ListNook

SlightlySublimated Mar 27, 2026 +530

I think its fairly obvious that in the next 10-20 years, there will be 0 privacy on the internet. Not like theres much now, but even the pretense will be gone by then.

530

g0ggy Mar 27, 2026 +196

And all of it legislated by those who are too old to really understand the internet

196

lavender_fluff Mar 27, 2026 +78

They think the internet is only large corporations that can be regulated while in fact any private person can just hook up a c**** raspberry pi to function as a server for anything random. The vast landscape of open source software, especially in the web space, doesn't make any sense for these rules imposed by those legislations. In the early days the internet was made up by just a handful of private forums. Heck everyone can still host their own forum if they want to or use activitypub software for the fediverse for example. The walled garden approach of big corp has been brainrotting the general public's technical literacy successfully for over a decade that people cannot imagine it possibly ever having worked (or actively work**ing**) any other way. It's sad to see.

78

SimoneNonvelodico Mar 27, 2026 +37

I mean part of the problem is that the internet now *is* mostly large corporations. Would have been more useful to just not let them take it over to begin with.

37

Fright_instructor Mar 28, 2026 +4

The early internet was a cornucopia of private and public forums and communities that was paved over by the walled gardens that initially offered the benefit of easing management burden and then completely abandoned user support as soon as they had people locked in. There were thousands and thousands of niche communities for every imaginable interest or hobby, which you can still find the archaeological record of in search result for obscure subjects not scraped by LLM spam sites.

4

godisanelectricolive Mar 27, 2026 +1

I mean I guess if these regulations noce people to leave the walled gardens run by mega-corporations then it could be an unintentionally good outcome.

1

zzzoom Mar 27, 2026 +6

Meta offloading user profiling to the public sector

6

Tal_Star Mar 27, 2026 +1

or want all that information for their own nefarious reasons...

1

Ozy_Flame Mar 27, 2026 +7

True freedom will be creating an air gap between yourself and technology. Or use an alias for *everything.*

7

MindPal Mar 27, 2026 +3

They think I'm crazy in real life for not having social media, or like when people on the internet ask me where I'm from/my name and I don't say

3

[deleted] Mar 27, 2026 +1

The listnook “Warrant Canary” disappeared over 9 years ago

1

SaltyLonghorn Mar 28, 2026 +1

I always just say I'm on Myspace and it always seemed lame so I haven't checked in a while.

1

gotnothingman Mar 28, 2026

listnook is social media

0

Tomas2891 Mar 27, 2026 +17

Privacy was dead when people were willing to post their entire lives on Facebook

17

Tal_Star Mar 27, 2026 +5

How about when they started to willingly carry and install monitoring devices everywhere they go?

5

itszaidbtw Mar 28, 2026 +3

They are willingly being unprivate, doesnt really count.

3

Silver-End9570 Mar 27, 2026 +30

Realistically how much of what you do, read, and watch isn't being tracked in some way, shape, or form? Every website you visit is being tracked by your ISP, every app you use is monitoring what you're doing, when you're doing it, how you're doing it, and how often you're doing it, and that's just your phone and computer. Most smart TV's are feeding watching information back to the parent companies, your phones are/can be used to not only track your location, but potentially see what you're doing or hear what you're saying. The time of no privacy isn't coming, it's already here. And it's been here for awhile, we're just now getting savvy to it.

30

SlightlySublimated Mar 27, 2026 +22

Yeah thats why I said just the pretense will be gone. They're going to get to the point where they'll admit they're tracking all internet users individually instead of trying to lie about it. Really its just going to get more invasive and in your face compared to now.

22

Silver-End9570 Mar 27, 2026 +6

I think it's more insidious than that. It's at the point now where Microsoft is admitting without admitting that they're constantly tracking everything you do when you use Windows. Yeah, they'll tell you that Copilot is super helpful and useful, but what they really want to know is what's on your computer. And I haven't even started thinking about how much the government is tracking all of us either.

6

EngineerNo2650 Mar 27, 2026 +3

Oh, and they know where your car is, some company mapped your house on your robo-vacuum, dozens of apps probably / possibly / potentially are or could be or will be listing to your most private conversations in your car, on your phone, on your smartwatch, your camera, they tired smart fridges to track your purchases but we still use that supermarket membership card for a few cents d*******. Some people even mount surveillance cameras in their houses. A stolen pair of AirPods during the first days of the Russian invasion of Ukraine gave out the location of the Russian troops, and poof. Just look at your password manager or Known Networks to see the hundreds of places where you’ve probably shared data, or coming to realize that they could even get in your phone if you plug it into a seemingly normal power outlet in a hotel, Airbnb, or Uber. Now, given how these supermegacorps just tend to all conglomerate, it’s not crazy to think that in 20 (2?) years anything digital, hardware or software, will be in the hands of a few companies, and fed into their AIs, and just bypass any semblance of privacy laws.

