
Under-18s face 'like' and 'streaks' bans on social media - dustinmoris
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47933521
======
linuxasheviller
+1 for taming the addictive nature of social media.

-1000 for trying to do this with age-based restrictions. Kids will get around it. Kids SHOULD get around it. Gating content based on age does. not. work. Source: every teenage kid ever.

~~~
areyouseriousxx
What you are saying is essentially that all restrictions based on age are
invalid because some people will manage to circumvent those rules.

We have significant, long term, data that age restrictions reduced the use of
alcohol and tobacco.

What has changed, in the modern era of internet age restrictions, is that the
enforcement of age restrictions online has been reduced.

For example, online pornography has massive numbers of users under 18, but
there has been little enforcement by law enforcement agencies.

The solution is quite simple. If a person under the age of 18 is in possession
of an application that is prohibited for minors and the company that creates
that application fails to verify their age, then the company should face
criminal charges, just like we do with tobacco and alcohol.

To say that age restrictions do not work is to ignore almost a century of
public policy.

~~~
drcube
And yet, kids still drink and smoke. Yes, age restrictions are foolish and
invalid, century of public policy notwithstanding. Not every policy that has
existed should continue to exist.

~~~
areyouseriousxx
_> CONCLUSIONS: The preponderance of evidence indicates there is an inverse
relationship between the MLDA[minimum legal drinking age] and two outcome
measures: alcohol consumption and traffic crashes._ [1]

[1]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12022726](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12022726)

------
zachr
Some of this is definitely good. Requiring companies to use plain and truthful
language when describing privacy-affecting settings is a great step, and
apps/services shouldn't try to hide the "continue without enabling" button.

With that said, requiring different rules for children seriously increases
barriers to entry for new services hoping to attract users in areas where
these rules take effect, and kids will ALWAYS find ways around it. Nudges like
snap streaks and the Like button encourage daily active use, but they also
encourage actual social interaction between people to some degree.

Additionally, nudges like the Like button or Snapstreaks, though they do
encourage a potentially unhealthy relationship with technology, also encourage
social interaction with peers. It's certainly more complicated than "these are
bad!"

~~~
SanderSantema
I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. Until about a year ago I myself was
one of the under 18’s and although I myself have never had a “streak” or used
social media much in general I do have some experience with these kind of
things because I see my friends and peers partake in these kind of things.
What I mostly see is that the upkeep of a streak consists of sending a black
photo with some text on it like “goodnight” and then it being sent to dozens
of people. Not much comes from it other than maintaining a streak.

So not a lot of social interraction in that case, more so a reward for
substanceless and ultimately unrewarding behaviour. Even more so, I saw my
peers getting distracted from actual social interaction IRL by these kind of
things.

I don’t think social interaction has anything to do with things like streaks
or other addictive nudges. I think the most that is needed for social
interaction is a chat client (or voice for that matter) and the ability to
send photo’s or use a webcam. It shouldn’t be more than that. Other things
often get in the way of real social interaction be it online or offline.

~~~
Qqqwxs
I'm definitely guilty of the blank picture solely for streaks. For me, the
value comes from a feeling of connection when keeping a streak, mostly with
friends I barely ever see. There are people that I've only really met once at
events etc., but we have remained acquaintances through these 'substanceless'
conversations over Snapchat. If I ever travel and end up near these friends I
wouldn't hesitate to message them to hang out, where as if we never started a
streak I'd most likely never see them again.

I've never liked keeping in touch with people over the internet, but 'streaks'
lets me do it with dozens of people without sinking in hours of my time for
conversation.

------
OliverJones
Interesting white-hat application of behavioral economics. It's no surprise
this is happening in UK.

Based on Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler's book "Nudge," the UK set up a
behavioral economics team charged with helping British subjects interact with
their government. They had some notable successes. That's now called The
Behavioural Insights Team. [https://www.bi.team/](https://www.bi.team/) It's
possible their national experience led them to adopt new rules against black-
hat UX (tiny gray opt-out buttons, etc.)

User experience standards based on behavioral economics principles might be a
very productive route to improving social media. It's CERTAINLY worth a try.

------
grawprog
Much of that seems reasonable but wouldn't this:

>To ensure its success, the ICO added that online services must also adopt
"robust" age-verification systems.

Imply that ID of some kind would be required to use certain features of
different sites?

It seems like this part in particular is another attack on internet anonymity.

~~~
Barrin92
I don't see a good reason why anonymity should be a good default for social
networks in particular. It's quite literally in the name, the primary function
is social interaction.

