In other words, to use social media you need to provide your ID and trust that it doesn't get leaked. 👍
413
get_homebrewed3 days ago
+40
I thought greece had a system that didn't require giving your ID away?
40
Mminas2 days ago
+41
It has a system that the government ratifies your age, which is essentially a way for the government to track your social media accounts.
But Europe's neutrality laws don't allow that system to be mandatory for software developers, so each platform can also use its own solution.
41
maniacal_cackle2 days ago
+23
> which is essentially a way for the government to track your social media accounts.
Is it? There's ways to do it anonymously.
Although the government can already track your social media accounts - they're all public. In my country it has been ruled that the social benefit ministry for example can snoop your public social media.
23
Mminas2 days ago
+3
The way the government age verification works is by linking your social media account to your SSN/Tax ID. During this process the government identifies and logs that account as being tied to you. You can't do that anonymously. Proving your age requires identification.
The government can't track all your social media accounts since you can easily have alternative accounts or accounts using pseudonyms.
If you have to verify your age on those accounts through the government system it will very much be able to track them then.
Keep in mind that [we're discussing about an administration that spies on everyone near the top](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Greek_surveillance_scandal)
3
get_homebrewed2 days ago
+7
Not at all? Pretty sure it goes through a goverment API, which yes, you have an account in (with your SSN/Tax ID), but there's no need for the api to know the accounts and your association with them, and neither does the app. It just needs to authenticate (on the goverment platform) through your credentials and the api needs to return a "yes this user is old enough"
7
Mminas2 days ago
In order to ask "is this user old enough?" you need to designate "this user".
This is either done by the Social network knowing your ID/SSN or by the government knowing your Social network account.
Otherwise anyone with adult credentials could unlock any number of accounts on behalf of their underage users.
0
RealElyD2 days ago
+8
> In order to ask "is this user old enough?" you need to designate "this user".
>
>
that's not how it works in most of the EU, though?
Our IDs are NFC enabled, so the website just asks the ID via the open source API "is this person 18?" and it answers yes or no. It never gets any other information.
I don't see why Greece couldn't use the same API everybody else is using.
8
get_homebrewed2 days ago
+1
But that problem already exists? Adults can buy as much alcohol as they want for their kids, but the adults have to make that decision.
The platform (social media or goverment) does not benefit from designating "this user", unless there's a law against having multiple accounts, which there isn't.
And if you have "adult credentials" you literally have access to all their tax info, and entire goverment platforms, you don't just give this info away to kids bro
1
Mminas2 days ago
You don't "give it away" you spend 10 seconds unlocking it for your younger sibling.
There is zero chance this is legally enforced in a manner that doesn't log the connection between real-world person and digital user.
0
get_homebrewed2 days ago
+1
Why is there zero chance? It sounds extremely plausible?
And yeah, you can do that, and logging what account you unlocked doesn't solve it?
1
McGrevin2 days ago
+3
This is from another site [here](https://news.sky.com/story/greece-to-ban-under-15s-from-social-media-from-next-year-13529181)
> According to local media reports, Greece's ban is likely to be enforced through a state-mandated app that is installed on all devices.
>The app can block access to social media sites like TikTok, Instagram and Facebook and is already used to stop underage teenagers in the country from buying cigarettes and alcohol.
An app blocking sites does not require knowing specifically which social media profiles are owned by you. The app would know your age via some sort of identification, and then if you are below a certain age it would block any data being sent to/from these social media sites.
3
Mminas2 days ago
+6
Blocking data to specific sites clearly indicates that the app is monitoring your traffic, which is arguably even worse.
6
McGrevin2 days ago
It doesn't really need to be monitoring anything beyond blacklisting a few sites. If you are old enough then the blacklist does not apply. If you are too young then it checks the outgoing address, compares it to the blacklist, and if it matches then it blocks the data. Doesn't need to be anything more than that.
0
Mminas2 days ago
+5
It needs to check every outgoing address to find which one is in the blacklist. This is called monitoring traffic.
Even worse it checks every outgoing address for everyone and only checks the blacklist for minors.
As I said keep in mind that we're discussing about an administration that [spies on everyone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Greek_surveillance_scandal).
5
McGrevin2 days ago
+1
If it's not logging anything then I'd hardly call it monitoring.
1
throwaway779933441 day ago
Proving your age does not require identification. Neither does it require for the government to know who you're proving it to.
Of course, as you correctly mentioned in the other comment, this has the problem that an adult can create accounts for minors. It's better than nothing on my book, though
0
AnalFelon2 days ago
+1
In my country, we have our own version of myspace and everyone needs to have our prine minister in the top 8 m.
1
kyleleblanc2 days ago
+10
Or use Nostr that doesn’t require any ID and can’t be blocked because it’s a protocol, not a platform.
10
thetalkingcure2 days ago
+8
this is the shadiest thing ever, it’s prolly a honey pot honestly for people who have things to hide
8
kyleleblanc2 days ago
-1
Not at all.
Nostr is a decentralized protocol that uses public/private key cryptography like Bitcoin.
-1
superarugy2 days ago
+6
Leaked!? You already willfully give all your personal info to Google and Meta, such as personal data, whereabouts, passwords to sensitive services like bank and finance stuff. Gboard, our mics, camera...
6
1-trofi-12 days ago
+17
In their words, we haven't seen the technical solution of this, and you are just spreading rumours. There are ways to do this without the government giving your data away. It is easy to do.
