Age of consent for social media accounts?

mzungu

France have recently drafted legislation that will require children under 16 to have the permission of their parents to open a social media account . Link: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-facebook-france/france-proposes-age-of-consent-rule-for-facebook-users-idUSKBN1E7237

I'm not too sure how this will be workable. For example, this report shows that smartphone use in the 12-17 age bracket is at 85% and that is not taking into account ease of access via tablets, laptops and PC.

The article also states it is being done because the French government wish to "adapt data privacy regulations and improve access to the information internet companies gather, store and in many cases sell to other firms about people’s online activity." So, from a child protection standpoint, I see why they are doing it, but I cannot see how they think it will be workable.

Thoughts?

Fathom

mzungu wrote: »

I'm not too sure how this will be workable. For example, this report shows that smartphone use in the 12-17 age bracket is at 85% and that is not taking into account ease of access via tablets, laptops and PC. Thoughts?

Too late. Pandora's Box has been open too long.

mzungu

Fathom wrote: »

Too late. Pandora's Box has been open too long.

That would be my take, and that's not to mention how you go about enforcing it. Presumably, if something like this ever was taken to court, it would be the legal guardians getting the fine? Methinks the French have not fully thought this one through!

Fathom

Black market problems too? Instead of dope, tablets and mobiles in school yards?

mzungu

Fathom wrote: »

Black market problems too? Instead of dope, tablets and mobiles in school yards?

I wonder if it would be more akin to youngsters buying booze underage? An adult could buy it (older brother/sister etc) and that gets around it quite easily. There are also the knock off imports that could be bought, but I would hedge bets that nobody would take the smart phone ban seriously enough for the black market to come into the equation!

mzungu

In somewhat related news, Leo Varadkar is open to an age of consent for social media in Ireland:

Children under 13 should not be allowed to sign up to gaming and social media without parental approval, Leo Varadkar has said.

After consultation and advice from children's charities, Tusla, the Children's Ombudsman and NGOs on new legislation, the Taoiseach said it was decided that 13 should be the digital age of consent.

The Government opened a consultation on the age issue last November.

"We agreed that the age should be 13 ... There was extensive consultation over and back and in the end we took the advice of organisations like the Children's Ombudsman, Tusla and different charities and NGOs in the sector and we went with that," the Fine Gael leader said.

The digital age of consent refers to the age from which it is legal for data controllers to hold data gathered from minors.

Under new legislation parental consent will be required up to the age of 13 and after that age from the individual.

Ireland is required to introduce a series of legislative measures in order to harmonise its laws with a European directive on data protection.

The EU General Data Protection Regulation will come into effect on May 25 2018.

Mr Varadkar also called on tech companies to do more to protect children from online paedophiles, criminals and bullies.

"I'm very conscious of the extent to which bullying has changed since you and I were kids.

"When we were kids, when it came to bullying, at least you could escape it, at least you could go home or you knew there was somewhere to hide.

"But the difference now is that this content and this form of bullying and intimidation can come with you everywhere you go.

"I definitely do think the tech companies could do more in this space," said Mr Varadkar.

He added: "What we are asking for is for tech companies to step up to the plate and to do a bit more to protect people."

The Taoiseach said, however, that he is nervous "of anything that involves restrictions on freedom of speech or the government trying to regulate the internet".

"I would just be very loath to go down that road unless it would work - and bear in mind this is the world wide web so national laws don't necessarily work - and secondly that it would actually be effective," he said.

https://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/varadkar-backs-13-as-digital-age-of-consent-36434647.html

Fathom

mzungu wrote: »

In somewhat related news, Leo Varadkar is open to an age of consent for social media in Ireland:

Magic number 13 for Leo Varadkar? Arbitrary number?

mzungu

Fathom wrote: »

Magic number 13 for Leo Varadkar? Arbitrary number?