3

Silver-End9570 Mar 27, 2026 +5

>Now, given how these supermegacorps just tend to all conglomerate, it’s not crazy to think that in 20 (2?) years anything digital, hardware or software, will be in the hands of a few companies, and fed into their AIs, and just bypass any semblance of privacy laws. So essentially Cyberpunk 2077 lol. I joke...a bit, but yeah, you have a point. And god, I was actually just thinking about getting one of the robovacuums because I'm getting a dog that sheds a lot and advice around the breed is that they're helpful, but I'll just vaccum myself now. Did Roomba ever get bought out by Amazon?

5

TachiH Mar 27, 2026 +2

I mean most of the Internet is run via AWS, Google, Microsoft Azure etc so we have been there for ages.

2

Uncertn_Laaife Mar 27, 2026 +1

There is already no pretense.

1

itszaidbtw Mar 28, 2026 +1

im so confused, we have been tracked on the internet for a long time. everything you download is tracked, that is how the ISP's use to throttle your internet if you were using bittorrent.

1

burnabycoyote Mar 27, 2026 +3

Realistically, if your IP and http requests are not tracked the site you are visiting has no idea what packets to send you or to where. This is no different from any telecommunication other than the tin can telephone.

3

manefa Mar 27, 2026 +3

Privacy is one thing. The all consuming algorithm constantly reinforcing your every desire and fear is another. We all know it’s unhealthy for adults let alone children

3

Gammelpreiss Mar 27, 2026 +18

I mean....what is the point in an internet that is ruled by political and economic bad faith actors, flooding ppls brains with their BS? because that is the realities of today internet. I used to be super anymity concious and defended the net to the bone even just 10 years ago, but by now....? It's a shitshow.

18

Gurkmajjo1337 Mar 27, 2026 +14

The problem is deciding who is a bad faith actor. The current political party in power could declare their opposition bad faith actors

14

Aggravating_Loss_765 Mar 27, 2026 +3

Within 5years..

3

itchylol742 Mar 27, 2026 +2

incorrect

2

Farsydi Mar 27, 2026 +1

Privacy is an outdated concept for the old.

1

Multidream Mar 27, 2026 +1

Yeah, honestly if you think that any state is not gonna do a china at this point you are high.

1

unidentifiable Mar 28, 2026 +1

Even now, despite my username, you can easily identify people on the internet by what subs they post in, how they rype, what words they use, etc.

1

CreativeMuseMan Mar 28, 2026 +1

There is 0 privacy right now. Talk extensively about killing the head of your state and pretend to plan things & see how it goes. It’s just not legal…. yet… completely.

1

dotBombAU Mar 28, 2026 +1

Oh there will be. I'm just for those who put effort into it and those who do crime.

1

Gurkmajjo1337 Mar 27, 2026 +1

The establishment realized the rise in populism and brexit could be blamed on the internet and free speech

1

Synthetic_Kalkite Mar 27, 2026 +14

Well, and it can to some extent. The massive disinformation campaings and botting have turned the major social media platforms into tools for the literal enemies of, say, an European country. I would rather have no social media than the current cesspool. That being said there are technology options where the user being of age (and a human being) is validated locally and the service will not reveive any personal data. Like how iPhone’s Face ID works.

14

Gurkmajjo1337 Mar 27, 2026 -9

So youre against democracy and prefer a dictatorship similar to China?

-9

Synthetic_Kalkite Mar 27, 2026 +4

No, but I do want Europe to do SOMETHING. I am happy to hear your proposals as to how to block hostile foreign attempts at meddling with our countries and elections.

4

Gurkmajjo1337 Mar 27, 2026 -2

We could create a law saying you have to be 16+ to buy a smartphone but that doesnt stop stupid parents from buying it and giving it to their children

-2

Old_Leopard1844 Mar 27, 2026

As long as you have freedom to speak, you will have people speak shit So no. Unless you want dictatorship similar to China, there's little you can do outside of prosecuting thoughtcrimes

0

Synthetic_Kalkite Mar 27, 2026 +2

You’re saying there is nothing at all that can ever be done against massive influencing by a hostile state actor?

