Big tech tend to ignore regulations and just opt to pay fines as a cost of doing business. I don't think it's a zero-sum solution of one or the other.
943
desba33473 days ago
+554
Then make the fines big enough that they can’t or won’t want to pay
554
Iwantedthatname3 days ago
+337
F*** fines. Arrest the CEO.
337
Alpacapalooza2 days ago
+195
It might sound like hyperbole to some but really, this.
Car execs went to jail over Dieselgate and I'm pretty sure that had quite the impact.
And it's not like we haven't seen willing whistleblowers in the social media space. Everyone knows they're predatory as f***.
195
I_call_Shennanigans_2 days ago
+42
It should be a slam dunk to arrest both Mark and Elon. They are obviously criminals in all sorts of ways.
42
HisaAnt2 days ago
+9
I think most of us are in agreement except for the few idiots who think non-violent crimes "aren't that bad" and "don't deserve jail time." Not all non-violent crimes are equal in severity. Big Tech/corporations that hold a big control over public infrastructure and culture should be held to a higher standard.
Naturally, that means their CEOs should be arrested and jailed if they are pushing for policies that are directly harmful to society's culture (misinformation, radical propaganda, promoting civil unrest) or infrastructure (data centers ruining small towns, massive water consumption). Those should be considered crimes against humanity considering how massive the scale is.
It's insane how many people defend these CEOs just because they're "non-violent". Like, if they aren't directly stabbing someone then it doesn't count. Even if they're indirectly ruining or causing the death of many lives. People like Elon and Mark should be jailed for life. Put them on the same level as mass murderers because they are.
9
Wondrous_Fairy2 days ago
+9
The US used to do that back in the 90s with entire companies having the CEO and everyone under them just sent off for 10-20 years if the corruption was big enough. Basically the corporate version of the classic Mortal Kombat spine pull. Then.. they just stopped doing that I guess.
9
TheSpecialApple3 days ago
+58
the problem beyond this however is enforcement, and ensuring whatever regulation isn’t lazily being worked around.
58
Hvarfa-Bragi3 days ago
+76
Show up to datacenters and boardrooms with SWAT.
There are solutions.
76
Athinira2 days ago
+5
Boardrooms are located in the USA. Unless the EU plans to be invade, there won't be any "showing up". America isn't gonna do anything about it.
Datacenters might be owned by someone else, and used by many companies at the same time. Are we gonna confiscate AWS hardware (owned by Amazon), because another tech company is being d_cks, and also simultaneously sabotage hundreds if not thousands, of EU businesses or public institutions, that rely on the same data centers? Short answer: No, we aren't.
5
Zncon3 days ago
+6
It's hard to do when the regulations happen slowly and are then fixed in time, and the companies have the ability to continuously change their process. It's the same way that so many questionable 'supplements' are sold in US gas stations.
The law takes years to ban a specific chemical or process, so the company making it just tweaks things to avoid whatever the ban affects and they keep on going without a hitch. I have no inside knowledge but I'd be shocked if they didn't have multiple formulas tested and ready to release the moment something gets banned.
6
Zanadar3 days ago
+11
Do you really think governments don't want to? The reason the US only ever goes on about trade deficits in terms of goods is because they actually mostly export services.
Trying to regulate Big Tech means directly clashing with their pet government, and before Trump effectively forced the issue, nobody wanted to pick that fight. Which is why we've had years of toothless fines and sternly worded letters.
11
joestaff3 days ago
+54
I hate when fines are just fees. Regulatory bodies need bigger fangs.
54
Nepridiprav163 days ago
+35
> Big tech tend to ignore regulations and just opt to pay fines as a cost of doing business.
Regulation in this context means cracking down on addictive designs (infinite scroll, algorithm recommendations..) and targeted advertising. The point is to hit these tech companies where it hurts them the most, their business model (engagement) and fine them a large percentage of their global revenue if they refuse.