When you log in to social media for the first time, you get redirected to the government site. You log to the government site, and the government site says that you are above 15, theb you proceed with the rest.
You dont need to get the ID from no one.
17
Banjo-Oz2 days ago
+6
That is certainly not how other countries like Australia and the UK do it, though. The use the OP's "provide ID to dodgy third part party who totally promise to delete it afterwards" (and yet they don't, as proven when Discord leaked in the UK right afterwards).
6
Fritzschmied2 days ago
+7
But that’s exactly how the eu eidas System is supposed to work. And why would a social media platform build a solution for one country if you can build a system that works for the whole of the eu and is standardized over all eu members.
7
1-trofi-12 days ago
+2
I'm not sure about Australia, but UK doesn't have an official ID due to cultural tradition, so it makes sense they outsource this like that.
Greece and other Continental Europe countries have followed a completely different trajectory, and they have e-gov sites that provide identification.
2
Confident_Dragon2 days ago
+4
Why would anyone do this? What benefit would people in power get from this? Are they stupid?
4
1-trofi-12 days ago
-3
Guys, sometimes things dont happen just to harm the little guy and give more power to the elites. Sometimes, their goals aligned vene if they are for different reasons. There are also some people who really would like society to benefit.
E.g, banning smoking in closed areas. It benefits everyone, even if some would say for different reasons.
-3
Confident_Dragon2 days ago
When government literally blocks groups of people from accessing social life, I'll be at least skeptical. Examples I can think of are Nazis segregating Jews before next steps, or authoritarian countries like Russia, China or North Korea. In none of these countries it turned out good in the long run.
You might argue that maybe politicians are aligned with good for the society in this case. That sometimes happens in democracies. But who will really benefit from this? Children? They don't have voting rights, so they don't matter. Their parents? They do have voting rights, but if they cared, why would they gave their children access to social networks in the first place? Best case scenario they are abusing compassion of naive people to get votes and do something good for kids psychology (just ignoring other drawbacks), worst case scenario this is just one of many steps that will follow to limit freedoms of adults too.
0
1-trofi-12 days ago
+1
The government doesn't try to block fully able adults to access anything here, though. If you are angry at that, you might also be angry at the ban of alcohol and smoking for minors, or even drugs for adults.
I agree that the excuse for children can be films, but let's see how they want to implement it first. As I said, there is a technical way to do it without providing personal data to social media.
1
TheOfficialMayor2 days ago
+1
Cause accessing social media causes physical health problems like cancer or impaired adolescent brain development?
1
TheOfficialMayor2 days ago
+1
Yeah sure what could possibly be wrong with logging into a government portal to age verifiy and social media account? 🙄
1
Fritzschmied2 days ago
+2
Theoretically not. If Greece implements the eidas system of the eu correctly which they are required to do so you can just verify your age with it officially without giving anyway any data other than old enough yes or no.
2
GrimHoly2 days ago
+3
Even worse, now the government and companies can monitor who says what, what they are interested in, their usage patterns, their location patterns, etc etc
3
Temporary-Check-15072 days ago
+4
It is supposed to be setup by the parents with an app. Basically an over complicated parental control.
Also we already have id in our phones since 2022~
4
TurgonOfTumladen3 days ago
-16
Get leaked to who? You are providing it to the organization that wants it straight up. This would be like if governments back in the day required you to registered with your organized crime group and provide them your business taxes from the last year.
On man you are all absolute functional infants if you don't understand. Jesus Christ, the call is coming from inside the building
-16
UsedNegotiation82273 days ago
+22
Get leaked to hackers what are you asking ?
22
TurgonOfTumladen3 days ago
-13
The people you are having to register with are the ultimate problem. Be worried about a hacker is like, laughably minor compared to all the data you will be legally obligated to give to private company.
-13
Blubbpaule3 days ago
+12
The Discord hack leaked thousands of government IDs and even location data of minors who used the discord age verification.
12
UsedNegotiation82273 days ago
+15
I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say or what point you are making.
15
thraks3 days ago
+5
I think they are trying to make the argument that you are already giving away your data, so what difference does another piece of data make?
It's a very weird take. Not all data is equal, and Government issued ID is probably near the top of the list of identification you'd like to not make public or have sold to data brokers.
5
Banjo-Oz2 days ago
+1
Exactly. There was a reason it was a huge deal here in Australia when Opus leaked driver's licenses and passports while most other leaks are email and passwords.
1
protostar713 days ago
+4
A passport is slightly different to an email or phone number.
4
Mesphelia2 days ago
man AI is gonna get so much use for fake personal identification.
0
No-Cryptographer74942 days ago
-8
whats the problem almost all info is already on your social media
-8
PizzaLord_the_wise2 days ago
+7
Your likeness? Probably. Your age? Usually. Your, at least general, location? Very often.
Scan/inserted number of your government-issued identification, which could be used for identity theft, fraud, using it to get access to other places that need your ID so that the trail leads to you if they do something illegal? I sure f****** hope you don´t have that on your Instagram.
7
ValeoAnt2 days ago
-8
The government already has your ID
-8
Banjo-Oz2 days ago
+2
Not linked to your online identities though.