2

Old_Leopard1844 Mar 28, 2026 +1

Do you want to prosecute thought crimes? Then no

1

Synthetic_Kalkite Mar 28, 2026 +1

Okay

1

Brapfamalam Mar 27, 2026 +4

It can to an extent though to due globalisation of propaganda. Imagine if Napoleon owned one of the biggest fleet street publishing houses and was consistently publishing headlines telling the British public "not to worry about war, don't agree to taxes to fund Lord Nelsons defence, Napoleon is going to look after you." That's a parallel to what happend to alot of European and Western countries whilst negotiating with the USA for Tarrifs, as an effective defacto member of the cabinet...Musk...was flooding their respective countries with propaganda to influence public perception and promote pro American politicians who would readily bend over to Musks demands for his own financial benefit. This is rank hypocrisy. If the USA had a popular Chinese app in its ranks which the Chinese were at risk leveraging wouldn't they also declare it a national security threat and restrict it? Oh wait they did. Americans can f*** off with this free speech rhetoric, Americans killed it with their rampant greed.

4

SimoneNonvelodico Mar 27, 2026 +1

> This is rank hypocrisy. If the USA had a popular Chinese app in its ranks which the Chinese were at risk leveraging wouldn't they also declare it a national security threat and restrict it? Oh wait they did. Americans can f*** off with this free speech rhetoric, Americans killed it with their rampant greed. IMO banning one specific app is better than banning the *concept* of social media. The problem is that the current social media are bad, not that the concept of minors communicating with each other via internet is. If you created legal incentives to phase out of social media aggressively funded by ads and data selling and instead simply subscription based, where at least if you pay you know what you're paying, then I think we'd get far healthier ones and it wouldn't be particularly troublesome for adults to let their kids use them.

1

Gurkmajjo1337 Mar 27, 2026 -6

So youre pro a closed internet and dictatorship similar to China?

-6

Romeo_Jordan Mar 27, 2026 +4

No but we also don't want people being damaged by social media. It's amazing how unregulated tech is.

4

Gurkmajjo1337 Mar 27, 2026 +3

I agree but regulating it is a nightmare. In the best of worlds parents wouldnt give their children smartphones at 10yo.

3

Romeo_Jordan Mar 27, 2026 +4

Agreed and I regulate my kids phone access strongly. But just like other industries we regulate on health and safety and tech should be the same. It shouldn't be upto users to police products if they are harmful.

4

Gurkmajjo1337 Mar 27, 2026 +2

What about regulating smartphones by age like alcohol?

2

Romeo_Jordan Mar 27, 2026 +3

Yeah maybe. We just need to develop evidence based policies to help mitigate the risk.

3

SlightlySublimated Mar 27, 2026 +1

That would make too much sense. If you took away the convenience factor of scrolling socials on kids phones it would go a long way to curbing the harmful effects of social media on minors. It wouldn't be perfect but it would make it so Kids couldnt be on these apps 12+ hours a day every day.

1

Basquebadboy Mar 27, 2026 +1

No. Even if we have to add some kind of verification, we should build up a strong, free and diversified press landscape.

1

Brapfamalam Mar 27, 2026

USA curtailed free speech with what it did with kneecapping tiktok and further attempting to ban it outright in the first instance. Ergo the the USA has a closed internet and is also a dictatorship similar to China. Debating via strawman is very boring. Be more interesting.

0

Gurkmajjo1337 Mar 27, 2026 +1

I agree but should Europe stop being pro free speech because the current us president doesnt support it?

1

nitram20 Mar 27, 2026 +1

For the non tech savvy, for sure. But there will be plenty of privacy for the smart who will know how to go the extra mile for it.

1

BlitzFritzXX Mar 27, 2026 -5

Austria sadly has become one of the worst countries in terms of freedom of speech

-5

silverbolt2000 Mar 28, 2026

If the alternative is an Internet full of AI-generated slop and disinformation where you are forced to assume that everything you see is false unless you can verify it firsthand, then maybe the loss of privacy isn’t the worst thing that could happen.

0

inn4tler Mar 27, 2026 +229

The problem is real, but instead of bans, it would make more sense to introduce more regulations for tech companies. Children weren't banned from watching television just because questionable content was broadcast there. That's comparable in my opinion. You have to regulate industry, not people's freedom.

229

OdiiKii1313 Mar 27, 2026 +64

agreed. coming from an abusive household and facing lots of bullying at school, online communities were my only release valve for most of my childhood. i definitely have psychological problems from early exposure and i did have a few scary experiences, but my online friends were also the ones who motivated me to finally escape my abusive living situation. it's a lot more complex than just "kids on social media = bad."

64

foxy8787 Mar 27, 2026 +39

That's my biggest concern about this whole banning kids from social media trend. There's a lot of kids in abusive families, ultra religious families, kids who are queer/trans in unsupportive families, kids who are disabled and isolated etc, who are losing a very important resource.

39

OdiiKii1313 Mar 27, 2026 +16

that was my experience. once my parents learned i was trans, our relationship was basically over and i never felt safe at home again. i had to be talked down 4 times throughout my teenage years, and it was always my online friends that got me through it. without that, i probably wouldn't have made it past 13 or 14.