Why should 450 million Europeans give up their privacy just because Big Tech is bad at following rules instead of regulating thenshit out of them?
35
isaacfisher3 days ago
+12
I rarely see "good regulation" in tech. It's always some lousy "click to acknowledge" something that people doesn't think twice when it stops them before moving into the site like T&C or accepting cookies. This only enrich some advisories and companies that help to "implement GDPR guidelines" and then some lawyers that are making good money from sending letters to small moms & pops stores with a simple website that doesn't comply with said regulation.
12
trgreg2 days ago
+7
just because we rarely see it doesn't mean it's not possible
7
Dvevrak3 days ago
+2
That is no longer realistic, most of content at the moment contains suggestive voice combined with just right amount of attention grabbing videos, the problem it creates is That it weakens attention span in individuals as they get used to shorter gratification cycles, I will not be surprised if gets cracked down even more,
I do not really get your privacy statement, Social media is social media its public space, most people all ready gave big tech their names and what not willingly ? Or you mean the authentication process ? That one works like true false and the website you authenticate only gets of are underage or not.
2
Durzel3 days ago
+29
There’s also the fact that any punitive action against US tech companies would be met with the typical reaction from the White House.
It’s funny how the calculus for tariffs and America’s supposed trade imbalance completely ignore US tech supremacy.
29
hackingdreams2 days ago
+6
Big Tech is literally pushing for banning kids online and age verification to *avoid* paying fines for laws like COPPA.
Fines work.
6
Timeline_in_Distress3 days ago
+9
Agreed. Here in SF, we are well aware of how these companies flout the laws.
I think these bans are a positive first step which may then provide the nutrients for lawmaker's spines to grow and act on regulatory proposals presented to them.
9
cedped3 days ago
+13
If companies have the rights of an individual, they also should face the punishment for an individual. Jail time should correspond to the entire revenue during the sentence and if a company gets the death sentence they get nationalized with the shareholders losing all their investment and the top executives jailed.
13
CombatRedRover3 days ago
+15
Pretty sure Citizens United is not binding on Estonia.
15
fiction82 days ago
+3
They don't.
3
grchelp20182 days ago
+2
Its not that straightforward because the shareholders aren't just some rich people but includes pension funds and what not. And a company going down also means a large amount of people now needing to find new jobs. I know one company that managed to get a judge to reduce fines on just that basis. Essentially said that they would declare bankruptcy and shut down the factory if the fine was not reduced and along with some union pressure, the fine amount was massively reduced.
2
Sea-Housing-34353 days ago
+4
Big tech wants simple age verifying regulations where they have to implement it. It helps them collect more data. Not regulating them but just making them verify user age is giving them what they want.
4
GetThatRobot2 days ago
+2
> ch tend to ignore regulations and just opt to pay fines as a cost of doing business. I don't think it's a zero-sum solution of one or the other.
not in europe they havnt. The EU have forced a changes in tech company design and practices.
2
DKHTBH3 days ago
+347
Crazy that half of the comments on this are just "we shouldn't make laws because they will be ignored." Like these regulations would obviously be made with enforcement in mind. And if enforcement is lacking, that's not the fault of the law!
Nevermind the fact that banning kids from social media is a trojan horse for ID verification and the end of anonymity.
347
__Yakovlev__3 days ago
+93
It's scary to see how many people are actually starting to buy into this whole age verification thing. As if children are the only ones susceptible to misinformation and banning them from social media is going to do anything about that.
93
diener12 days ago
+23
It's not about misinformation but rather addiction and the terrible effects on mental health it has. Also, while I agree there are definitely some people pursuing it because they want an end to online anonymity, age verification definitely can be done in a privacy-friendly way.
23
DKHTBH2 days ago
+11
The addictive aspect of social media is the largely the fault of the personalized algorithms and recommendations, and infinite scrolling. If you make it so people have to actually seek out content then the internet would not be much more addictive than television.
11
BurrowBird2 days ago
+21
Propaganda mill has to propaganda mill.
