EU countries will be able to stop kids under 16 from using social media without permission

[SansVarnic]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/eu-countries-will-be-able-to-stop-kids-under-16-from-using-social-media-without-permission/ar-BBnBdg3

By James Vincent on the Verge.

 

Well I found this interesting and how they plan on getting this to work should be fun.

I am sure somebody will find a work around and pass it on to kiddos to download, plus all the fake workaround to go with it.

 

Lawmakers from the European Union have settled a debate over the digital age of consent with a compromise: each country can decide for itself. This means that EU member-states will be able to set their own limits between 13 and 16 years for how old children have to be before they can sign up for social media services like Instagram, Facebook, and Snapchat without parental permission.

 

The new regulations are scheduled for official confirmation by the European Parliament this Thursday (usually a formality), with EU member states given two years to either adapt existing laws or pass new ones to meet the required standards.

 

Honestly I can see a good reason to have this, I have young children myself but I will have final say on their usage either way but for parents that don't pay attention I guess this can be a decent fill in to keep kids from being preyed upon. It is big government either way so I have to say I am  not for it in that regard.

 

Thoughts?

[Aytex]

this is good news.

 

theres is way too much fucked up shit on social media

[Amazingasian]

My mom tried to follow me on Instagram.  I blocked her.  Am I a bad person?

[babadoctor]

This is not how you deal with this type of shit

 

 

this is good news.

 

theres is way too much fucked up shit on social media

you mean like filthy frank?

[babadoctor]

My mom tried to follow me on Instagram.  I blocked her.  Am I a bad person?

no

your mum is a normie

[Aytex]

This is not how you deal with this type of shit

 

 

you mean like filthy frank?

[SkilledRebuilds]

Just like Mums who buy their 10-15 yr old kids COD or other 15+ material year after year, it won't make a difference to some families, the parents will let their kids do whatever.

[Fulgrim]

I'm all for this. Also, kids under 16 should NOT be allowed smartphones/iphones etc. Nokia should do a newer model of the 3310 and it should be the only model kids should be allowed to own.

[AresKrieger]

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/505420-potential-new-laws-regarding-under-16s-internet-use-in-europe/

Something is wrong with my text box but repost (though yours is actually done properly)

[vanished]

Thoughts?

 

I think it's ridiculous.  Here's just 2 reasons I came up with:

1. There are much worse things on the internet than sites that let kids stay connected with their friends.  If you've got a problem with them using facebook, they probably shouldn't be on the internet at all, and that's a whole other issue
2. How do they expect to police this?  You can't tell me that there isn't already anyone "under age" using these services.  Raising the limit is only going to increase the number of "illegal users"

[itsmyjobtoknow]

This...needs to be everywhere in the world and enforced because social media is just not worth the trouble for a teenager under the age of 16.

 

I've been using social media since I was 13...and the amount of bullshit I've seen and been through on social media....its disturbingly horrible. 

 

Peer pressure group to discriminate against one particular person, ignorant argument and comments, posting photos that may make or break someone's reputation and potentially attract unwanted attention.

 

Not to mention kids these day SHOULD NOT have freaking iPhone 6s or the latest and greatest 500 USD and above phone. That....is just pointless, why in the hell do they need a 500 USD phone? If you ask me, they all should be using a Sony Ericsson w810A CandyBar phone.... as that was my favorite phone from early teenage years up to now.

[captain cactus]

There's simply no way to enforce this. Kids already lie about their age and nothing can stop that from happening.

[TheMcSame]

A little update for you: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35110474

 

 

Might come back later and do a bit of editing so you don't need to click the link to get the gist of it, but I only have time to post the link right now.

[Alurit]

Just like Mums who buy their 10-15 yr old kids COD or other 15+ material year after year, it won't make a difference to some families, the parents will let their kids do whatever.

it's EU, there's no 15+, it says PEGI 18 on the box in europe that is the M rating/MA 15+ in europe, only ghosts got 16 (t for teen in the us/ m for moderate impact in australia) for some reason

[SkilledRebuilds]

it's EU, there's no 15+, it says PEGI 18 on the box in europe that is the M rating/MA 15+ in europe, only ghosts got 16 (t for teen in the us/ m for moderate impact in australia) for some reason

I should have posted better.....

 

Meant to be a generalized example of how Parents don't enforce shit on their kids anyway.

Which sad to say is all too common.

[louisoft01]

this is coming from somone who blocks their mum  on facebook but not their dad. So take it lightly.

I am 14 and live in the UK.

I would just lie about my age if they upped the age.

All it will do is cause kids to rebell by lieing about their age

[spartaman64]

I'm not sure how they are going to get this to work but I think it's a good idea to let parents know what their kids are up to on the internet

[PCBjon]

They should block Facebook altogether

[babadoctor]

 

I think it's ridiculous.  Here's just 2 reasons I came up with:

1. There are much worse things on the internet than sites that let kids stay connected with their friends.  If you've got a problem with them using facebook, they probably shouldn't be on the internet at all, and that's a whole other issue
2. How do they expect to police this?  You can't tell me that there isn't already anyone "under age" using these services.  Raising the limit is only going to increase the number of "illegal users"

 

like porn

[Sauron]

Yep, that's definitely a good thing.

 

 

I think it's ridiculous.  Here's just 2 reasons I came up with:

1. There are much worse things on the internet than sites that let kids stay connected with their friends.  If you've got a problem with them using facebook, they probably shouldn't be on the internet at all, and that's a whole other issue
2. How do they expect to police this?  You can't tell me that there isn't already anyone "under age" using these services.  Raising the limit is only going to increase the number of "illegal users"

 

 

1) At least it's a start, and if there was a way to keep kids away from all the bad stuff without blocking access to the useful stuff too, I'd be all for it.

2) Trying to hide your real age from facebook partially defeats the purpose and it's not as easy as it may seem. Add to that the potential of being fined, and parents might start being more careful about what their kids do on the internet. Besides, even if it reduces the overall number by just 1 or 2% it may still have been worth it.

[Yoinkerman]

I don't know how they'd enforce it but since social media revolves around exploiting their users for sellable analytics and information, exploiting children for these things is terrible.

[Bensemus]

Isn't it already part of the ToS that you need to be 13 or something on sites like FaceBook?

[Citadelen]

I'm all for this. Also, kids under 16 should NOT be allowed smartphones/iphones etc. Nokia should do a newer model of the 3310 and it should be the only model kids should be allowed to own.

I contest! I quite like my phone, even tough I don't use it that much.

[vanished]

I don't know how they'd enforce it but since social media revolves around exploiting their users for sellable analytics and information, exploiting children for these things is terrible.

You might be on to something... I wonder if this new law is actually intended to crack down on the companies, rather than the kids/parents.

[vanished]

Yep, that's definitely a good thing.

 

 

1) At least it's a start, and if there was a way to keep kids away from all the bad stuff without blocking access to the useful stuff too, I'd be all for it.

2) Trying to hide your real age from facebook partially defeats the purpose and it's not as easy as it may seem. Add to that the potential of being fined, and parents might start being more careful about what their kids do on the internet. Besides, even if it reduces the overall number by just 1 or 2% it may still have been worth it.

 

But is it really worth it?  Should we rate and implement things like this solely based on if they will or will not make any measurable difference, or should the impact they have be considered; should we only implement things like this if the positive outweighs the negative by a sufficient amount?