16

OrangutanArmy Mar 28, 2026 +1

I mean even if you're queer in a supportive family things can still be incredibly lonely. It's not easy finding friends in person for young people like that until you get old enough to go into adult spaces.

1

MadamButtercup623 Mar 27, 2026 +6

This is exactly why I hate banning social media for kids. Like yes, it can be harmful and scary, but it can also be incredibly healing and maybe even the only way to really feel seen. As someone who also went through a lot of abuse when I was a kid (mostly outside of my home), seeing and reading other people’s experiences made me feel so safe, and so much less alone. I honestly don’t know if I’d have been able to even survive without the internet and social media. Because it reminded me I wasn’t the only one who was going through that stuff, and that most people are good people and do actually care.

6

exOldTrafford Mar 27, 2026 +5

There's been tons of peer-reviewed research that has proven beyond any reasonable doubts that social media literally leads to significant brain damage, makes people dumber, has similar addictive effects to narcotics, and is the nr 1 most common cause for depression, anxiety and suicides among young people all around the developed world. While I sympathize with your experience and am genuinely happy you were able to find some peace and comfort in online communities, I still think the evidence points to social media being a drastically bigger negative than positive for the overall population. If something helps 5% of the population, is it worth keeping it even if the exact same thing is extremely harmful to the other 95%?

5

OdiiKii1313 Mar 27, 2026 +5

i don't disagree with your comment entirely, but i would like to follow-up by reiterating the original comment in asking if a ban is really necessary or if there's some kind of regulation we should look into first that could create safer online spaces. i'm not saying i necessarily know this topic all that well, it just seems like jumping immediately into a ban is more about lawmakers trying to get an easy political 'win' and develop tighter control over information flow than actually giving a shit about children.

5

exOldTrafford Mar 27, 2026 -3

I agree with you that this does feel a lot like lawmakers going for an easy "win", though I actually think they are not going far enough. The most responsible thing to do would be to ban smart phones and tablets completely for everyone, and also ban social media for everyone. That would have a greater positive effect on public health than when smoking indoors was banned. The negative health impacts are just to big to be worth it. Like imagine if we discovered that chlorine in drinking water causes irreparable brain damage. There would be infinite calls to ban it completely. The only reason why people oppose a total social media ban and even find the notion absurd, is because we are literally addicted to it. It's like we're all a bunch of addicts refusing to admit we have a problem

-3

OdiiKii1313 Mar 27, 2026 +6

>ban smart phones bruh. atp i'm gonna have to ask you to actually show me some kind of analysis by an accredited sociologist or whoever as to this cost-benefit analysis of smart phones. i can understand why people advocate for a social media ban even if disagree, but a smart phone ban starts sounding like luddite rhetoric without substantial evidence.

6

exOldTrafford Mar 27, 2026 +2

People drastically underestimate how harmful smart phones are. I think it's a combination of the media needing you to be addicted, and the fact that we are all addicted and don't really want to admit it. Here are 8 research papers specifically talking about smartphone usage. Say the word if you need more. Neurocognitive Mechanisms Underlying Internet/Smartphone Addiction: A Preliminary fMRI Study https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9326674/ Smartphone Distractions and Cognitive Performance in Adolescents: An Electroencephalography Approach https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40655085/ Neuroimaging the effects of smartphone (over-)use on brain function and structure-a review on the current state of MRI-based findings and a roadmap for future research https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38666109/ Negative Effects of Mobile Phone Addiction Tendency on Spontaneous Brain Microstates: Evidence From Resting-State EEG https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33994979/ Effects of internet and smartphone addiction on cognitive control in adolescents and young adults: A systematic review of fMRI studies https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38320657/ The Relationships between Effortful Control, Mind Wandering, and Mobile Phone Addiction Based on Network Analysis https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/12/2/140 Negative Effects of Mobile Phone Addiction Tendency on Spontaneous Brain Microstates: Evidence From Resting-State EEG https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33994979/ Do Persuasive Designs Make Smartphones More Addictive? -- A Mixed-Methods Study on Chinese University Students https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.02604

2

fsaja Mar 28, 2026 +2

Yeah let's start with you. Never pick up a smartphone ever again please

2

SimoneNonvelodico Mar 27, 2026 +3

Again, the point is, if they're so bad, we should find a way to make them less bad. Because that way: 1) the enforcement of the law becomes a lot less invasive for the poor common citizen, who is now being treated as the guilty party instead of the victim we supposedly are; 2) everyone above age 14 benefits too. I'm not convinced these harms are something that the mature psyche of adults is all that well-equipped to handle instead.