Effective means of regulations and enforcements was always, and will always be the true answer to fixing systemic problems, rather than pure vibes bs.
But doing any of that interferes with the interests of sites like Listnook resting on their laurels like gigantic fatasses.
21
laluneodyssee3 days ago
+238
We should be doing both. Social media undoubtedly has harmful effects, but fining corporations just emboldens to keep doing what they’re doing.
238
Awkward-Customer3 days ago
+44
100%, like gambling, we ban kids from it and regulate it for adults. Advertising and social media algorithms should both be treated similar to gambling.
44
BrandNewDinosaur2 days ago
+5
Totally similar to gambling, intermittent reinforcement paradise up in here.
5
Spra9912 days ago
+4
> social media algorithms should both be treated similar to gambling.
That's completely missing the real issue, which is that Facebook, TikTok, Twitter and Co. have exclusive control over the algorithm in the first place. That is what you need to regulate, i.e. allow third party clients and make any kind of blocking of those illegal, so users can themselves decide how they want to view the messages.
4
Awkward-Customer2 days ago
+1
I'm not sure how I'm "completely missing the real issue". You're just proposing another alternative, which is fine, and actually the approach bluesky has taken.
1
Spra9912 days ago
+3
The problem is that a tiny handful of mega cooperation have complete control over our communication infrastructure thanks to network effects. Everything bad follows from that. If we just add regulation on top, it not only doesn't fix the underlying issue, it makes it *even harder* for any alternatives to form. Your random Fediverse instance doesn't have the lawyers to deal with age verification and other regulation.
3
Nepridiprav163 days ago
+33
If children are legally not there, Big Tech companies have less incentive to build robust safety features for them since tech company can legally claim they have zero child users.
Estonia wants the kids visible so that Big Tech is legally forced to protect them under the Digital Services Act, regulation forces them to constantly monitor and fix harmful algorithms.
Not to mention all the risks that goes with mandatory age verification that risks destroying privacy regulations in EU (GDPR).
33
Timeline_in_Distress3 days ago
+13
That won’t work unless the penalties are severe. What penalty would be strong enough to curb their bad behavior at this point?
They have already demonstrated that they do not operate from an ethical base. There is ample evidence which proves they are willingly trying to addict people to their products. They’ve been tasked with cleaning up their platforms and they have given us lip service and very little action. The tech industry is quite possibly one of the worst, in step with big tobacco and oil, so it’s time to treat them in the same manner.
13
Nepridiprav163 days ago
+9
We in EU already have the rules, we just need to enforce them:
https://edaa.eu/digital-services-act/enforcement-and-penalties/?hl=en-US#:~:text=Penalties%20for%20Non%2DCompliance%20with,The%20intention%20is%20clear.
> Fines can reach up to 6% of the provider’s global annual turnover for failure to comply with DSA obligations. Global turnover, not just EU revenue. The intention is clear.
> Periodic penalty payments of up to 5% of average daily worldwide turnover accrue for each day of delay in complying with DSC orders, interim measures, or binding commitments. Daily accumulation creates powerful incentives for swift remediation.
> Market access restrictions and temporary suspension – This last-resort measure can be applied, following a strict approval procedure requested by the Commission, if the infringement persists and causes serious harm to users and entails criminal offences involving threat to persons’ life or safety.
..
> The tech industry is quite possibly one of the worst, in step with big tobacco and oil, so it’s time to treat them in the same manner.
The difference here is that you can't bypass age checks with tobacco or alcohol as you can with digital age verification systems, like kids using their parents ID's.
So why ditch our privacy rights for something that will be bypassed and the tech companies will then just blame parents by saying: "Our terms said no kids, the parents failed to supervise them".
So we're back to stage one where parents still have to supervise how their kids use social media regardless of the ban.
9
Taubenichts2 days ago
+3
> So we're back to stage one where parents still have to supervise how their kids use social media regardless of the ban.