I think the relevant NGOs, charities and the Children's Ombudsman came up with that and LV and the relevant government departments did not see fit to question it. That said, how workable this will be is another matter entirely. I get the reasoning behind it and it is quite noble, but they have their work cut out for them. Personally, I think they should take the same route as the Canadians (& some US states) and introduce media competence as part of their school work. Introducing things like age of consent on its own will not tackle the root of the issue.

Fathom

Age of consent enforcement problematic. Will parents or children be criminalized if they deviate from regulations/laws? Non-regulatory school education interventions better?

mzungu

Fathom wrote: »

Age of consent enforcement problematic. Will parents or children be criminalized if they deviate from regulations/laws? Non-regulatory school education interventions better?

The only workable solution I think. Also, that allows for some experimentation with the curriculum. Eg. Mix it in as part of English and whatnot. Lots of ways it could be introduced with minimum disruption.

Black Swan

Makes me wonder what non-regulatory policies and procedures would hold promise of working? Any ideas?

Victor

mzungu wrote: »

I'm not too sure how this will be workable. For example, this report shows that smartphone use in the 12-17 age bracket is at 85% and that is not taking into account ease of access via tablets, laptops and PC.

Not that difficult. Just phase it in over a period of a 4 years - age groups that have it can keep it. Anyone under 12 shouldn't have it and won't get it until 16.

Peregrinus

Fathom wrote: »

Age of consent enforcement problematic. Will parents or children be criminalized if they deviate from regulations/laws? Non-regulatory school education interventions better?

Presumably this law would be enforced not against parents or children, but against social media account providers. This, after all, is how we regulate laws against supplying cigarettes, alcohol, etc to children.

100% enforcement couldn't be guaranteed, of course - it never can - but that's not to say that you wouldn't have a useful degree of enforcement. The account providers would probably be co-operative - they have an interest in being seen to be good corporate citizens - and since opening a social media account already involves identifying yourself, and using it involves disclosing a great deal about yourself, it shouldn't be difficult for the account providers to identify accounts that look like they belong to underage people, and to seek verification of age.

Victor

Peregrinus wrote: »

they have an interest in being seen to be good corporate citizens

lol This has not been demonstrated to date.

Fathom

Peregrinus wrote: »

100% enforcement couldn't be guaranteed, of course - it never can - but that's not to say that you wouldn't have a useful degree of enforcement.

New black market created?

Peregrinus wrote: »

The account providers would probably be co-operative - they have an interest in being seen to be good corporate citizens -

How does this fit with "profits, not people?"

frag420

Credit card or bank card should be used to open a social media account. No money will be taken but would go some way to stoping underage people joining and a way to identify the paedos who prey on kids via social media!

Fathom

frag420 wrote: »

Credit card or bank card should be used to open a social media account. No money will be taken but would go some way to stoping underage people joining and a way to identify the paedos who prey on kids via social media!

Gift debit cards? Online enrollment with borrowed credit cards? Getting older person to buy for you? Etc.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

. . . they have an interest in being seen to be good corporate citizens . . .

Victor wrote: »

lol This has not been demonstrated to date.

Fathom wrote: »

How does this fit with "profits, not people?"

I should have been clearer. When I say that social media providers have an interest in being seen to be good corporate citizens, I mean they have an interst in not been seen to flout or frustrate the law. Facebook in Germany, for example, has just hired hundreds of monitors who will work to ensure that Facebook complies with new laws requiring the prompt removal of material offending against German hate speech legislation. They could have gone all pirate on this and said they would die on the barricades to defend free speech, yadda yadda yadda, but no; they spent a large amount of money to comply with the law, because in the long run that will maximise their profits.

It will be the same with any new laws require age verification, parental consent to minors accounts, etc. Facebook and the likes will comply with these laws, because it's in their interests to do so. And they are well capable of doing so; Facebook knows more about you than you know about yourself.

Fathom wrote: »

Gift debit cards? Online enrollment with borrowed credit cards? Getting older person to buy for you? Etc.

That's not necessarily a problem. The point is not to prevent minors having accounts; it's to require minors to get parental consent to accounts. So if you're opening an account with someone else's credit card, and that somone else is your parent, that's fine. If that someone else is not your parent, well, we have a few more questions for you.