The idea that anonymity should be guaranteed on every website, in every
context without justification needs to be argued for, it's not self evident.

~~~
grawprog
So, you provide your ID to everyone you have a social interaction with?

For example, there's someone I've known for about two years and talk to
regularly, we know a fair bit about eachother's lives. I was thinking the
other day though and realized, we've never introduced ourselves to to
eachother. We've never actually told eachother our names, yet every time we
see eachother we talk like old friends.

Or there's plenty of parties where i've socially interacted with people
without ever knowing or giving a name.

For the most part, at least partial anonymity is up to the choice of the
participants for in person social interaction, why should the internet be
different?

It's not like most privately owned public spaces require ID for you to talk to
people inside of them. Bars and such I guess being an exception, but that's
because they serve liquor and some bars depending on where you are or what
event will actually still allow minors in without serving them, so they could
technically interact. My first concert was at an all ages show in a bar as a
teenager.

~~~
Barrin92
>For the most part, at least partial anonymity is up to the choice of the
participants for in person social interaction, why should the internet be
different?

the internet isn't different. But Facebook isn't 'the internet', Facebook is a
commercial public platform. I fully expect to not be anonymous when I engage
with any commercial platform,be it online or offline, the only places where I
expect full anonymity are places I own, where no liability or implications for
third parties exist.

You can have those on the internet, but they're not commercial, centralised
social media websites where people, with their posts, face the public.
Facebook in this example is exactly like a bar or a townsquare, and not like
my private home.

------
sandov
Sad to think that the Internet is becoming increasingly censored by many
governments.

Maybe the Unabomber was right ,and you can't have technology and freedom at
the same time. People just don't like freedom when it affects them negatively
or benefits someone other than themselves.

~~~
meesles
That's always been the case, right? Freedom of speech, EXCEPT when it directly
negatively affects the person due to reputation or fear.

Freedom to protest, as long as it isn't interfering with certain government
functions and you aren't messing with the police.

I think as a society, it's our job to figure out the best balance of freedom
and security. People are all up and down the spectrum, so you'll never make
everyone happy anyway.

------
gcthomas
Despite many posts criticising the recommendations, the ICO _doesn't recommend
age verification_ as a solution.

From the actual document:

> 2\. Age-appropriate application: Consider the age range of your audience and
> the needs of children of different ages. Apply the standards in this code to
> all users, unless you have robust age-verification mechanisms to distinguish
> adults from children.

The commissioner is saying that the companies should make the sites adhere to
the rules covering children, with a get out IF some new age verification
system could be developed.

~~~
a1369209993
Less bad then expected then, although adding a get-out-of-consumer-protection-
free clause for sites that commit age discrimination isn't all _that_ much of
a improvement.

~~~
IanCal
There's no such thing, just stricter requirements for how you treat children.
There are absolutely still requirements for how you treat adults.

------
DINKDINK
What are people's expectations of the effectiveness and the iatrogenics of
this policy?

Before alcohol prohibition in the United States, most alcohol consumption was
low-proof/ABV drinks (such as beers). The introduction of prohibition
attenuated some demand for alcohol but created a black market for those still
wishing to consume. Black-market suppliers shifted alcohol production to
higher ABV/proof alcohols to mitigate risks and increase profits. The results
was increased consumption in spirits and other more damaging alcohols.

The same phenomenon occurred during the US's 1970s "War on Drugs" milder drugs
such as cannabis were outlawed, suppliers shift to more profitable and potent
drugs, consumer preferences change, more addictive and damaging drugs are
consumed (e.g. Fentanyl).

Social-media moralizers "save the children" with prohibitions -> marginal
demand is attenuated but persists -> satisfaction is attained through less
preferable way to the individual.

Humans are risk averse given relative options. Given the choice they will opt
for the least damaging vice satisfier. Denied that option, preference shifts
up the risk ladder. I don't think social media is healthy or advisable without
moderation but the "solutions" will cause more harm than if left alone.

A treatment that's beneficial on the individual level is all but guaranteed to
be detrimental on the aggregate: "The country's average mass is overweight!
Everyone is now mandated to skip one meal a day until we are at an acceptable
weight" kills malnourished people

~~~
ared38
But while spirits became a larger share of alcohol consumed, "per capita
annual consumption [immediately after the repeal of prohibition] stood at 1.2
US gallons (4.5 liters), less than half the level of the pre-Prohibition
period". Likewise, "[d]eath rates from cirrhosis and alcoholism, alcoholic
psychosis hospital admissions, and drunkenness arrests all declined steeply".
In short, prohibition worked as a public health policy.

You can't just point out that something will cause unintended consequences.
You have to actually weight them against the benefits the policy provides.
Obviously fewer potheads for more heroin addicts was a bade trade, but fewer
cigarette smokers for a slightly larger black market has proven to be a great
one. We haven't seen the nicotine equivalent of fentanyl your "risk ladder"
model predicts.