You mean actual parenting? Why should I take interest in what my kids does, nah.
3
Habadank3 days ago
+6
Mandatory age regulations and GDPR can be fully compliant. Look towards Denmark and the age regulation for buying alcohol online to find a reference.
6
exOldTrafford3 days ago
+4
>If children are legally not there, Big Tech companies have less incentive to build robust safety features for them since tech company can legally claim they have zero child users.
You know laws can be written to close loopholes like this, right?
4
Prior_Coyote_43763 days ago
+2
The incentive Big Tech companies need to fear is a lot of people getting angry at them for being assholes and bringing down populist wrath onto them.
Just throw a couple CEOs in jail now and then. We know they’re all in the Epstein Class and have broken the law millions of times. It’s just a matter of finding their crimes.
2
PlanktonInitial79452 days ago
+8
What populist wrath? Many people didn't even leave Twitter, and it's run by a literal Nazi.
8
Atopos20253 days ago
+29
That's the thing about it though. Big Tech is buying politicians to avoid being held accountable.
It's much cheaper for them to force states and countries to either come up with age verification or to ban kids than it is to suffer fines, because they aren't interested in helping solve the problem. They don't care. They just care about profits.
29
__Yakovlev__3 days ago
+11
Having everyone provide even more data about themselves online also makes them even more powerful.
11
Corodix3 days ago
+48
Spot on. Kids will find ways around such bans, but they can't find ways around regulated social media platforms unless they avoid social media entirely.
48
BradPittbodydouble3 days ago
+14
Companies sure do find ways around ignoring regulations though.
14
LordOfTrubbish2 days ago
+7
>The way to approach this, to me, is not to make kids responsible for that harm [stemming from social media platforms] and start self-regulating," said Kallas, speaking at POLITICO's [European Pulse Forum in Barcelona](https://www.politico.eu/article/european-pulse-forum-2026-live-updates/). The "responsibility is on the governments and on the corporation side," she said.
What? People want kids off social media because it's been shown to harm their development and mental health. It's not supposed to be some *punishment* to "hold them responsible" for anything.
7
Agitated_Web40343 days ago
+20
Fine big tech if they don't comply and in the billions not the millions and if they refuse to comply they don't do business in Europe
20
__Yakovlev__3 days ago
+16
Thats how it should be. Kick meta and xitter out of Europe and replace it with a European alternative that cant easily avoid responsibility for its actions.
16
Agitated_Web40343 days ago
+10
Absolutely they've been more trouble than they're worth, an EU alternative that answers to the people
10
Return_of_the_funk2 days ago
+16
Maybe parents should just be accountable for their children.
16
0bsidian2 days ago
+13
We already lost the battle for net neutrality in favour of business interests. This isn't about protecting children at all, but about forcing personal identification on the internet. Your anonymity on the internet is over.
13
Ben-D-Beast2 days ago
+5
True but regulating these sorts of things is easier said than done
5
frozenpissglove3 days ago
+10
And when they make mistakes you fine them to the tune of billions of dollars at a time. That’s the only way they’ll learn.
10
Good_Restaurant152 days ago
+3
By banning kids from social media they absolve themselves of any responsibility, and shift it to the parents who are now "letting" their kids go online "illegally".
Fascists 'gon fascism.
3
Ghost_Star3262 days ago
+3
Omg this. The problem isn't with kids. It's with irresponsible parents not taking basic action to educate their children and the fact that companies like YouTube and Meta are just fine with letting NSFW ads run rampant on their platforms.
3
Drahngis2 days ago
+4
How about BOTH..
4
therealowlman2 days ago
+6
I mean she’s right. Regulators need to be way harder on tech platforms, the problem is the politicians are idiots and don’t understand how to apply the scalpel.
6
Kyrie_Blue2 days ago
+3
Restrict corporations, not citizens
3
5pin05auru52 days ago
+5
BLOODY ESTONIA WITH ITS PRAGMATISM AND REASONABLE SUGGESTIONS!?!