Fathom

Peregrinus wrote: »

Facebook in Germany, for example, has just hired hundreds of monitors who will work to ensure that Facebook complies with new laws requiring the prompt removal of material offending against German hate speech legislation.

"Hired hundreds of monitors?" People are expensive. AI software cheaper. Key word search, phrase, etc.

mzungu

Victor wrote: »

Not that difficult. Just phase it in over a period of a 4 years - age groups that have it can keep it. Anyone under 12 shouldn't have it and won't get it until 16.

Would there be any penalties for parents buying their children under 12 smartphones? Genie has been out of the bottle for ages now, it would be pretty hard to put it back in. On the other hand I do think children having smart phones is a pretty bad idea, so I am interested in how alternatives work. I heard one suggestion that children could have phones like the old Nokia (no internet) for everyday things like calls from their parents / friends. Probably not a runner. The banning of smartphones for under 16s would need something else to make it palatable. Not to mention if it was introduced it would want some proper enforcement to be in any way effective.

Peregrinus

Fathom wrote: »

"Hired hundreds of monitors?" People are expensive. AI software cheaper. Key word search, phrase, etc.

Yes, hundreds. AI can help to flag text that requires review, but we still need human beings to review it.

Peregrinus

mzungu wrote: »

Would there be any penalties for parents buying their children under 12 smartphones? Genie has been out of the bottle for ages now, it would be pretty hard to put it back in. On the other hand I do think children having smart phones is a pretty bad idea, so I am interested in how alternatives work. I heard one suggestion that children could have phones like the old Nokia (no internet) for everyday things like calls from their parents / friends. Probably not a runner. The banning of smartphones for under 16s would need something else to make it palatable. Not to mention if it was introduced it would want some proper enforcement to be in any way effective.

Whether or not it's desirable, I'm not sure that banning smartphones for under-12s is practicable. Most children first acquire a smartphone when their parents upgrade; they get the cast-off. That's a distribution channel of second-hand phones within families; impossible to regulate effectively, I'd say.

But the proposal isn't to control children's access to smartphones; it's to control their access to social media accounts. You can of course debate whether this is a good or desirable thing, but if you think it is then I suggest it is a practicable thing; at any rate, much more practicable than controlling their access to smartphones. As noted above, you'd do it by regulating the social media providers, not the kids or their parents.

The Bishop Basher

mzungu wrote: »

Personally, I think they should take the same route as the Canadians (& some US states) and introduce media competence as part of their school work. Introducing things like age of consent on its own will not tackle the root of the issue.

100% Agree..

Seems like this is going to be the next crusade for the "liberals" and it's completely unenforceable nanny state PC nonsense imo.

I also find it a bit laughable given that in my experience we have large swathes of our adult population who have no concept of the dangers of social media and splurge their lives all over it only to suffer all of the accompanying mental health issues that go with it.

Bringing in age limits after the horse has bolted is just creating another laughable law that people will ignore and it undermines our society as a whole.

Education is key..

Peregrinus

This isn't an either/or thing. You don't have to choose between media competence education and some degree of regulation. (After all, we educate kids about the dangers of smoking and ban the sale of cigarettes to kids.)

And while I'm all in favour of education, it isn't magic. One of the things you need to be resilient against exploitation, bullying and other dangers of online life is a degree of maturity. You can't educate people into maturity. So, yeah, education or no education, there is still a case for asking whether we need regulation for the protection of minors.

The Bishop Basher

Peregrinus wrote: »

And while I'm all in favour of education, it isn't magic. One of the things you need to be resilient against exploitation, bullying and other dangers of online life is a degree of maturity. You can't educate people into maturity. So, yeah, education or no education, there is still a case for asking whether we need regulation for the protection of minors.

I agree with you to a point.. but it has to be enforceable..

We can certainly regulate people's behaviour online should we choose to do so.

What we can't regulate is access and creating more regulation that can't be enforced does more harm then good in my view..