> A treatment that's beneficial on the individual level is all but guaranteed
> to be detrimental on the aggregate: "The country's average mass is
> overweight! Everyone is now mandated to skip one meal a day until we are at
> an acceptable weight" kills malnourished people

This Ayn Rand fever dream ignores the fact that the government has tons of
policies that are beneficial on the individual level: banning trans fats,
mandating nutrition labels, and taxing sodas just to name a few.

Source:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/)

~~~
DINKDINK
>the government has tons of policies that are beneficial on the individual
level: banning trans fats, mandating nutrition labels, and taxing sodas just
to name a few.

Listing the benefits of a policy while neglecting the iatrogenics is precisely
my point about the complexity dynamics. Before a treatment, it is unknowable
how adding another domain will effect all the other domains.

Take a hypothetical policy of weekly fire-sprinkler checks being instituted.
As a result 3% of all systems were nonfunctional but repaired! But this
neglects the inspections also caused a chilling effect of people behavior
("Sorry Anne Frank, I can't take you in as a refugee because there's an
increased likely hood that the police will find you now that they started
doing sprinkler checks")

Would you take a drug without someone certifying it's side effects first? Why
do the same with policy?

------
throw2016
It's interesting to understand what is happening internally in these social
media companies engaging in blatantly shady and unethical behavior.

Its more than weird that inspite of HN being a place where many of these
individuals are there is little to no discussion on the actual forces and
pressures at work driving these decisions, are there ethical dilemmas,
difficult decisions? Because there is nearly nothing on this discussion wise
or whistle blowers that would suggest this is something people working inside
these companies are grappling with.

If this does not concern engineers its unlikely discussion on issues being
raised by outsiders and regulatory bodies are going to lead to any kind of
productive discussion beyond dilution and denial.

------
nickcw
In my opinion this would be best applied to everyone not just the under 18s.
That would go a long way to taking some of the addictive behaviours out of
social media.

Probably not a popular opinion though, either with the users, or with the
companies that run the social media platforms.

~~~
IanCal
It's what the ICO suggests too.

------
randomacct3847
Anyone else feel like tech workers are now bucketed in “just show me the
money” and “oh my god what have I enabled” groups?

------
totierne2
Any recommended legal social networks for a 12.5 year old? What are the legal
hurdles for starting one with no advertising, or unnecessary tracking? (Dublin
Ireland). Too retro to go IRC?

------
nickthemagicman
How do you stop this? It will just encourage then to create fake accounts .

~~~
smhenderson
Well the article says: _To ensure its success, the Information Commissioner 's
Office (ICO) says that online services must also adopt "robust" age-
verification systems._

My guess is they'll ask for a valid credit card before allowing users to
access the interface for likes and such. Which, IMO anyway, means many less
people will be liking things in the UK, not just under-18's. Then some clever
kid will find a way to get around it and before you know it the only people
liking anything will be kids under 18.

~~~
judge2020
Not sure about the UK, but in the US you can get a bank account and debit card
when your parents co-sign as early as age 14 (Bank of America). Is age
something merchants get back from Visa/MC when you make a transaction?

~~~
GrinningFool
Banks will often have multiple BIN's[1] assigned to them. When I was last in
the industry ~10 years ago, it was typical to use the BIN to identify specific
types of card within an institution, so it wasn't uncommon to see a single
institution with multiple BINs.

Something like that could be used to filter out such cards, if they were
assigned a unique BIN by the bank. As to whether anyone actually _does_ that,
I don't know.

[1] The BIN is the first six digits of your card number. It identifies the
originating bank, among other things:
[https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bank-identification-
num...](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bank-identification-number.asp)

------
huffmsa
Just ban the internet already England. You're 75% there already.

------
gibolt
The number of 18 year olds in the UK is about to skyrocket.

Tangent Rant - Mobile back button is completely non-functional.

~~~
doubleunplussed
I thought the back button was one of those intermediate-page-with-a-redirect
situations, but even a quick double tap of the back button does absolutely
nothing. How is this even possible?

------
malvosenior
What would be the best way to capitalize from a personal investment standpoint
in what I can only imagine will be _massive_ growth in VPN usage? The EU and
UK are going to end up cutting off large swaths of the internet from their
population but I have no doubt people will still want unfettered internet
access.

Are there any publicly traded VPN providers?

~~~
ceejayoz
I'd say your best bet is probably waiting for CloudFlare to IPO. They're
teasing a 1.1.1.1 branded VPN just recently.

~~~
Mindwipe
CloudFlare were extremely vague about where the end points of their VPN
service would occur though. They said it "wasn't intended for circumventing
geofiltering", which is fair enough, but that suggests it would have end
points in your own country. In which case it's unlikely to be helpful against
the UK's increasingly insane, authoritarian government.