5
ConnectedMistake3 days ago
+13
How about both?
13
EmbarrassedHelp3 days ago
+18
The problem is that a ban involves mandatory age verification and age assurance. There is no such thing as private or anonymous age verification.
Experts have repeatedly said that age verification and age assurance represent unacceptable risks: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/dangerous-socially-unacceptable-experts-warn-153314818.html
18
archaon_archi3 days ago
+2
I agree.
2
BillNyeIsCoolio2 days ago
+2
This is the real answer.
2
P0pu1arBr0ws3r2 days ago
+2
Get ready for lobbyists persuading Estonia of the opposite!
2
coolcoolcool4852 days ago
+2
They are trying too but they're gonna have to get more strict about it.
2
Unconventional012 days ago
+2
Both should happen and the CEO should pay personally along with prison time.
With great power comes great responsibility.
2
TheRedditHasYou2 days ago
+2
Or we could do both. Social media is brain rot for the developing mind especially, but every other mind too
2
PowerRaptor2 days ago
+2
Hard disagree.
This regulation always turns into surveillance.
It's always pushed for other reasons than actually protecting children, and backed by surveillance industries.
2
bob_chillon2 days ago
+2
Hello.
How is the government regulating what big tech does, turn into surveillance?
2
Hopeful-Suggestion-12 days ago
+2
Yeah i agree
2
stonyb22 days ago
+2
Parents should regulate their kids!
2
yaosio2 days ago
+2
The purpose of banning kids is so everybody has to identify themselves online.
2
AkaiAshu2 days ago
+2
Making Big tech collect age data is literally what they want. Dont do that.
2
Paradox7112 days ago
+2
Both? Both is good.
2
Master35302 days ago
+2
How about parents regulate their kids and you leave the internet alone
2
Talrynn_Sorrowyn2 days ago
+2
I'd sooner just see social media companues like Meta & X/Twitter close down than hand of my government ID to 3rd party comoanies with cardboard security setups.
2
xblackdemonx3 days ago
+5
I couldn't agree more with the article title.
5
Cody6673 days ago
+3
They can both be good ideas, but we can also acknowledge that regulating Big Tech is the far better and more positively impactful of the two ideas, even if not mutually exclusive.
3
Combat_Orca3 days ago
+6
Banning social media is a bad idea, all it leads to is adults handing their ids to tech companies and kids finding ways round it
6
jmurgen41432 days ago
+3
Finally someone is making sense.
3
OvercuriousNeophyte2 days ago
+3
She’s wrong. Europe should be doing both.
3
chemistryplayer2 days ago
+2
How about they do both?
2
Combat_Orca3 days ago
+5
A country that actually has a brain on this nonsense.
5
Philo_Publius17763 days ago
+4
Estonia is correct.
4
grandekravazza3 days ago
+10
Why? You should do both.
10
blind6162 days ago
+6
My issue with "both" is that you need to check every user to ensure they're not children, while children find ways around it (for example a VPN to outside of Europe, which is even more dangerous because data protection laws aren't as strong). This causes potential data leaks as well, as we've seen with the multiple personal data leaks from last year.
Discord leaked IDs of 70 000 users in Oct 2025. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8jmzd972leo
IDMerit leaked over a billion IDs last month: https://www.foxnews.com/tech/1-billion-identity-records-exposed-id-verification-data-leak
Keep in mind these are IDs, leaked in the internet for many scammers to use. My country has had huge national targeted scams since 2020, when a company leaked information such as age, gender and mobile phone numbers.
6
Philo_Publius17763 days ago
+1
I've yet to see a good justification for banning children from social media as an essential decision in itself.
There are problems with social media at present that make it such that you wouldn't want children on it; but is that because the social media is essentially negative for children, or is it because of those circumstances which are inherently separate from social media?
That's what I'm not sold on. And the people pushing these bans are intentionally conflating the two in what is an obviously dishonest way, which makes me even more skeptical.