3

exOldTrafford Mar 27, 2026 -2

There is no way to make them "less bad" enough. They are so inherently dangerous and harmful. It's a bit like saying "just one shot of heroin every now again can't do any harm". >I'm not convinced these harms are something that the mature psyche of adults is all that well-equipped to handle instead. No absolutely not. It causes brain damage to adults too, which is why a total ban is the only truly responsible thing to do. The effects are even more harmful to developing brains though, so a ban for youth is at least a step in the right direction

-2

SimoneNonvelodico Mar 27, 2026 +5

> There is no way to make them "less bad" enough. They are so inherently dangerous and harmful. It's a bit like saying "just one shot of heroin every now again can't do any harm". This is just absurd. The way is IMO very obvious: completely ban the use of algorithmic recommender timelines, severely limit or ban the use of the harvested personal data for sale as well as the use of customised advertising. That's it. Only filtering and sorting for the users, fully controlled *by* the users. Only viable form of revenue is either donations or subscriptions. A user-centric social media would be far, far better. This cesspool exists because of the illusion of the sites being "free", which means they actually must survive by shady means.

5

exOldTrafford Mar 27, 2026 -4

Your proposed solution completely neglects actual research. If banning algorithms was enough, you wouldn't have millions of people who are addicted to games and other apps on their smart devices. These are also extremely harmful, and don't have the algorithms you are talking about. Most of the depression and anxiety inducing aspects of social media is directly connected with being able to follow and befriend other users. People have a tendency to only want to post about the surface level and seemingly positive parts of their lives, which makes everyone else automatically think everyone is doing better than themselves. So you would need to ban both using social media on smart devices and the following/befriending features. At that point, what do you have left? Is it really a social media without algorithms, following people and befriending folks? The *only* feature of social media that hasn't been found in several peer-reviewed research papers to be extremely harmful to the human mind is being able to message people, directly or in group chats. But if that's the only thing that remains, it becomes just a messaging app, not a social media anymore

-4

Tacti_Kel_Nuke Mar 28, 2026 +1

Is kinda a double edged sword. I got friends that literally got their life's saved thanks to having supportive online friendships and realising that they aren't alone on a LGBT aspect or against their shitty parents. But also friends that got exposed to toxic friendships online, grooming, violent content and self harming.

1

SimoneNonvelodico Mar 27, 2026 +3

Yeah, this. This way it feels like adding insult to injury. Also because as adults we're *still* subject to this shithose, whereas kids will feel like they're being denied an outlet for communication and want to transgress. If you addressed the root cause (the apps being terrible) you would do everyone a favour.

3

Desperate_Quest Mar 28, 2026 +1

Both are needed. Because there is also less parental management then their used to be, since kids can scroll through 100s of videos in the time it would take to watch one program on TV "back in the day".

1

deepfriedbits Mar 27, 2026 +1

I agree but that’s easier said than done for a country like Australia. The minute they make a move this current American administration starts blasting them and questioning their commitment to free speech. Then they throw a tariff or five at Australia. Weird times.

1

Whitewind617 Mar 27, 2026 +1

> Children weren't banned from watching television just because questionable content was broadcast there. Because they knew nothing on it was ever really all that dangerous, THEY put it there. This is absolutely not a fair comparison.

1

grumble11 Mar 27, 2026 -2

It is VERY hard to regulate the type of access kids have and much easier to ban outright. Social media firms already know if someone is under 14, they know their users better than their users know themselves. They just play dumb and hence require IDs. Personally seeing what it is doing to kids I genuinely think this is worth some loss of privacy. Social media is destroying youth (destroying adults too, personally think 14 is low).

-2

lLikeCats Mar 27, 2026 +79

I feel like this is a coordinated global effort to have IDs to use the Internet under the ruse of helping teenagers. As a former teenager, I think we can all attest to the fact that we were troublemakers at that age. No ban stops you from accessing social media apps. They will find a way.

79

Dr_MantisTobaggin_MD Mar 27, 2026 +28

This is about money and control

28

JustChillin3456 Mar 27, 2026 -4

How will this generate money ? And how will limiting the amount of bots on the internet lead to more control ?

-4

Dr_MantisTobaggin_MD Mar 28, 2026 +6

The more info they have, the more ads they can sell. The more info they have, the better they can enfore piracy and political laws

6

JustChillin3456 Mar 28, 2026 -3

Your phone already listens to you and gives you ads based on what it hears. It can’t get worse than that Isn’t that good ? We want less piracy, bots sowing disinformation etc

-3

Dr_MantisTobaggin_MD Mar 28, 2026

Youre naive.

0

JustChillin3456 Mar 28, 2026 -1

Ironic

-1

EmbarrassedHelp Mar 27, 2026 +1

> How will this generate money ? You don't think age verification happens magically right? There is a massive for profit industry that is aggressively lobbying for age verification, because they get rich off of violating your privacy.

