they are useless today where you need to be 18 to buy alcohol.
[citation needed]
Never seen the group of underage boys waiting outside the shop for the 18 old friend to buy beer (or any other liqueur) for everyone ?
It’s certainly possible to circumvent it, but where I live most people don’t become regular drinkers at 15. It makes it harder to access, and many people actually do want to follow the law. IMO a social media ban is going to work the same way - many will circumvent it, but many others won’t bother.
Neither where I live boys became drinkers at 15 (oh well, some do) but the point is that if a “filter” or ban where you need to be present and there is a person to check is easily circumvented, the classic example of the older friend who buy beers for everyone, I have no faith that a ban based on something virtual has any chance of success. True, it would be harder than the old “are you old enough to access the site” version, but you understimate 15 year old boys (and girls obviously). There are ways to make the ban work but I have the feeling that these solutions would be considered intrusive and against privacy.
For example, the social network can ask for the SSN (or equivalent) and check against the entity responsible to assign the number to check if is valid and of legal age and then keep the number to avoid to be used by someone else (like they keep the email).
But a solution like this is too easy to abuse: the social network has a SSN that they know it is true and valid and the state know a certain person has an account on a certain social network, now imagine the state that ask also the nickname you used on the social network to validate your SSN…
I never said that it’s impossible to circumvent. It’s just harder than if there were no restriction at all, and that does make a difference. And buying alcohol for your 1-year-younger friend is one thing, but buying alcohol for a 15yo is quite another. When I was that age, few people regularly hung out with people that much younger.
I agree that this type of social media ban shouldn’t be made at all, though. What I do want is filters that can be activated by parents that are relatively difficult to circumvent, but don’t require anyone to submit their ID data. You can still fine the parents if it becomes known, though obviously that’s less likely than if every single user had to submit their ID.
I never said that it’s impossible to circumvent. It’s just harder than if there were no restriction at all, and that does make a difference. And buying alcohol for your 1-year-younger friend is one thing, but buying alcohol for a 15yo is quite another. When I was that age, few people regularly hung out with people that much younger.
Back at the time yes, it was uncommon to have a friends group with more than 1 or 2 years difference between the younger and the older, but today it don’t seems to be so.
I agree that this type of social media ban shouldn’t be made at all, though. What I do want is filters that can be activated by parents that are relatively difficult to circumvent, but don’t require anyone to submit their ID data. You can still fine the parents if it becomes known, though obviously that’s less likely than if every single user had to submit their ID.
As I said, filters are alread really hard to make to work, having them also difficult to elude make them even harder. Not considering the fact that you need to create some sort of infrastructure to keep them updated, which make them even harder to implement.
As I said, filters are alread really hard to make to work, having them also difficult to elude make them even harder. Not considering the fact that you need to create some sort of infrastructure to keep them updated, which make them even harder to implement.
Which is why they’re currently not very good, yes. Mandating them by law would probably speed up development, and either way, you’re trying to thwart most kids/teenagers, not professional hackers. It doesn’t really matter if a couple of kids can circumvent it if the methods are too difficult for the type of kids who barely even know how to use a PC, which seems to be most of them nowadays. Plus, many kids aren’t actually willing to break the law just to access TikTok.
Which is why they’re currently not very good, yes.
They are not very good because the only way to make them work is to adopt a “white list” approach: you don’t list what you ban but only what you allow. But that way make basically every phone/tablet basically useless outside very specific situations. If you simply ban a site, the same site will come up with another name, and another, and another… (and it work also for IPs)
Mandating them by law would probably speed up development,
Not really sure about that.
and either way, you’re trying to thwart most kids/teenagers, not professional hackers.
And here, while you are right about the idea, you are wrong about how it will end.
It doesn’t really matter if a couple of kids can circumvent it if the methods are too difficult for the type of kids who barely even know how to use a PC, which seems to be most of them nowadays. Plus, many kids aren’t actually willing to break the law just to access TikTok.
Point is that after a couple of kids circumvent it does not matter if the methods are difficult or not, they will be passed to other kids, I’ve seen this too many times to be so naive to not understand that with law mandated filters it would not happen.
Granted, maybe some kids will not try it, but these kids are the one who would not open a social network profile if their parent say them to not do it.
Never seen the group of underage boys waiting outside the shop for the 18 old friend to buy beer (or any other liqueur) for everyone ?
Neither where I live boys became drinkers at 15 (oh well, some do) but the point is that if a “filter” or ban where you need to be present and there is a person to check is easily circumvented, the classic example of the older friend who buy beers for everyone, I have no faith that a ban based on something virtual has any chance of success. True, it would be harder than the old “are you old enough to access the site” version, but you understimate 15 year old boys (and girls obviously). There are ways to make the ban work but I have the feeling that these solutions would be considered intrusive and against privacy.
For example, the social network can ask for the SSN (or equivalent) and check against the entity responsible to assign the number to check if is valid and of legal age and then keep the number to avoid to be used by someone else (like they keep the email).
But a solution like this is too easy to abuse: the social network has a SSN that they know it is true and valid and the state know a certain person has an account on a certain social network, now imagine the state that ask also the nickname you used on the social network to validate your SSN…
I never said that it’s impossible to circumvent. It’s just harder than if there were no restriction at all, and that does make a difference. And buying alcohol for your 1-year-younger friend is one thing, but buying alcohol for a 15yo is quite another. When I was that age, few people regularly hung out with people that much younger.
I agree that this type of social media ban shouldn’t be made at all, though. What I do want is filters that can be activated by parents that are relatively difficult to circumvent, but don’t require anyone to submit their ID data. You can still fine the parents if it becomes known, though obviously that’s less likely than if every single user had to submit their ID.
Back at the time yes, it was uncommon to have a friends group with more than 1 or 2 years difference between the younger and the older, but today it don’t seems to be so.
As I said, filters are alread really hard to make to work, having them also difficult to elude make them even harder. Not considering the fact that you need to create some sort of infrastructure to keep them updated, which make them even harder to implement.
Which is why they’re currently not very good, yes. Mandating them by law would probably speed up development, and either way, you’re trying to thwart most kids/teenagers, not professional hackers. It doesn’t really matter if a couple of kids can circumvent it if the methods are too difficult for the type of kids who barely even know how to use a PC, which seems to be most of them nowadays. Plus, many kids aren’t actually willing to break the law just to access TikTok.
They are not very good because the only way to make them work is to adopt a “white list” approach: you don’t list what you ban but only what you allow. But that way make basically every phone/tablet basically useless outside very specific situations. If you simply ban a site, the same site will come up with another name, and another, and another… (and it work also for IPs)
Not really sure about that.
And here, while you are right about the idea, you are wrong about how it will end.
Point is that after a couple of kids circumvent it does not matter if the methods are difficult or not, they will be passed to other kids, I’ve seen this too many times to be so naive to not understand that with law mandated filters it would not happen.
Granted, maybe some kids will not try it, but these kids are the one who would not open a social network profile if their parent say them to not do it.