Enforcing a ban also presents additional privacy risks, experts add.
Under the Australian law, platforms looking to verify a user’s age can either request copies of identification documents, use a third party to apply age estimation technology to an account holder’s face, or make inferences from data already available such has how long an account has been held.
Michael Geist, a professor and Canada Research Chair in internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa, said that potential data collection alone is concerning and would need to apply to all social media users regardless of age to be effective.
He noted that it can be difficult to discern between a 15-year-old and a 17-year-old by appearance alone, whether in person or online through biometrics systems.
“So what those systems tend to do then is dig deeper,” he said. “They look at who your friend circle is or the language that you use when posting to try to make a better guess.
“Well, now they’re literally engaging in increased surveillance in order to try (to identify your age), and raising even more privacy concerns in order pull this together.”
As well as privacy laws, another route would be limitting the control the companies have over what you are shown. If these social media companies are going to exert control over everything the user sees, they should be responsible for the consequences of what is shown. After all, if a TV station broatcasts a show that, for example, encourages suicide, it would obviously be held responsible. If social media is dictating what a user sees on the platform rather than the other way around, whats the difference?
The problem is who decides what is and is not acceptable content. The government? The community? The moderators? All of those things could be bad.
Theres plenty of different ways to handle it, but the simplist would be based on if avoidable harm can be problem in a court of law. If a social media site shows someone a parade of content telling them to kill themselves, they should be able to be held liable, whereas right now the currators recommending negative content and hiding positive are held as innocent bystanders.
So harm is distributing anything labeled antifa?
I mean, if the courts will actually convict for that, you’ve got a much bigger issue than social media - at that point the government in question can arrest anyone whenever they want.
It’s getting close to that in the US, and it’s already there in Russia and China.
Yes, but again, at that point the government will prosecute anyone who opposes them. Giving corporations a couple minor defenses doesn’t remove the government’s power, it just helps shift the blame to the masses rather than large corporations who are likely complicit with the government.
Right now the social media companies are deciding, which is why alt-right, pro ana and other reprehensible things end up ‘trending’ because they have engagement and are therefore profitable
Instead of, you know healthy things.
Don’t worry about it, now the alt-right Christo-facists control the Internets on ramps, and will “protect the children” from the “propaganda” of the “atheist/gay/communist/liberal agenda”…