(no title)
softg | 1 month ago
These platforms rely on ads to survive. Which means it should be easy to regulate them. You can prevent them from selling ads at which point they will be forced to comply. If they don't, someone else will get the ad revenue. Europe is already hostile towards american tech giants anyways.
The possibilities are endless. Pass a law that forces all social media with more than x users to not implement constant scrolling, make their ranking algorithm open source, allow people to use their own algorithms, employ robust moderation etc.
Instead we have a blanket ban that requires id checks but leaves the manipulation machine intact so it can prey on adults. Mental health is not the real issue here. They want to be able to track people and destroy anonimity online. Children are a convenient excuse.
Otterly99|1 month ago
- Banning things for non-adults is easier, they don't vote. - In the eyes of the law, social media is now seen as cigarettes and alcohol. Something teenagers should not be allowed to have access to, but is fair game once you are adult.
I don't fully agree with the ban for the same reasons you cited, but knowing that social media companies (mostly facebook and youtube) have known for years that their platform have been used for spreading radicalization (source: the book "The chaos machine") and have dodged any accountability, maybe it is a good solution after all, it is hard to say...
asterix_pano|1 month ago
energy123|1 month ago
I don't share your cynicism pertaining to motives. Well, I am cynical about it, but in a non-conspiratorial way.
Politicians are feckless trend followers, cowardly in their disposition, preferring to follow the path of least resistance, and they lack any substantial vision or imagination themselves.
That explains why nothing bold is happening. And that lack of boldness is not unique to social media regulation.
That puts me squarely in the "this isn't perfect, but it's a good step" camp.