2
itchylol7422 days ago
-1
grok generate a fake greek driver's license of a generic 51 year old man
-1
doctorfluffy3 days ago
+66
Nice timing for the announcement, considering the Greek government just received a case file from the EU that implicates 11 active members of Parliament in a massive corruption scandal. Nothing to see here folks.
66
__Yakovlev__2 days ago
+16
Greece also has a huge issue with particularly the younger generation being absolutely fed up with the government.
Something about train disasters killing a whole bunch of young people and those responsible never seeing any repercussions for it.
Interesting how those countries that are dealing with the biggest political unrest are the first to jump on this stuff.
16
A_Poor_Miser2 days ago
"Egad! *Youths*! Quick, do oppression!"
0
LaconicSuffering2 days ago
-1
There was also a big scandal with the government spying on journalists iirc.
-1
__Yakovlev__2 days ago
+1
Not sure about that. But my main takeaway from living there a little more than a year is that people are really f****** pissed l, and rightfully so.
In Thessaloniki I couldn't go out in the streets because they were just completely full. And in Athens it was apparently even worse with the protestors straight up throwing Molotov's at the parliament and at the riot police.
1
Garchomp982 days ago
+2
To be fair, the under-15 social media ban has been a discussion for more than a year. It's not new and it definitely isn't wild enough to be used as a cover for corruption scandals
2
doctorfluffy2 days ago
The news is not big enough to cover the scandal, but the topic itself sparks discussions about child safety and online anonymity. These discussions are absolutely adequate to cover the scandal in the media, at least for a few days.
If you think any public announcement by this PM is made without considering timing and “political points”, you have learned nothing these past 7 years. If his advisors tell him to shut up, he vanishes for days.
This particular ban has been in discussion for years, and it’s still only that - a discussion. They have no idea how to implement it, they have no idea if the EU will agree to their suggestions. The only thing they announced is their plans, and that’s the thing - you get to decide when to announce your plans, and you do it when it serves your public image.
0
achiller5191 day ago
+1
Stop spreading misinformation. Greek government received a case file in order to investigate if those members were involved. The case and the names have been leaked and most of them are jokes. Actually most of the 11 already said “feel free to take me to the court. I have done nothing wrong”
After COVID many Greeks turn into flat earthers mindset and they believe whatever stupid shit they want as long as it’s against the government.
1
doctorfluffy1 day ago
Nice try. The reason they said "take me to court" is because the court case refers to alleged crimes they committed in 2022. With the speed the Greek legal system moves, by the time the cases reach a judge's desk, their transgressions will be forfeit (because of the 5-year rule for misdemeanors). What a flat-earth conspiracy, it has NEVER happened before! Oh wait it literally just did with the previous case file for the same scandal.
0
achiller5191 day ago
+1
Nice “try” to you for trying to spread misinformation once again.
So let me state the FACTS.
Greek law which which from the socialist party gives immunity to all parliament members, so when a judge has ANY case that includes a parliament member, then the judge has to stop the investigation and send it to the parliament to vote if the member gets into a committee of the Greek parliament, then if they decide that the case should be investigated further the member would be sent to the preliminary examination committee and then if they find the member possibly guilty for the case send the member to the court.
Mind you that in order for a parliament member to be sent to court, it ONLY can be done if the immunity is revoked.
These members gave up their immunity on their own.
If you watched the cases you would know that they are a joke. One member being framed for helping a farmer getting 180€, another one because his secretary sent an email to another minister to check if another farmer can get subsidy.
Last of your misinformation is the 5 year rule of misdemeanours. First of all the misdemeanours is 5+3 so 8 and 5 for a felony.
Secondly, the so called corrupt government has risen these years which impacts them, so if they were so corrupt why put themselves in such a bad position?
Oh wait another flat earth conspiracy broken with facts and logic. By the way, do you know how these cases came to the prosecutor? By phone tapping those people’s phones. Sounds familiar mister “scandal”. Most people bitching when a member of a party the like is being phone tapped, but when it’s from another party they are enjoying it.
Or perhaps we should remember last year where more than 3/4 of Greeks were believing that there was an illegal flammable fluid in the train which burned those people in the train crash, which conspiracy theory started by far right Putin lover, along with the other theory that a whole carriage was vanished.
You people are embarrassing yourselves and you can’t even see it flat earthers. Careful not to fall from the edge dumbass
1
In-All-Unseriousness3 days ago
+118
The death of anonymity online is coming for us all. Good luck protecting your democracy when politicians start arresting people who oppose them on social media.
118
Frequent_Guard_99643 days ago
+28
There are ways - for example in Germany we have a digital passport, you have to scan it with a NFC reader to access digital government or external services. It can be configured to only read if the person is older than 15 or not and give access or deny by this, anonymously, no name or anything else and I think that’s where we are heading and I personally don’t see a problem with that, if it works accordingly and so far from my experience it does.
28
Saturnalliia2 days ago
+11
So how do they know the person using the digital passport is over the age of 15 if there isn't any personal identification tied to it?
11
pilzenschwanzmeister2 days ago
+19
It just says "Over 15".
19
1-trofi-12 days ago
+13
Because the chip doesn't give all the details. It says above 15 verified, and you are done. If the chip from the passport says it, then it is ok. If you are asking about gake passports, well, we are talking about another issue.
13
Saturnalliia2 days ago
+4
But there's still a paper trail from your government issues ID to this passport right? So Facebook might not know your personal identification but the government would still be able to track your online accounts. That's marginally better but you're still not anonymous.
