FlashMobOfOne

People.

The government has all your info but you still have to show ID to vote.

Requiring an ID is a useful way to regulate many things, like ensuring children cannot access social media.

Thank you for the discussion. Have a nice day.

Yes, they do: https://www.androidauthority.com/google-nest-doorbell-camera-nancy-guthrie-privacy-concerns-3639806/

If you haven’t given it, your neighbor’s doorbell has. If you’ve used a search engine, you’ve been recorded. If you have a smart phone, they know absolutely everything about you.

You do not have privacy anymore if you are using electronics equipped with a wireless connection.

It’s silly to pretend that an ID requirement is endangering your privacy when you live in a world where you are constantly tracked.

But the bigger evil is the effect social media has on developing young brains, so I’m fine with an ID requirement as a means of locking children out, until a better solution presents itself

Ask yourself why you’re on Lemmy instead of Reddit, or FB, or Twitter.

That’s what I’m getting at.

Comparing one to the other is illogical, because even though they possess similar functions to Lemmy, they are completely different applications.

There is no algorithm here, no ads, no tracking. There are actual enforced rules and human moderation, and the mod logs are public. I am not having my feed tracked to sell me bullshit, and no one needs my ID.

That’s my I am here and not there. Hell, I like Lemmy’s differences so much I pay a sub every month even though it’s free, so providing an ID for access is a mere formality, and I’m personally fine with it since it’s an easy way to lock underage people out.

However, the big tech companies are not asking your permission to spy on you, as has been proved by the Guthrie case.

Well, take a moment to think about it.

I think that answer is obvious.

Also I think it’s naive to think you’re not already cataloged, especially given that we recently learned definitively that Google is feeding data to the government illegally without a warrant, thanks to the FBI desperately trying to look competent by publicizing doorbell camera footage for a person that didn’t have a Google account in the Guthrie case.

If Google is doing this, every corporate social media site is doing it.

Everyone here is going to say: “Be a parent.”

It’s a meaningless platitude.

That is not a policy idea and sounds a whole lot to me like “just recycle, bro” and we can readily look around us and see that expecting individuals to act responsibly is shitty public policy.

I understand the hysteria over providing ID’s, but understand, the social media companies already have all of your information as a user. You’re sacrificing your privacy and that of your kids by using them to begin with. Providing and ID is just a formality, and an easy one, because it’s something that (obviously) only an adult can provide.

This game is only won by not playing to begin with and disallowing any electronics in the home, at least until there is meaningful regulation of algorithmically-elevated content and mandatory human moderation.

I don’t exist to entertain you, and I don’t find your ideological bent worth more of my time.

Have a pleasant evening. :)

For starters, requiring ID verification. That is something that is very obviously easy for an adult to provide and for a child not to. At the end of the day, that will be for each individual country to decide.

Though I imagine over the long-term there will be more nuanced solutions.

The problem of people losing their cognitive abilities is far more consequential than a small group of people having a more difficult time because they don’t socialize easily. I’m just looking at the bigger issue here.

Seeing as how the linked article is an editorial, I took a look at the link from the Guardian.

And it’s all people saying how it’s more difficult to talk to their friends now. But how? You still have a phone that dials numbers. Your parents, presumably, have the ability to access social media and obtain any numbers you need if you inadvertently failed to do so. You have email. And it’s free.

The last line reiterates how, while this is ultimately a parental failing, the parental failing has been so astronomical and the harm to kids’ cognitive abilities and mental stability so profound that regulation is essential.

I look forward to the day when social media use is banned globally for all underage people, and if you need more information as to why, go speak to any schoolteacher in America who can’t get their students to pay attention for more than 60 seconds, or who can’t retain information that is literally written on the board in front of them. And it’s getting worse because most parents just park their kid in front of a screen all day.

Like recycling, this is a problem that cannot be solved by expecting individuals to act. Government regulation of social media platforms is necessary.

removed yeah, it is.

The company warned that Brussels’ policies aimed at reducing dependence on American tech companies could harm competitiveness.

Just what I’d expect a monopoly to say.

removed you. Alphabet.

Wild that a politician deciding to terminate an application (and its associated contract) because the application doesn’t actually work as intended seems so odd.

But I like it.