It was my job for a decade to try to keep tweens and teens safe online. Let me tell you what you already know: no law or technology can do it. There are no lengths kids won't go to to talk to friends without prying eyes. The harder you try to lock it down, the dodgier their solutions will be.
@mttaggart I am not sure what this is truly about: ID verification? SM ban? I believe these are two different topics. Once research shows that something has a negative health effects, it has to be limited or regulated. Take alcohol for instance. I believe I am not the only one who drank alcohol before the legal age. So, yes, kids find ways to get around prohibitions. However this is about not letting them drink regularly and become alcoholic.
Would you legalise alcohol at any age?
@s1m0n4 @mttaggart kids get their hands on illegal drugs without much effort, so even if they lack the skills to defeat this stuff how long do you think it would take black market to exploit the demand?
@CliffsEsport @mttaggart
A minority of kids do that. And the numbers have drastically dropped on that front. Gen Z, now adult, is the generation the most focused on health and wellbeing we've ever seen.
Smoking isn't cool anymore.
@s1m0n4 @mttaggart Doesn't match data I have both from primary data collection myself, as well as lifelong study of crime. Context studied forensics & criminology in college and have received research grant for studying crime. Talk to kids that trust you, local LEO or County attorneys or check local crime data. Or gang activity, etc I've interviewed convicts, kids, including gang affiliated.
@CliffsEsport @mttaggart then I'm asking again: would you remove restrictions on alcohol or drugs just because teens find other ways to get those things anyway?
I don't think that's a valid argument.
@s1m0n4 @CliffsEsport When it comes to social media (and AI for that matter), there is a galaxy of regulatory options besides outright banning and age verification. Exploring those benefits all, not just minors. As an example, severe penalties for designs found to promote addictive usage.

@mttaggart @CliffsEsport

"As an example, severe penalties for designs found to promote addictive usage."

This would imply:
A research team for every new design or solution paradigm that is suspected to develop addictive behaviours
A research to be carried on to prove the point
The governments issuing fines or a penalties
The actual compliance times to be allowed to modify the solution

We're looking at a 3 years period at best, during which a 12 y/o become 15 and develops such addiction.

@s1m0n4 @CliffsEsport Yes, better solutions can take time to implement. I don't know why you're discounting the harms of age verification regimes, which are no less onerous and destructive to privacy/supportive of surveillance states, etc. And worse: they just don't work for the intended purpose, which was my original point.

@mttaggart @CliffsEsport if you read my first toot, I specifically asked what you were talking about.

For the record I'm totally against providing an ID to access online services.

On the other hand I believe a non-enforceable ban on SM for U16 kids is necessary. Because it has educational purposes on society as a whole. Just like the obligation of wearing a helmet for cyclists under a certain age or age restrictions for certain video games/movies.
And schools would enforce this somehow.

@s1m0n4 @CliffsEsport "Somehow."

No they won't. I was the enforcer. You cannot do it.

I'd also point out the material difference between a positive obligation ("wear a helmet") and a ban ("Don't do x"). Time and again we find that bans and penalties only serve to hurt the users, teach no lessons, and make society actually worse.

I don't want kids using social media. I think bans are the worst way to achieve that end.

@mttaggart French middle schools don't authorize smartphone usage inside the school. Kids get a disciplinary note if they use them.
And the pedagogy follows. There are no WhatsApp group to work on a given project, everything is done inside the school or at home. Smartphones are instead tolerated starting from high schools. That's the enforcement I want.

SM are toxic and addictive. And bans do work. Parents don't beat their kids anymore. That happened thanks to bans and an improved society.

@s1m0n4 School policies about device usage are a massively different animal compared to a legal ban. Either way though, if punishment is the outcome, you have a problem. And also either way, I guarantee that any restriction you think is working for kids isn't working as well as you think.
@mttaggart you just prove my point with the two articles you linked: where there's no ban on corporal punishments, whether at school or at home, this harmful educational technique still widespreadedly occur.
@s1m0n4 No, the behavior continues regardless of state law. It's society that changes the norms.
@mttaggart @s1m0n4 If you follow any local news you'll find worse than that. Not gonna link it but I follow local crime blotter, and in just recently mother is facing charges over trafficking minor daughters. Maybe talk to some people that work in child protection services or volunteer orgs that actually try and help kids.

@s1m0n4 @mttaggart @CliffsEsport

On the other hand I believe a non-enforceable ban on SM for U16 kids is necessary.

This has already been proven harmful for queer kids (and other isolated kids, and also isolated adults and people in general).

Literally, address the corposcum being antisocial capitalist eyesores instead of harming people.

Age Verification and Age Gating: Resource Hub

Age verification (or age-gating) laws generally require online services to check, estimate, or verify all users’ ages—often through invasive tools like ID checks, biometric scans, or other dubious “age estimation” methods—before granting them access to certain online content or services.  Governments in the U.S. and around the world are increasingly adopting these restrictive measures in the name of protecting children online. But in practice, these systems create dangerous new forms of surveillance, censorship, and exclusion.  Technologically, the age verification process can take many forms: collection and analysis of government ID, biometric scans, algorithmic or AI-based behavioral or user monitoring, digital ID, the list goes on. But no matter the method, every system demands users hand over sensitive and immutable personal information that links their offline identity to their online activity. Once that valuable data is collected, it can easily be leaked, hacked, or misused. (Indeed, we’ve already seen several breaches of age verification providers.) EFF has long warned against age-gating the internet. Age verification technology itself is often inaccurate and privacy-invasive. These restrictive mandates strike at the foundation of the free and open internet. They are tools of censorship, used to block people from viewing or sharing information that the government deems “harmful” or “offensive.” And they create surveillance systems that critically undermine online privacy, chill access to vital online communities and resources, and burden the expressive rights of adults and young people alike. EFF.org/Age: A Resource to Empower Users Age-gating mandates are reshaping the internet in ways that are invasive, dangerous, and deeply unnecessary. But users are not powerless! We can challenge these laws, protect our digital rights, and build a safer digital world for all internet users, no matter their ages. This resource hub is here to help—so explore, share, and join us in the fight for a better internet.

Electronic Frontier Foundation
@s1m0n4 @mttaggart @CliffsEsport Why yes, not botching things requires taking the time to do it properly, what an astounding discovery⸮
@s1m0n4 @mttaggart Personally yes, do I think society will? No. I really think having drinking age below age for driving is better for society.
@s1m0n4 @CliffsEsport @mttaggart Just because one refused to partake doesn't mean one didn't know where to get it if they changed their mind.