4
1-trofi-12 days ago
+1
This would require Facebook to provide the information by saying identification 75747477372 loved for this account, but if they do that, they are already sharing all your chats, photos, and friends so you sre identified
1
A_Poor_Miser2 days ago
+4
Yeah, Facebook already does that. Anything you upload is mined and sold.
4
Frequent_Guard_99642 days ago
+7
basically how it works:
- App/Services requires you to login via a gov ID (passport)
- you scan it via your phone or computer
- the chip inside the passport knows your age, via programming the service can retrieve part of your data but anonymously - something like „Return Yes / No“ to the query if the user‘s age is 15 or higher
- without knowing more about you the service verifies your age and allows you to use the service and ties it to your account; never need to verify anymore
7
xternal72 days ago
+6
> you scan it via your phone
Note that this typically doesn't work on rooted phones, and on Android forks that aim to preserve your privacy (e.g. GrapheneOS).
You also have to trust the government service that verifies your age will not be used by the government to track your online activity.
Shit system / shit system.
6
CheeseDoodles12342 days ago
+3
if you have a functioning, transparent government then it's easy to confirm.
3
__Yakovlev__2 days ago
+2
Yeah these people are so f****** dumb for believing this isn't a mere stepping stone to something much worse.
2
Haru1st2 days ago
+4
This sounds so infinitely abusable, I’m surprised an administration with a with a single working brain among them voted it in.
4
Saturnalliia2 days ago
+4
So there's still a paper trial to your government issues id? This might hide your ID from companies but the government can still track your online accounts. So anonymity is dead none the less.
4
TT_Sharki2 days ago
+3
Why would you think that?
1. The government gives you an ID with a chip, that chips knows your age, it is saved locally.
2. You wanna register with some social media website, that websites must check your age, hence you scan that chip in your ID via NFC. The query just asks for the age, no other personal information and runs 100% between the social media website and your ID, the government is out of the loop. Its just like a bartender reading your ID but only your age is visible. To prevent multiple accounts being made with one ID you´d have to pass not only the age but also some identification number but you can make that one separate from the one the government uses for you, i.e. Facebook knows you as 123 and the government knows you as 456. Obviously you have to encrypt it well but thats just a technical question.
3
Tobix552 days ago
+3
> To prevent multiple accounts being made with one ID you´d have to pass not only the age but also some identification number but you can make that one separate from the one the government uses for you, i.e. Facebook knows you as 123 and the government knows you as 456. Obviously you have to encrypt it well but thats just a technical question.
This is the part i have a problem with personally. Why do they need to do that, just let people create multiple accounts with the same id.
3
Saturnalliia2 days ago
+1
The problem is you can't have a government issued ID assigned to you to verify your age and also have the social media sites ensure that the ID isn't being impersonated without keeping track of which ID's are assigned to which person. You can encrypt it, use a public key, allow pseudonyms, whatever you want... but if you want to both ensure that the user is age verified and that the person creating the account is the true record holder of the ID you need a key-value relationship between a government record and that online account.
It's marginally safer from leaks because it secures the user from having there online information leaked if the website is compromised but by design you're no longer anonymous to the government if they legally or otherwise decide to coerce the site to give up there user information.
In essence, you might be anonymous to the public but non redundant age verification ID's need to be robust and if they're sufficiently robust you're no longer anonymous from the government.
1
TT_Sharki1 day ago
+1
That is just not true. That ID can hold many different identification numbers, one for the government and several others for different online services. And the government does not need to know all of those other IDs. It´s seriously just a technical question of encryption.
Other than that: I would even be OK with one ID being able to create multiple accounts on one website, that would still prevent 12 year olds from having an instagram or TikTok account. There will remain some stupid parents who lend their ID to their kids in order to create an account but you can never prevent that.
1
Saturnalliia1 day ago
+1
The only way I could see this working is if you had a physical government issued ID that only stores whether you're over the age of 15 and that this government issued card can be loaded with multiple account keys the user can add to the ID that's password protected.
But that still wouldn't stop a 15 year old kid allowing all his buddies to make Instagram accounts with his over 15 ID card.
1
__Yakovlev__2 days ago
+4
Indeed. These people keep flaunting it as some privacy friendly alternative. But you have to be really stupid to believe the government isn't still able to track that data.
4
Haru1st2 days ago
+4
Says the man with no PII left to lose.
4
__Yakovlev__2 days ago
+2
>no name or anything else
Yeah Yeah thats what they keep telling you. You're f****** naive as f*** if you actually believe that.
2
5pin05auru52 days ago
+2
"What could possibly go wrong?"
Etc.
2
CaliforniaCosmist2 days ago
+2
Truly wild thing to say because German politicians *regularly* go after their critics online.
2
Fritzschmied2 days ago
+1
You guys managed to even make a digital Passort physical. Nice one. Greetings from Austria where we just have an app for that.
1
UpsetKoalaBear2 days ago
+3
In 2021, [various leaks came out from facebook detailing the results of internal research studies:](https://archive.ph/ekHT1)
> What researchers found was often far from positive. Time and again, they determined that people misused key features or that those features amplified toxic content, among other effects. In an August 2019 internal memo, several researchers said it was Facebook’s “core product mechanics” — meaning the basics of how the product functioned — that had let misinformation and hate speech flourish on the site.
>
> “The mechanics of our platform are not neutral,” they concluded.
