1193
Meta found liable in child exploitation case (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 7 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
148 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

... while they feign child protection to avoid costs

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

Unfortunately can’t codify how platforms work soecifically into law.

But you could possibly explicitly make companies liable for promoting “detrimental” content. Then define “promoting” as something like “surfacing content to a user beyond the reach of the users immediate network. Ie algorithmic suggestions or advertising”

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    You can control a lot about how platforms specifically work with legislation. After decades of seeing how they function we are more than capable of accurately identifying what functionalities are deleterious to the well-being of people generally or children specifically, what should be under the control of the parents of children, and therefore we have a good idea of what we should legally require platforms to disable or otherwise put under the control parents.

    Again I propose as an example: having an account marked as a child's account, with a designated parent account and making it so that if someone would attempt to add that child account as a friend or connected account on a social media network such an addition must be approved by the parent account.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent