against social media, but I think they basically come around to the conclusion that there is basically no compelling evidence that social media is particularly harmful to young people, in a general sense.
This is just yet more oppression of young people dressed up as if it’s for their best interests.
suburban_hillbilly@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
I hope they’ve written a very broad definition of social media.
LodeMike@lemmy.today 3 weeks ago
Why does it incorrectly say limit in the headlines then correctly say minimum in the first sentence.
catloaf@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
A minimum is a type of limit.
Urist@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
For all those that think this is the government overstepping with an unenforceable law, you are not grasping the intent correctly. Declaring that we have democratically decided to have an age limit for social media means that we have laid the groundwork for collective action. This means that suddenly schools, parents, teenagers themselves, etc. all have a reason and a mandate for keeping young people off platforms that we believe to be detrimental to their development and well-being. True democratic culture lies not in bourgeoisie domination (as many Americans like to believe), but rather in mutual trust and cooperation in order to solve common and big problems.
erlend_sh@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Exactly!
It’s not about Totalizing Enforcement. What it changes is the cultural norm. Not right away but over time.
An age limit on alcohol never stopped anyone of any age to acquire alcohol, but it sets the societal bar for what’s acceptable. You don’t wanna be the parents that gave your kids alcoholic beverages at 13.
It’s always a little jarring how everyone very readily believes that the Scandinavian countries are the happiest in the world, but won’t believe that the incremental policy changes we implement here have any effect 🤷♂️
Urist@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
As a case study, we did this in 1988 with a smoking law that was incrementally improved with great success. It was controversial at the time, but is now generally regarded as such an obvious policy: no smoking in or around public transport, in bars and restaurants etc…
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
This has a very clear means of enforcement, since you can require age checks at the point of purchase and revoke licenses if someone violates that.
This law is a lot harder to enforce, because what exactly is “social media”? If the kids are all blocked from Facebook and whatnot, they could rally around the comments section of a local newspaper or something (or even something like Lemmy, which isn’t large enough to properly regulate). Kids are creative, and a lot of parents (at least here) are pretty oblivious to what they actually do on their devices.
So I’m skeptical of this law, but we’ll see how it plays out.
Zink@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
American here who has visited Scandinavia a couple times.
There are so many little differences, but they add up to a staggering divide in the amount of mutual trust and cooperation you see in little everyday interactions.
rottingleaf@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Well.
Anything good I encounter in cultures that interest me is similar to the matching part of the Scandinavian cultures, or so it would seem.
And in this particular case it is so.
But in general I don’t like this optimism of “you don’t understand, it’s different in our land of elves as opposed to your sorry piece of clay with goblins in it”.
Centralized social media, controlled by companies, I’d want to be just banned. These are all harm and no good. But in general - see about optimism.
Urist@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
Could be I am being dense, but I do not understand what you are saying at all.