If anyone thinks social media has their best interests at heart, they’re wrong. Companies actively push divisive content specifically because they found it increased engagement.
The death of democracy already happened because of social media.
3
vriska12 days ago
+4
Push back on this hard!
4
Old_Software85462 days ago
You must be a fool if you thought there was any anonymity in the first place in the big social media sites (fb,ig,etc)
0
itchylol7422 days ago
There is anonymity if you take proper OPSEC measures like using Tor or a VPN, giving them a fake name and birthday, fake photo, etc. Lack of anonymity is due to people not knowing how to protect their privacy
0
Old_Software85462 days ago
+2
Wrong. You're not going to access mainstream social media with fake identities, and especially tor. Meta products such as FB, IG have very very strict checks against that and if you're flagged by their system they make you verify your identity, this has been a thing long before.
2
itchylol7422 days ago
grok, generate a fake ID of a 33 year old man named "John Derrick"
0
Old_Software85462 days ago
+2
ok gl not getting flagged with your VPN and fake identity larper
2
itchylol7422 days ago
+1
getting flagged doesnt matter when there is no cost to failing
1
xX609s-hartXx2 days ago
-3
Oh no, not the social media! What will we ever do without that shitstain on human history! If you want to get something done you have to get actually involved instead of just reposting c*** on facebook and twitter.
-3
Comprehensive-Ear2833 days ago
Blessed be the fruit.
0
itchylol7422 days ago
Come and take it. Making laws is easy. Enforcing them is really f****** hard. They couldn't stop online piracy despite trying for 25 years
0
achiller5191 day ago
Yeah because there’s nothing more democratic than insulting human beings and hide anonymity to avoid legal consequences that were established decades ago.
In Greece we have a saying about democracy:
“Your rights end where another person’s begin”
0
iClips32 days ago
-3
Anonymity on social media =/= anonymity online. If people are talking shit about my government on social media, it would be good to know if they're a Russian agent or not for example.
Having a check on social media is a good thing, not a bad thing. Preferably without having to provide our passports to US companies, but rather by having our own government confirm if I am who I am or not.
-3
Right-Telephone73873 days ago
-6
We still have listnook i guess.
-6
UsedNegotiation82273 days ago
+16
You don't think we will have to provide ID soon in order to see anything "nsfw" ?
That's how it will start.
16
DarthGhengis2 days ago
+15
"ThInK oF tHe ChIlDrEn" arguments incoming.
15
itchylol7422 days ago
+1
grok, generate an id of a 70 year old man
1
Haru1st2 days ago
-1
I think Listnook may lose one or two users over such a measure. Can’t imagine the sheer magnitude of what these corporations must be getting paid in the short term to so willingly shoot their future prospects in the foot, without even lobbying against such measures.
-1
Crafty_Aspect81223 days ago
+120
The goal is data collection, populism and authoritarianism. Not real solutions for anything.
This law is lobbied for by tech companies to technically illiterate politicians.
120
Kaarothh2 days ago
-1
In other words, back to slavery.
-1
Haru1st2 days ago
+8
Not exactly. More liiike… Serfdom.
8
unidentifiable2 days ago
Hurrah for technofeudalism.
Thank god guillotines don't need a subscription. Everyone in a powdered wig needs to be retaught history.
0
ControlAltRestrain2 days ago
-1
Read the anxious generation. It's what started all of this. I'm a massive supporter of the social media ban
-1
unidentifiable2 days ago
+3
These rules are stupid.
They have two choices, either the easily-bypassed pron-preferred "Click this button to confirm you're over " or they go with the UK method of invasively tracking you online, effectively enabling them to monitor everything you say and do.
Even if they succeed, kids will just find other ways of communicating. Are YouTube comments "Social Media"? Is Discord? Is Slack? Is Teams? I grew up on IRC and MSN Messenger, chatting with friends since I was 10. We found a way.
3
canadian19872 days ago
+2
> YouTube comments "Social Media"? Is Discord? Is Slack? Is Teams?
Those are all social media. youll need your id to comment on listnook too
2
unidentifiable2 days ago
Well that's my point. Is email social media? ... is **letter mail**?! technically mail is a form of media, and it's social by nature; there's a two-way communication process there.
"What is social media" is exceedingly poorly defined. The current ... I hesitate to call it a definition... but the current definition largely centers around the likes of Facebook, Insta, and TikTok. This means teens will just migrate to non-regulated forms of social media, and these bans are about as useful as holding a sieve under a waterfall.
Ban TikTok? Fine, we'll hang out on Tumblr. Ban Tumblr? Fine we'll hang out on Whatsapp. Ban Whatsapp? Fine we'll hang out on Bluesky. Ban Bluesky? Fine, we'll go to Instagram. That's banned too? OK we'll hang out on Slack, Teams, Discord, Listnook, fuckin Steam. All else fails, everyone ends up back on 4chan, IRC, and making posts on the SomethingAwful forums.
Every platform you can name is social by design. That's the core of Web 2.0.
0
ControlAltRestrain2 days ago
+1
If you looked into it, social media in relations to social media ban needs these 4 criterias
1. User-generation context - create original material such as photos, videos, texts
2. Public profiles - have a public and visible profile that others can view
3. networks - where you can befriend people, follow them ect
4. Social feedback mechanism - likes, comments, shares, follower count ect.
So by trying to argue teams and email is "social media" is just purely dogmatic and ones own interpretation based on limited research or knowledge
1
unidentifiable1 day ago
+1
1) Literally describes every form of media. That's the *definition* of media (mediae? medias?). Unless you're distinguishing "user-generated context" from "Ai generated context"?! idk.
