Yes, it's about the explicitly stated goal of getting kids to stop being harmed by the products of some of the largest advertising agencies on the planet that have resisted more subtle regulation for decades.
Yes, no doubt there is an obvious first-order reason for this. It's the second order effects that I think folks are rightly worried about, but it's easy to steel man.
I'm not sure that will bring a lot of relief to the concerned side as it implies you are being fingerprinted by all the websites that are subject to this verification rule.
So that's considered acceptable? Seriously? I mean the government can't seriously argue that Facebook or Twitter aren't going to be deceptive about this?
were you under some sort of impression that ad-tech surveillance platforms (“social media”) weren’t already fingerprinting the majority of their users?
like, the facebook pixel used to track you across the entire internet (or damn near close enough to it). and that was 10-ish years ago.
Watching youtube wasn't banned. They just got banned from having an account and participating in the social features of youtube.
As for how effective the ban was on getting kids off social media in general, I think it's a long process that doesn't entirely sit on this change. Banning phones in schools has been a much faster more radical improvement.
It's going to take a lot more work to defeat the tech giants but I'm glad we are trying.
That is not an accurate description of the idea expressed in the post I replied to, you might want to start a separate thread to discuss potential second order effects.
