Indeed, the "ban" is effectively a tool to identify everyone using almost all websites regardless of age.

It is an oppressive surveillance mechanism promulgated by Meta and others to deflect from their own responsibilities, penalties for which would bankrupt them.

It's not the kids, or the user base in general, that are doing the harm.

@leighelse @argv_minus_one @billbennett @Stevet

It is addictive like alcohol. So yes. Age limits don't stop under-age drinking, but it changes the conversation.

The fundamental problem with this line of thinking is that we are discussing speech, not drugs. Speech is not a drug. Speech is a right. Outlawing speech is forbidden under most definitions of human rights, and for good reason: very very very bad things happen immediately after that (see also: Germany, 1930s).

These politicians all studied history. They know this. Which means this must be their whole intention. Which is absolutely terrifying…

@billbennett @leighelse @WiteWulf @Stevet

How do you do that without also making it effectively illegal for anyone who's *not* a tech giant, i.e. doesn't have billions to spend on AI content moderation, to operate a website?

And how you define “harm” in a way that doesn't result in censorship of political expression, LGBTQ+ resources, etc?

You can't. Which is why this whole idea needs to be thrown in the incinerator. I don't like X or Meta either, but censorship is far, far worse.

The best response is regulate the industry and making them accountable for the harm they are undoubtedly causing, especially to young people.