2) Also literally describes every form of media, except maybe 4Chan or similar forums where everyone posts as "anonymous" unless specifically chosen otherwise. Would love you to name me a service that doesn't at least have pseudonyms. If we're talking about real names, then the only service that fits this description is Facebook.
3) Literally every form of communication. What's different from "Following" vs adding them to your contact list, or subscribing to an RSS feed, newsgroup, or newsletter?
4) This is the only thing that I could maybe agree on in your statement. Slack, Teams, MSN messenger, IRC, email, etc don't have the concept of "likes", but they absolutely can comment back, follow, and share.
I still maintain my stance - there's no point to these bans - teens will just migrate to whatever service you don't list under your umbrella of terms. If the point is "ban services that have a Like mechanic" people will just switch to Discord and this adds a burden-of-proof mechanic that, as I pointed out, means either the government can easily track you or is easily subverted.
If your point is "ban all forms of communication for teens" then kids will just switch to whatever service you don't ban. Good luck banning IRC or newsgroups.
1
ControlAltRestrain1 day ago
+1
I think you have misunderstood. "social media" must have all 4 of these criteria met. But I don't think that is the point in your argument. Are you against it because you don't see them harm of social media for young people or because you don't think it's enforceable?
and no one is suggesting to ban all forms of online communication for teens, thats not the purpose, outcome, or even a consequence for the ban. I'm unsure on what youre against
1
ControlAltRestrain2 days ago
+1
Get back to me when you've done some research on this so you actually have points to your claim
1
EasyRider_Suraj3 days ago
-28
That's the cost of enjoying the safety of civilization.
-28
Tenk-o2 days ago
+21
Well, no. It's not going to guarantee any kind of civilian safety, data taken this way and sold to these kind of immoral rich billionares has always been used against civilians, especially vulnerable ones, to maintain profits and control.
21
Chasoc2 days ago
+1
Watch the documentary Citizenfour.
1
jardex222 days ago
+5
I'm not opposed to this, in theory.
I work retail, and it was honestly scary to suddenly have everyone asking for Needoh. It wasn't a gradual trend that grew over time. It was a sudden, 100% shift.
Now imagine if the people controlling these algorithms pushed something more dangerous than product placement.
5
Vaglame3 days ago
+38
I see social media as very similar to cigarettes and alcohol: they do things to our dopamine system that we are not always in control of especially at a young age. The same way these substances are controlled for kids I feel like it makes sense to have a similar regulation for social media.
38
UsedNegotiation82273 days ago
+24
The question is about our data.
How do they verify age? To buy alcohol I have to show ID, it's not stored on a server. It's not accessible to bad actors, my info isn't there to be sold to marketing agencies.
How will they verify someone's age while keeping their data secure.
24
1-trofi-13 days ago
+10
This is easily solvable. You just needed someone trusted to verify it . You are rerouted to the government site that already knows your age and you use to e-sing government socuments. log into it and verify who you are.
The goverment site then just responds to the social media site, saying, "Yeah, this user is above 15." There is no need for it to provide you with actual age or name or anything.
10
Ironman16902 days ago
+18
Trustworthy government is an oxymoron, nothing trustworthy about it. This still allows the government to sell your data as to what sites you’re visiting.
18
1-trofi-12 days ago
-1
LoL, you are talking about access to sickly media, and you worry the government will sell your data and not the social media provider, which is their bussiness model.
If the government wanted to sell your date, they would wait to ban social media access to do what? They have your data already.
-1
iClips32 days ago
-6
If that is your worry you should try to get a better government..
-6
Angeronus2 days ago
+2
I won't claim that i know all the technical details behind it, but won't this process create a token that can still tie you to a specific social media account though (on the government's side)? This is during the "this specific user is above 15 so he can create/use this specific social media account" stage.
2
__Yakovlev__2 days ago
Someone trusted (not that such a thing exists in the first place) can still be hit by data leaks.
0
1-trofi-12 days ago
+2
Yes, but then the government already has all your details so what is your point?
2
__Yakovlev__2 days ago
Can't you read? I'm talking about data leaks. That means hackers publishing it online in case you don't understand it. This is already a huge problem.
0
grandekravazza3 days ago
This should be trivial to do e.g. with your bank app, or digital ID app (Poland has that, not sure about Greece). And it only sends the yes/no answer to the request whether your age meets the minimum criteria, doesnt's share any of your details with the requesting page.
0
UsedNegotiation82273 days ago
+7
You think social media sites will have the same level of security as banks?
Or am I misreading what you said.
7
RustyNK3 days ago
+8
I think the idea would be similar to a payment app like Google Pay or PayPal. They have your credit card info. When you use Google Pay or PayPal to buy something online, they arent giving away your CC info. They are using a token system so that your info is never actually shared.
It wouldn't be that difficult to register whatever government number has been given to you to a bank or something. Then they would verify your age to Instagram or whatever, and Instagram would never have any of your actual data.
8
1-trofi-12 days ago
+2
I think you didn't answer the technical side of the issue.
Social media won't get you data from the government site. Essentially, what happens is this.