You could be right. I just don't see the evidence to lead me to conclude you're right.
1
Puzzleheaded-Tap99773 days ago
+2
"Social" media doesn't excist. Its a business model that gets you addicted, takes your data and then bombardes you with ads to make you buy stuff you don't want if you're not on social media. So what's there to regulate? How much you can rig the underdeveloped brains of our youths for financial gain?
2
ghost_n_the_shell3 days ago
+3
This. As well as solidify citizen privacy rights. Although we all know they don’t want to do that either. Well, at least here in Canada. Europe may be better off on that front.
3
Familiar-Weather51963 days ago
+2
> Europe may be better off on that front
No, no we're not unfortunately
2
Heavyweighsthecrown3 days ago
+3
Why not both, both is good.
3
Kewkky3 days ago
+2
No, Estonia. Ban social media, don't continue trying to regulate them. All they do is pay a fine and they STILL come out on top with higher earnings.
2
Island_Monkey863 days ago
+2
All the BS found on social media is toxic for impressionable young minds. That's not even taking in to account the risk of propaganda.
If there was a way to regulate this, I'd very much agree with not banning it.
2
__Yakovlev__3 days ago
+3
I hate this line of thinking so much.
No, all that toxicity is not harmful to "kids". It's harmful to everyone, whether you're young or old. "Will somebody think about the children" is just an excuse for big tech to start asking even more people to provide even more info about themselves online. And people are actually dumb enough to cheer it on.
3
Toruviel_2 days ago
+2
Finnaly a reasonable take on this. People always want east solutions first.
2
Sunsetmargaritas2 days ago
+2
No reason you can't do both.
2
takeda642 days ago
+2
You know what would help greatly?
Legalize jail breaking of the technology (phones, cars, you name it). Make it legal to produce tooling to allow it.
US used tariffs to prevent other western countries from enacting such laws, but since it did it anyway, what's there to lose?
The first country that would do it would shift the power balance and establish themselves as a leader.
This was suggested by Cory Doctorow and it's genius. It shifts power balance back to consumer away from the corporations, and actually it would benefit ordinary Americans as well.
https://youtu.be/P1EKQidRooc?t=3685 (the actual idea is at 1 hour and 4 minutes in)
2
Wide-Equivalent68632 days ago
+2
We should all give this a watch, Cory is awesome and smart.
Also also this: https://keepandroidopen.org/
Alternatives to Android like Ubuntu touch exist, which was given by Canonical to UBports - so it doesn't want your data, although help with porting/creating apps and porting it to more devices would be great, would be so great to see it become a viable alternative to Android or iOS (there's others to like Mobian, GrapheneOS, Sailfish and LineageOS - that last one is most similar to Android and runs well on a Raspberry pi even)
2
nathingz3 days ago
+1
Both.
1
FingalForever3 days ago
+1
The sooner social media is banned for under 18s, the better. Greece is the latest country looking at such (albeit for under 15).
1
Shliopanec3 days ago
+1
b..b.but we need less regulations to have european tech giants how can we survive without our own centi-billionaires??!
1
Mrs_SmithG2W3 days ago
+1
Do both until we get our acts together.
1
m__s2 days ago
+1
Why not both? Social media for kids it's like cancer.
1
Relnor2 days ago
+4
Banning children from social media is a proxy for surveilling YOU since you'd have to verify your age somehow.
Politicians don't actually care about kids, they're in the pockets of Big Tech and Big Tech wants your data. The only way politicians care about kids is the really bad ways you don't want them to.
4
JealousChip84692 days ago
+1
what about both
1
AnomalyNexus2 days ago
+1
Kinda wild how Estonia seems to always be on the ball. Both online impression and visiting in person they're just consistently sane.
1
eternalityLP2 days ago
+1
The issue with regulations is:
a) They are hard to enforce against companies outside the EU
b) The investigations, court cases and appeals take years, meanwhile the damage continues.
