European Federalists

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] curled@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 9 months ago (4 children)

Because it's not sustainable. It's very easy to just start something new whenever the law catches up. And as you said, the law shouldn't be too restrictive, lest you lose the whole reason for having a social platform. Striking that balance for every niche and edge case would be a gargantuan task, even disregarding the technical requirements for something like that.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 0 points 9 months ago (3 children)

and restricting kids from social media period is going to be LESS of a gargantuan task!??

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] curled@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)

Yes? Instead of creating a whole set of laws tailor made to whatever techbros come up with next?

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

How are you going to enforce your "no kids on social media" rule?

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] curled@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 9 months ago

Why are you continuously moving the goalposts? As I said I don't believe there's a good solution, but I do support the idea behind it.

In an ideal, hypothetical world, the age check could be an anonymous government system where they can't see what site is requesting the age check, and the site can't see the real identity of the user: this would provide enough privacy and reliability. Unfortunately I don't believe such a system can be made.