1

JustChillin3456 Mar 27, 2026 -1

Your privacy has already been violated the moment you post online. Making it so kids aren’t brain rotted and getting rid of the massive Bot spam seems like a win win

-1

heqra Mar 28, 2026

yeah not a picture of your id in an undefended database. the brain rot and bot shit is just an excuse to make money and gain control.

0

JustChillin3456 Mar 28, 2026 +2

If you had to upload your ID I wonder how that would change the way we treat each other online. Definitely for the better Again I’m still not sure how money is being made. It seems like it’s easily made through usage of bots that can promote disinformation.

2

heqra Mar 28, 2026 +2

selling the IDs info gets you money, companies that manage the servers, programs, and jobs involved in actually handling the whole process make money, and advertisers can keep a more accurate wealth of information about you. If you're willing for everyone to constantly have their personal ID involved in data breaches, literally no privacy online and the likely creation of a worldwide surveillance state, then yay! maybe people will be 5% nicer bc they are afraid that you'll google their address and show up. Never mind, the fact that people will not be doing that more, which is objectively f****** awful.

2

JustChillin3456 Mar 28, 2026 +1

Again all this already happens and has happened just by having a listnook account. What’s new ? I’d rather start with just blocking social media and p*** for minors If people disagree then yea bring on the Chinese censorship

1

heqra Mar 28, 2026 +2

are you missing the part where I just wrote "photo of my id, mass data centers, and employees running the operations for profit" none of that is happening on listnook. you arent gonna actually block p*** or social media, youre just gonna hurt everyone else. and they arent pushing for these things to help kids, its just that saying thats the reason brings in the average "useful idiot" to the cause. its about money, power, and information. little timmy is still gonna have his p*** and brainrot just fine, but im gonna get fucked and lose lots of rights in the process.

2

SmokingApple Mar 27, 2026 -1

Seems like an iron clad rule you can immediately disregard any comment from an account with random name four numbers

-1

JustChillin3456 Mar 27, 2026 +1

Funny, I feel the same way about 10+ year old accounts

1

SmokingApple Mar 28, 2026 +1

Yeah that makes sense lmao

1

eren_yeegarr Mar 27, 2026 +90

Well the free and open internet was fun while it lasted. It's being destroyed. It will be controlled by governments and corporations, and people will blindly support losing their rights in the name of child safety. Absolute cunts. Anyone who can't see what this is truly leading to is a f****** imbecile.

90

From_Graves Mar 27, 2026 +31

It hasn't been free or open for a while now, I am old enough to remember when it felt like the wild west. I remember when Napster was shut down over file sharing. Downloading files early on was like having sex without condoms, never knew what you'd get. Everything wasn't owned by 2-3 major corpos, we were young and naive. If something is free, it means you're the product and we made those fuckers billions off mind altering, addictive algorithms that changed the fabric of how we all interact with one another. Listnook is the only one I use and once it's ruined , I could care less.

31

eren_yeegarr Mar 27, 2026 +2

I don't use social media. I habit the same forums I did in the 00s. Listnook is the only difference to me.

2

InformalYesterday760 Mar 27, 2026 +2

Yeah it ain't open nor free. It's 3 corporations running experiments on our children's mental health and trying to sell us Red Bull (tm) energy drink. Red Bull (tm) gives you wings!

2

SmokingApple Mar 27, 2026 +2

You know the internet outside of Listnook and Facebook and Twitter is perfectly alive right ??

2

itchylol742 Mar 27, 2026 -5

piracy (copyright violation) and 4chan (free speech) both still exist and will exist for a very long time

-5

mynameisollie Mar 27, 2026 +4

That being said, I’ve seen way too much fucked up shit as a kid online. I don’t think I’d want my kids being exposed to that. After watching the Louis Theroux doc and seeing the kind of shite that’s being peddled to kids, I’m not sure it’s the worst idea to stamp that out. I think social media has a lot to answer for to be honest and not enough is realistically being done to rein it in. You get better moderation on Listnook than you do by these billion dollar corporations. They can afford it, but they’re going to have to be forced to.

4

westringia Mar 27, 2026 +2

No but you don't understand the children need access to the dopamine casinos carefully crafted to make them suicidal

2

JustChillin3456 Mar 27, 2026 -5

Good, people want to be oppressed If you don’t think a citizen should own a gun there’s ZERO reason as to why you should be able to use the internet anonymously

-5

AfterDarkAsset Mar 27, 2026 +8

Just ban social media, period.

8

jarod1701 Mar 27, 2026 +8

VPN ban incoming

8

horned-creature Mar 28, 2026 +9

"austria plans to force you to give your ID to palantir and feed it to AI for mass surveillance" fixed the title.