People laugh at me when I say this but I regard social media as being right up there with stress and drugs (both legal and illegal) as one of the largest threats to mental health that our society faces today..

Fathom

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, hundreds. AI can help to flag text that requires review, but we still need human beings to review it.

Reminds me of the Great Firewall of China.

mzungu

Peregrinus wrote: »

Whether or not it's desirable, I'm not sure that banning smartphones for under-12s is practicable. Most children first acquire a smartphone when their parents upgrade; they get the cast-off. That's a distribution channel of second-hand phones within families; impossible to regulate effectively, I'd say.

But the proposal isn't to control children's access to smartphones; it's to control their access to social media accounts. You can of course debate whether this is a good or desirable thing, but if you think it is then I suggest it is a practicable thing; at any rate, much more practicable than controlling their access to smartphones. As noted above, you'd do it by regulating the social media providers, not the kids or their parents.

Exactly. There could be no way of policing that. I do think that social media controls would probably be the only workable solution. I could also see it being accepted among the population as a necessary measure.

mzungu

Swanner wrote: »

100% Agree..

Seems like this is going to be the next crusade for the "liberals" and it's completely unenforceable nanny state PC nonsense imo.

I also find it a bit laughable given that in my experience we have large swathes of our adult population who have no concept of the dangers of social media and splurge their lives all over it only to suffer all of the accompanying mental health issues that go with it.

Bringing in age limits after the horse has bolted is just creating another laughable law that people will ignore and it undermines our society as a whole.

Education is key..

I agree there, adults are just as much in need of media training as children (in some cases more so, as a lot of children are more tech savvy than their parents) and this culture of "share everything" is completely off the wall. This is not an episode of the Kardashians!

mzungu

Peregrinus wrote: »

This isn't an either/or thing. You don't have to choose between media competence education and some degree of regulation. (After all, we educate kids about the dangers of smoking and ban the sale of cigarettes to kids.)

And while I'm all in favour of education, it isn't magic. One of the things you need to be resilient against exploitation, bullying and other dangers of online life is a degree of maturity. You can't educate people into maturity. So, yeah, education or no education, there is still a case for asking whether we need regulation for the protection of minors.

I agree, media training on its own will not be enough, but it does need to be backed up by more awareness campaigns to make it more effective (workshops in schools etc). Unfortunately, nothing will ever wipe it out completely, all one can hope for is better informed citizens who know how to protect themselves online.

Swanner wrote: »

I agree with you to a point.. but it has to be enforceable..

We can certainly regulate people's behaviour online should we choose to do so.

What we can't regulate is access and creating more regulation that can't be enforced does more harm then good in my view..

People laugh at me when I say this but I regard social media as being right up there with stress and drugs (both legal and illegal) as one of the largest threats to mental health that our society faces today..

There are positives in that it can be a great outlet for people with niche hobbies and whatnot, although the negatives can be quite severe ranging from depression/anxiety (Primack et al. 2017), sleep issues (Woods & Scott 2016), Eating disorders (Sidani et al. 2016)) and risk of suicide (Twenge 2017).




Primack, B. A., Shensa, A., Escobar-Viera, C. G., Barrett, E. L., Sidani, J. E., Colditz, J. B., & James, A. E. (2017). Use of multiple social media platforms and symptoms of depression and anxiety: A nationally-representative study among US young adults. Computers in human behavior, 69, 1-9.

Woods, H. C., & Scott, H. (2016). # Sleepyteens: social media use in adolescence is associated with poor sleep quality, anxiety, depression and low self-esteem. Journal of adolescence, 51, 41-49.

Sidani, J. E., Shensa, A., Hoffman, B., Hanmer, J., & Primack, B. A. (2016). The association between social media use and eating concerns among US young adults. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 116(9), 1465-1472.

Twenge, J. M., Joiner, T. E., Rogers, M. L., & Martin, G. N. (2018). Increases in depressive symptoms, suicide-related outcomes, and suicide rates among US adolescents after 2010 and links to increased new media screen time. Clinical Psychological Science, 6(1), 3-17.