Web you log into the site for the first time thw site sayd what I need to know your age. Here, take this piece of paper and go to their site to get it signed that you are above 15. You go to the government site, log into it, and it asks, "Do you want to verify this piece of paper since I see you are above 15. You press yes, the paper gets signed, and you give it to the social media site. Now, you log in normally, and the social media site won't get any info. Just a confirmation that you are above 15.
2
grandekravazza3 days ago
+1
The social media site only sends a "question" to your bank about whether you are over 15 years old. The bank "responds" only with a yes/no answer.
1
CucarachaRosarina2 days ago
-2
Es una falsa analogía, mira si vas a comparar el cigarrillo y el alcohol con las redes, no están ni cerca.
-2
Kaarothh2 days ago
+11
Every country at the same time, not suspicious at all. Who owns the world again?
11
Banjo-Oz2 days ago
+3
Exactly. It is really scary how this is happening everywhere at once, all clearly with the goal of doxing as many adults (who need to provide face scans and ID to dodgy third party companies to retain access) and removing internet anonymity. Governments and if corporations have always *hated* the freedom of the open internet and are pushing hard to break that and regain control of the information narrative.
3
UpsetKoalaBear2 days ago
+2
The internet as “free” no longer exists.
There’s a massive difference between freedom of speech and freedom of reach.
The freedom you are defending isn't yours. Instead it’s their freedom to operate without accountability, a privilege they’ve been abusing for years.
If they truly hated the freedom of the open internet, they wouldn't have spent the last decade using it as a tool to control the population.
Cambridge Analytica: 50 million users data harvested without consent to build psychographic profiles for political manipulation.
The UN found that (in 2018) Facebook was fanning the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar. This was because the companies prioritised engagement over safety.
Frances Haugen and the 2021 facebook leaks showed the company knew its algorithms were causing political polarisation and harming teen mental health, but they chose not to fix it because doing so would hurt their growth.
For years, tech giants have spent millions lobbying against privacy laws and child safety regulations, often framing any attempt at oversight as censorship.
(The recent lobbying case before you mention it, that was Meta trying to push it on the OS/app store level because they didn’t want it on their apps.)
We have let private companies have the freedom to destabilise society for ad revenue for this long.
The fact that you are literally parroting what the companies want you to parrot is the scary part.
Before you give me a “slippery slope” argument, my question to you is who do you want in charge? A foreign company with a CEO who doesn’t answer to the population in the countries his platform reaches, or an electable government?
Zuckerberg was asked 3x to appear at a parliamentary inquiry in the UK after Cambridge Analytica and the Brexit campaign, he never showed up. Even Rupert f****** Murdoch showed up to a parliamentary hearing after the phone hacking scandal in 2010.
How is that justifiable? Do you think countries should allow foreign companies to control their politics?
If you want to argue, I’m here for a debate.
2
vriska12 days ago
+3
That why everyone needs to push back hard on this!
3
thortgot2 days ago
-1
The internet is as free as ever. The darknet is literally right there.
-1
TightFlatworm35363 days ago
+17
It should be banned under 25 and above 60. Or even better, let's finish once for all.
17
windingsand2 days ago
+7
While it would never work i agree that elderly people shouldn’t be on there. They have gone back around to being easily manipulated just like children. In most facebook news comments etc old people always have the absolute worst takes and you can tell they gobble up propaganda without questioning
7
Creativator2 days ago
+1
We’ll have to start targeting the specific addictive features, trusting people with drugs because they are adults only goes so far. This stuff gives people mind cancer.
1
ProdoRock2 days ago
+7
Expect under 15 year olds to become experts at getting around that. We’ll probably raise a generation who are vpn native or something.
7
fiction82 days ago
+9
The current generation of teenagers is incredibly tech illiterate. They don't know how to do a damn thing except download apps and navigate them.
Smart phones completely changed how young people interact with technology, slick UIs for everything means they never had to gain an understanding of what was happening under the hood. Many of them don't even know what a t****** is besides "scary illegal thing."
9
itchylol7422 days ago
They will adapt or die (metaphorically)
0
Fritzschmied2 days ago
+1
Then they at least learn how to do it instead of not knowing anything about tech like the current you gens
1
Its_Syxx2 days ago
+1
Crazy idea, let parents raise their kids. This is all an excuse to gather actual adults ID and force it to be linked and stored.
1
Legitimate-Gain4262 days ago
+1
The social media ban has already been linked to data harvesting AI companies. If this has good consequences, it's unintended
1
1d3r1ng3 days ago
Join the club Greece. Kind regards, Australia
0
GonzAnt3 days ago
-9
“Mah data. Mah freedom. Mah anonymity.” All while brain being absolutely cooked on a second to second basis by engagement algorithms. Mind boggling.
These would be the same people pissed at high taxation and tobacco usage restricting laws because it would take away ways to look cool, or how it was all an hoax from pharma or some shit.
-9
iownlotsofdoors3 days ago
+23
then why not regulate the algorithms instead
23
Master_of_stuff2 days ago
+9
Best solution actually- make platforms responsible for the content the algorithms promote and elevate. They’ll still have immunity for uploaded content, search and historical feeds to ensure freedom of speech - but algorithmic feeds & elevation is an editorial decisions (by a programmed algorithm) that platforms can be held accountable for.