9

michalzxc Mar 27, 2026 +14

If anyone should be banned, these are the old people, who never learned how to verify what they read and are falling for all the grifters

14

Boop0p Mar 27, 2026 +46

I find this whole banning for kids/teens thing really jarring. They acknowledge that it's addictive and potentially bad for you as a child and then what...you're just let loose once you're an adult? No education on how to use it? Find me another addictive thing that we regulate so children can't access it and then there's so little regulation for adults. Betting, alcohol, cigarattes get taxed a lot, for starters.

46

Bauld_Man Mar 27, 2026 +53

Gambling. Alcohol. Cigarettes. Credit cards. Taxing is not regulation.

53

angelus14 Mar 27, 2026 +27

I'm more worried that this is just an excuse to further erode privacy. You'll have to prove your age in some way.

27

IeatOneAppleADay Mar 27, 2026 +9

No need to be worried. It is in fact an excuse. So stop worrying and move along, nothing further to see here

9

westringia Mar 27, 2026 +3

>Betting, alcohol, cigarattes get taxed a lot, for starters. And all of those are allowed for adults and banned for kids. You're kind of answering your own question

3

nediamnori Mar 27, 2026 +10

It's almost like we allow adults to make their own decisions however stupid while we acknowledge that children should not be given as much leeway.

10

SimoneNonvelodico Mar 27, 2026 +1

The problem is that in this specific case the bad thing is being made bad on purpose. Social media on its face is a place where you go to communicate with other people. That doesn't seem bad? But what it actually *becomes* is a psychological trap not because that's just inherent to what it is, but because companies maximise those properties to get more engagement. It's not alcohol, it's cake laced with fentanyl by the baker without telling you. In that kind of case, I'd take it up with the baker.

1

Puzzleheaded-End3779 Mar 27, 2026 +2

Idk why this is one of the first times I see someone mentioning this. Sure it makes a bit more sense for kids, since if it’s the thing they see growing up, they’ll think it’s totally normal and accept everything. But once you become an adult, it becomes totally your responsibility, even though it’s clear they design these apps maliciously.

2

honk_incident Mar 27, 2026

We don't inoculate them. We don't help them developing a BS detector. We just keep them away like we keep infants away from peanuts. Great idea.

0

grathontolarsdatarod Mar 28, 2026 +5

What's the name of the consulting company that helped them draft the law?

5

Equivalent_Track_133 Mar 27, 2026 +6

At this point I would rather just not use social media at all. Perhaps that is for the better though

6

Time-Industry-1364 Mar 28, 2026 +3

Why is seemingly the entire globe pushing for this all the sudden?

3

igottheshnitz Mar 28, 2026 +2

Requiring ID to access the internet was always the plan. The kids are just the pawns in this situation.

2

AndiArb3it Mar 28, 2026 +2

This is not about Teenagers, this is about endlng anonymity on the internet. The biggest party of the government coalition desperately wanted a "real name requirement" (Klarnamenpflicht) added to this law but fortunately failed - I do not see any benefit for kids with this.

2

Wheels9690 Mar 28, 2026 +2

All because parents won't do their f****** jobs and then blame everyone else when they let their kid get taken advantage of while they paid 0 attention to what their kid was doing.

2

From_Graves Mar 27, 2026 +7

Ban it completely, as a detriment to society, it serves no real benefit to anyone of any age. It was a social experiment gone bad, and they made billions off our data.

7

dagrapeescape Mar 27, 2026 +19

Are you going to show us the way by proactively shutting down your Listnook account?

19

From_Graves Mar 27, 2026 -14

If I do, Are you going to follow suit? Trust me, the second they try an implement some facial / ID bullshit, it's gone just like my discord.

-14

dagrapeescape Mar 27, 2026 +19

I never made the huge proclamation that all social media should be banned for everyone, so probably not. I personally enjoy scrolling on instagram and Listnook, but also don’t let it consume my life.

19

Jwanito Mar 27, 2026 -1

i also go to recovering alcoholic gatherings and proclaim that because i never had any problems so their problems aren't real

-1

dagrapeescape Mar 27, 2026 +8

The person I was responding to was the person who opened up social media to post all social media should be banned. Using your analogy, it would be like if they were attending their AA meeting at a bar and they all sipped on a beer while saying all alcohol should be banned.

8

Jwanito Mar 27, 2026 -3

If we expect all progress to be "pure", no change will ever be made

-3

dagrapeescape Mar 27, 2026 +4

I agree with that for the big things, like saying we should switch away from coal power plants to anything better, even if it’s not the best possible outcome like wind/solar, because something is better than nothing. But if it is something as ridiculous thinking all social media should be banned for everyone, I think the least I can expect from you would be for you to step up and actually do it. Social media is completely optional and there is no cost to your decision to abstain. To keep it to your analogy about drinking, I don’t think the temperance movement women were getting hammered the day before their meetings, they actually had convictions and lived the life they preached.