Fathom

Problem. Age of consent. Arbitrary number. Line in sand. Call it "magic number" without rigorous empirical support.

Peregrinus

Fathom wrote: »

Problem. Age of consent. Arbitrary number. Line in sand. Call it "magic number" without rigorous empirical support.

Why is this a problem?

Sure, it's overly simplistic. We all know, for example, people under 18 who are intelligent, informed, politically aware and would make excellent voters. Similarly, we all know people over 18 who will vote asking themselves only one question; what's in this for me? But the fact remains that the population under 18, taken as a whole, lack the information, maturity, judgment, etc to make a positive contribution to the common good by voting, while the population over 18, for the most part, does have that degree of information, maturity, etc.

In short, the fact that a line is a fairly fuzzy line doesn't mean that there's no line. And drawing an over-simplistic hard line through a fuzzy area may still produce a better outcome than drawing no line at all.

beauf

They could easily block this, from the social media companies as its obvious by the crud they watch who is a child.

But we choose to ignore it.

Peregrinus

Go back and read the OP, beauf. France proposes not to ignore it. The discussion is about whether this is (a) desirable and (b) practical.

Fathom

Peregrinus wrote: »

Sure, it's overly simplistic.

My point.

Peregrinus wrote: »

We all know, for example, people under 18 who are intelligent, informed, politically aware and would make excellent voters. Similarly, we all know people over 18 who will vote asking themselves only one question; what's in this for me?

"We all know?" I find these generalizations problematic.

Peregrinus wrote: »

But the fact remains that the population under 18, taken as a whole, lack the information, maturity, judgment, etc to make a positive contribution to the common good by voting, while the population over 18, for the most part, does have that degree of information, maturity, etc.

"But the fact remains...?" Contrary evidence? Age 18 and under survivors of school shootings at Florida's Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School question (over 18) politicians in their local Florida government and Washington DC on national media and by physical protests, questioning their judgement, as well as the influence the NRA and other pro-gun lobbies may have on those judgements, while students continue to die over-and-over again in America in school shootings too numerous to list here.

Peregrinus wrote: »

In short, the fact that a line is a fairly fuzzy line doesn't mean that there's no line. And drawing an over-simplistic hard line through a fuzzy area may still produce a better outcome than drawing no line at all.

Needs scientific empirical support before drawing line in sand?

mzungu

Fathom wrote: »

My point.


"But the fact remains...?" Contrary evidence? Age 18 and under survivors of school shootings at Florida's Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School question (over 18) politicians in their local Florida government and Washington DC on national media and by physical protests, questioning their judgement, as well as the influence the NRA and other pro-gun lobbies may have on those judgements, while students continue to die over-and-over again in America in school shootings too numerous to list here.

An argument to be made that if the lives of Under 18s are at risk in schools due to gun laws, then it is only right they get to vote on the matter?

Black Swan

Fathom wrote: »

"But the fact remains...?" Contrary evidence? Age 18 and under survivors of school shootings at Florida's Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School question (over 18) politicians in their local Florida government and Washington DC on national media and by physical protests, questioning their judgement, as well as the influence the NRA and other pro-gun lobbies may have on those judgements, while students continue to die over-and-over again in America in school shootings too numerous to list here.

Case study level of data analysis? Some utility, but not able to generalise to a larger population?

Fathom

mzungu wrote: »

An argument to be made that if the lives of Under 18s are at risk in schools due to gun laws, then it is only right they get to vote on the matter?

Complex determination. Should be empirically based. Not upon political, religious, cultural or similar subjective opinions. Another example. In America at age 18 you can vote, sign legally binding contracts, and join the military (and die for your country), but you cannot have a beer. Should "age of consent for social media accounts" be also based upon such arbitrary and capricious "lines in the sand?"

Black Swan wrote: »

Case study level of data analysis? Some utility, but not able to generalise to a larger population?

You got me there!

mzungu

Fathom wrote: »

Complex determination. Should be empirically based. Not upon political, religious, cultural or similar subjective opinions.