So, while in ideal case regulation is better than ban, it may not be true in real world.
1
ant6822 days ago
+1
GDPR is already the answer - it comes with rules that if followed would block the harms spreading to vulnerable and also remove plausible deniability as more informed people will see the content and report it
1
Mr_Stealy_2 days ago
+1
We either win the fight against big tech now or forever bend to their will.
1
Basicyeti8372 days ago
+1
Europe is on the right track. Regulating and controlling big tech is great in theory, but it hasn’t worked thus far and Europe did the next best thing to start seeing actual results.
1
Squornhellish2 days ago
+1
Nobody is banning Big (US) Tech - yet. But I feel that regulators are toothless, their regulations don't bite enough. The fines should be drastically raised and pauses of maybe a month or so for certain services considered if they don't comply with the laws.
1
Mascant2 days ago
+1
The one thing Europe excelles at. Regulating all the shit.
1
FixedFun12 days ago
+1
Estonia is my new favorite country.
1
TuckerCarlsonsOhface2 days ago
+1
Alternatively parents should do their damn job, instead of expecting everyone else to do it for them.
In case anybody is confused, the actual goal is to control everyone, not protect kids.
1
font9a2 days ago
+1
Seriously. Governments are attacking these problems from the wrong end.
1
qnssekr2 days ago
+1
How will European officials get money from big tech if this happens?
1
hackingdreams2 days ago
+1
The sanest voice in the room and it's *Estonia*.
1
Lower_Ad_13172 days ago
+1
Ban it all. Let’s get back to people having to talk to each other face to face or on the telephone.
Think of it as vintage!
1
chargoggagog2 days ago
+1
How about both!
1
Litty_Again2 days ago
+1
Agreed
1
Confident_Dragon2 days ago
+1
"It's just kids." "It's slippery slope to tell that someone will jump on the bandwagon and regulate everyone." And it's already happening.
1
AntiTrollSquad2 days ago
+1
The word is ban, not regulate.
1
mariusherea2 days ago
+1
Europe should do both. Why do people think only one thing can be done by a government?
1
Maratron2 days ago
+1
Both is good. No one under the age of 15 needs social media.
1
megaplex662 days ago
+1
This!
1
CallMeCleverClogs2 days ago
+1
I mean, do both. Regulations with fines, and do not allow certain ages to partake period. Although neither of those are foolproof so do both.
1
Dracogame2 days ago
+1
Banning kids from social media IS regulation of big tech. Not nearly enough, and I get the sentiment, but still. Problem is just the enforcement method.
1
ElTejon_TheDestroyer2 days ago
+1
But then the tech companies just bribe that fat moron in the White House to penalise sovereign nations for trying to regulate them. It’s unfortunately fire to ban kids than make these idiot billionaires face responsibilities.
1
ProfessorPickaxe2 days ago
+1
You can do both
1
Expando32 days ago
+1
Europe wants the state to raise their kids?
Nanny state
1
taotdev2 days ago
+1
How about both
1
pinkfootthegoose2 days ago
+1
banning kids from social media can be part of regulating big tech.
1
Sir-Knollte2 days ago
+1
this is so true we had p*** violence, etc all the time, only when rage baiting algorithms where implemented by big tech, did the whole thing boil over.
1
serpiccio2 days ago
+1
see u dont get it: banning kids IS how u regulate it
1
UltimaTime2 days ago
+1
We really are building a society where double standard reign supreme?
In one hand you have Epstein being protected by local police and military to smuggle girls **around the world for decades**, a pedo for US president and at the other end of the spectrum they forbid antique roman and greek sculpture pictures on Youtube because they have genitals...
And quiet honestly it's pretty obvious that the same kind of individual with heavy complex and complete lack of control toward their sexuality, for whatever reason or personal background, are probably the same like minded individuals behind this double standard.
Can't we put actual mental health checks on whatever regulate our society, instead of relying on who get the most billions, while the vast majority live paychecks after paychecks?
139 Comments