4

Norphesius Mar 27, 2026

Well part of the reason it's such a problem is because it's the social nexus for many people. Everyone knows that X (formerly twitter) is going down the shitter, full of bots, rage bait, and AI generated CSAM, but they still use it because that's where their friends are and where all the things they want to follow post. If you drop your social media accounts, and everyone else stays, you end up alone.

0

altatoro123 Mar 27, 2026 +7

That means listnook as well

7

From_Graves Mar 27, 2026 +1

Oh I know , I lived just fine without , can do it again.

1

VesperMoon411 Mar 27, 2026 +3

You could delete your account now?

3

omfgeometry Mar 27, 2026 +3

I agree 100%. The cons outweigh the pros every time. It will take decades to undo the damage it has caused to society.

3

Reeeaper Mar 27, 2026 +7

In my opinion everyone should be banned from social media, it has become a plague. The billionaires who run these sites need to be held accountable for the damage they have caused to society and the youth.

7

JeffDunham911 Mar 27, 2026 +3

Australia foaming at the mouth when it comes to surveillance

3

Captcha_Imagination Mar 27, 2026 +2

It's both easier and more important to do this now with America's behaviour. Countries are waking up to the fact that they have allowed their youth to be indoctrinated by American propaganda from a very young age. My generation was too but it was through Hollywood movies. It was much more subtle and less powerful. Now you have people like Asmongold turning kids into little fascists before they even hit puberty.

2

Milliman4 Mar 27, 2026 +2

Lauter Fetznschädl

2

imaginary_num6er Mar 28, 2026 +1

What happens to those who wanted to go to social media artist school?

1

TheAhoAho Mar 28, 2026 +1

Need this to be a global push. Kids can't even f****** read anymore

1

blablabla2384 Mar 27, 2026 +1

should be 17,

1

judydurn Mar 27, 2026 +1

Good luck to the Austrian government trying to enforce this when every twelve year old with a smartphone already knows how to use a VPN. It feels like one of those laws designed to make parents feel better while doing absolutely nothing to change how kids actually use the internet.

1

EmbarrassedHelp Mar 27, 2026 +5

They start attacking VPNs if they manage to pass this.

5

Desperate_Quest Mar 28, 2026 +1

Every country should be doing this. There is ZERO benefit to allowing children to use social media, while the cons stack up high with effects like: lowering cognitive development, distraction from education, decreasing attention span, etc. At least with video games you can improve eye-hand coordination, strategic thinking, and other attributes. But social media is just an ADHD-breeding pit of predators. (And im saying this as a GenZ with ADHD lol)

1

EmbarrassedHelp Mar 27, 2026 -1

There is no such thing as privacy protecting or anonymous age verification. Anyone trying to claim otherwise is lying to you. Mandatory age verification and age assurance should be illegal, with huge fines if company tries to subject its users to it.

-1

Sock-Enough Mar 27, 2026 -1

So companies shouldn’t be able to card someone trying to buy alcohol or cigarettes?

-1

EmbarrassedHelp Mar 27, 2026 +1

Viewing content online is not the same as buying a physical thing.

1

Sock-Enough Mar 27, 2026 -2

Why not? It’s all commerce.

-2

rocketmonkee Mar 28, 2026 +4

This is a common question that has come up since the inception of the various age verification laws. The [Electronic Frontier Foundation recently wrote a decent article](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/12/why-isnt-online-age-verification-just-showing-your-id-person) outlining the fundamental difference between presenting your ID to a person for a specific purchase, and uploading your ID and/or biometric data to unknown 3rd party vendors for general access to sites.

4

bwoah07_gp2 Mar 27, 2026 -2

Another stupid decision from a country. So many own goals being scored globally. Banning social media for teens & mandating ID scans, etc. is not the way to regulate the internet.

-2

Unchainedboar Mar 27, 2026 -2

Best thing that can happen is a solar flare that destroys the internet.

-2

pinkangelzzz Mar 27, 2026 -7

solid move austria youre onto somethin

-7

ElectronicHold7325 Mar 27, 2026 -3

Wunderbar! Social Media are poison and a tool for authorities to weaken democracies.

-3

Previous_Soil_5144 Mar 27, 2026 -3

Get rid of it all. There is nothing social about social media. It's just tech companies collecting data to sell to marketers so they can better sell you things you don't need and to political groups who want to manipulate how we vote. If we want real social media, it has to be non profit.

-3

‘We will no longer stand by’: Austria plans social media ban for under-14s

💬 Send a Message

159 Comments