Another example. In America at age 18 you can vote, sign legally binding contracts, and join the military (and die for your country), but you cannot have a beer. Should "age of consent for social media accounts" be also based upon such arbitrary and capricious "lines in the sand?"

Indeed, if you can die for your country the least you should be able to do is have a final beer without breaking the law. Any law that is implemented must make sense and also be realistic in its aims.

Black Swan

Rigorous empirical research may suggest age of consent?

Peregrinus

Black Swan wrote: »

Rigorous empirical research may suggest age of consent?

Clarify, please. Are you asking whether rigorous empirical research suggests what the age of consent should be, or whether rigorous emperical research suggests merely that there should be an age of consent?

And, in either case, consent to what, exactly? Are we still talking about an age limit below which someone shouldn't be permitted to have a social media account (why in God's name is that framed as an "age of consent", anyway), or about age of consent in the more usual sense, the age at which a consensual sexual relationship is not considered a crime.

Fathom

mzungu wrote: »

Indeed, if you can die for your country the least you should be able to do is have a final beer without breaking the law.

Shows arbitrary and capricious nature of age of consent laws.

mzungu

Fathom wrote: »

Shows arbitrary and capricious nature of age of consent laws.

Increased digital media education in schools and awareness campaigns might be a runner alongside increased vigilance. Having Twitter or Facebook as over 18s or over 16s may not be workable for a multitude of reasons.

Black Swan

I am uncertain if the OP has defined "age of consent." In terms of my reference to age of consent, I am referring to state and federal laws that specify a certain age before a citizen is allowed to do something; e.g. sign legally binding contracts, enlist in military, drink alcohol, etc.

(Sorry about my delay in responding, but I have been having access problems to boards, and HQ has been working with me to solve them.)

beauf

The problem is all the companies in the chain from software to hardware and media producers have removed all means to control access to content from the end users.

Take Netflix their profiles have no pin. Most age related filtering and controls across all services are abysmal and getting worse. Even TV doesn't always have age ratings

Unless that changes you can't control it.

Fathom

mzungu wrote: »

Having Twitter or Facebook as over 18s or over 16s may not be workable for a multitude of reasons.

Too late. The genie's out-of-the-bottle.

beauf

Fathom wrote: »

Too late. The genie's out-of-the-bottle.

Well no one is interested putting it back.

Fathom

beauf wrote: »

Well no one is interested putting it back.

Longer it's out. Harder to put it back.

beauf

I don't think education will work either. They have deliberately confusticated and hidden the privacy and data collection controls and also constantly re arranged them. Specifically to make them impossible to control.

Besides which there isnt the technical knowledge in schools or with parents to get over that hurdle. Most IT professionals are baffled by then also.

mzungu

Black Swan wrote: »

I am uncertain if the OP has defined "age of consent." In terms of my reference to age of consent, I am referring to state and federal laws that specify a certain age before a citizen is allowed to do something; e.g. sign legally binding contracts, enlist in military, drink alcohol, etc.

(Sorry about my delay in responding, but I have been having access problems to boards, and HQ has been working with me to solve them.)

Good point. I was working off the French case, where the permission off ones parents is needed under 16. Possibly this might be something rather different to being the legal age to drink as it appears the parents are taking on the responsibility for signing off on their children's info (potentially) being used.

mzungu

beauf wrote: »

I don't think education will work either. They have deliberately confusticated and hidden the privacy and data collection controls and also constantly re arranged them. Specifically to make them impossible to control.

Besides which there isnt the technical knowledge in schools or with parents to get over that hurdle. Most IT professionals are baffled by then also.

Education as means to understand media more is a good idea. You won't be able to do much about the privacy data part of things, but for more everyday web browsing you could. In the past it allowed young adults to critically examine the magazines and adverts targeted towards them more. On the digital front little has changed, it is a different medium, but the same messages are being thrown at them.

Fathom

Add to above. Lots of kid crackers. Find holes. Workarounds. Proxies. Etc.