9
fiction82 days ago
+2
Because the biggest problem is how ill-equipped young people's brains are for interacting with them, not everyone.
I know this will shock you, but children are not the same as adults.
2
iownlotsofdoors2 days ago
+1
no, actually, i’m pretty sure that algorithms designed to deliberately show you engagement bait and keep you angry 24/7 are bad for everyone, smug listnook man
1
Banjo-Oz2 days ago
+2
Exactly. Because this is all about removing anonymity and "save the children" is a badly disguised smokescreen. If anyone was really concerned about the negatives of social media specifically, they would be going after those companies and their algorithms.
2
GonzAnt3 days ago
-1
Even better. All for it. It will kill the model itself but at this point who cares. You have my vote.
-1
UsedNegotiation82273 days ago
+1
What exactly is boggling your mind, you kinda started rambling.
1
CucarachaRosarina2 days ago
Si tú anonimato y privacidad te importan tan poco, en realidad a vos tendrían q prohibirte las redes e internet. Más cuando usas esa analogía berreta y barata.
0
vriska12 days ago
+1
If you live in Greece contact your MPs here and tell them no one this: https://www.hellenicparliament.gr/en/Vouleftes/Stoicheia-Epikoinonias-Voulefton/
1
slickeighties2 days ago
+1
Why are all the governments doing this one by one?
1
church-rosser2 days ago
+2
BC social media (including Listnook) is brain cancer
2
JJiggy132 days ago
+1
This is nothing but close but not quite. It should be 18 or maybe even 21.
1
Confident_Dragon2 days ago
-3
People secretly hate kids, so they'll clap when they get rid of them from social media, then pretend online that they care about their psychological well being (even though most people don't care at all in any other circumstance, even parents are the ones who give children phones). Most people won't even think about problems this kind of government overreach will cause in the future, because that's too negative, they don't like the vibe.
-3
natural-situation4202 days ago
-2
All countries should do this.
-2
Loose_Skill66412 days ago
-2
good news
-2
Distinct_Occasion2972 days ago
-5
You guys are so f****** dumb, data leak is a tiny risk on the register. Australia has already done this, the UK did it for p***, tech companies hate this law and are actively breaking it in said countries. Meta already knows absolutely everything about you and they are already selling it.
You should be cheering for the regulation of companies that effectively run the world for profit.
-5
Banjo-Oz2 days ago
+6
The f****** dumb ones are those that don't see this has nothing to do with "save the children" and everything to do with requiring adults to ID themselves so they can identify people and remove internet anonymity.
I will never cheer for censorship or authoritarianism. Besides, this is the job of parents not governments... but again, it is just an excuse.
6
Wandering-alone2 days ago
+4
Apparently most parents are lazy fucks that can't parent their children without laws explicitly telling them what not to do.
I find this topic unbelievably frustrating as most parents will just claim their children will be "left out" if they're not on social media as "all kids are".
4
Distinct_Occasion2972 days ago
-1
You are blinded by your own conspiracy. You’re missing the biggest flaw to your argument and that’s everyone already has your ID. Governments have it, companies have pieced it together.
This isn’t a save the children move, it’s governments trying to tackle the growing influence tech has on their people. See America 2024.
-1
osuzombie2 days ago
+1
Its the tech companies lobbying for this stuff. It moves responsibility for moderating their content off of them. There was a whole scandal recently when it came out that meta was behind the laws requiring your OS to know your age.
1
Dull_Cucumber_39082 days ago
It won't work, like it didn't work in Australia.
[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-02-05/social-media-ban-do-under-16s-think-it-is-working/106304064](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-02-05/social-media-ban-do-under-16s-think-it-is-working/106304064)
0
alirobe2 days ago
+3
Yes, kids who were already using social media have been given a reprieve by parents or friends. That doesn't change the fact that this is a long term roll-out, and has promising early signs with younger cohorts. The community is still very supportive; and anecdotally, as an Aussie, I have heard from multiple sources about the positive impact on schools, teachers, and parents with younger kids.
OS-level age verification and other technologies are still rolling out; so it's definitely early days for this sort of intervention. 6news was affected by a lack of nuance in the policy, but regulation always needs tweaking. Changes like these can be rough for the first generation to see the change. In a few years we will see what this all looks like.
https://theconversation.com/early-wins-for-the-social-media-ban-new-survey-claims-but-the-full-picture-is-far-more-complicated-278768
3
Far_Medium_63132 days ago
-1
As a Greek who knows greeks, youre all over thinking. Greeks just reeeeally love to control their children.
It’s so ironic that people in social media are willing to provide any information no matter how personal it is to any stranger regardless if it’s a normal or a criminal and on the other if any government wants to protect little kids they instantly get sensitive about their data
0
kyleleblanc2 days ago
-2
Greece is going to have a hard time when they realize that Nostr exists.
In other news, Nostr is going to see a large number of new users as more countries implement the same social media bans.
-2
Pissed_on_the_world2 days ago
-2
Sure getting sick of these slimy politicians taking everything away from us and not telling us the real reason why they're doing it.
But what's even worse are the ignorant dip shit Listnookors who support this and downvote me like the little bitches they are. You'd think after the pandemic you'd be more aware of scams
-2
RailGun2562 days ago
-1
unenforceable and will only cause inconvenience to people actually of age. besides, its easy to bypass stuff like this. work around will happen, just like we all easily bypassed school network filters growing up.
178 Comments