The Liberal bill would force social media services — defined as traditional social media platforms, live-streaming services and adult content services focused on user-shared content — to restrict accounts for children under 16 years old.

However, services could seek an exemption if they implement what officials briefing reporters called adequate safeguards to protect children. The exemption wouldn't apply to adult content services.

AI chatbots will need measures to respond when a user expresses ideas of suicide or self harm or an intention to commit an act that could cause death or serious bodily harm to an individual, said officials. The bill would not require the companies behind the chatbots to report those interactions to police.

According to the bill, the maximum penalty for a violation would be either $10 million or three per cent of the company's gross global revenue — whichever is greater. Companies could face multiple penalties for repeated violations.

Full text of the bill here

[–] Reannlegge@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Yeah cause you know them kiddos wont be able to find ways around all and any locks big tech will put in place.

[–] TimothyOilypants@lemmy.ca 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

To be fair, kids clever and motivated enough to get around this type of gating generally aren't the ones at the greatest risk. I think this is more about creating a reasonable barrier to protect our most vulnerable.

[–] Reannlegge@lemmy.ca 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

The kids motivated enough to get around this will help their friends get around this, who will have other friends who want to get around this. If I was still at that age and had any real motivation for money I could have been getting money for the stuff I found out how to get around. I was pulling for people before I was legally old enough to buy alcohol, I was getting around website blockers in high school and helping others do the same. I can promise you if one child can do it they are helping their friends do it who are then going to help their friends do it, what is one child going to do on social media if their friends are not on social media?

[–] TimothyOilypants@lemmy.ca 1 points 12 hours ago

It's just about increasing the friction. No door lock will stop a motivated thief, but it will discourage 75% of people from trying. The laziest/stupidest kids (read: the most at risk for grooming and indoctrination) will be the ones least likely to overcome this friction, so it's still a good harm reduction strategy.

[–] HumanOnEarth@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago

There's also a social function when laws like this pass. What "society" deems as not good or not appropriate helps shape a generation's habits, even if it's not the only thing that does.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

On its own, that's not a very strong argument - underage people can still get their hands on alcohol, but the sale of it is still restricted.

[–] Reannlegge@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah I know I was pulling for people when I was 15, only because I was confident and now had ID. When I was in high school I “accidentally” found out how the school was blocking webpages and was helping people get to pages they wanted to go to by simply deleting the entry for said page. In the morning after the system rebooted all the locks and logs were erased so I could do it all over again, except for every other Thursday or the first Thursday of the month or something like that because that was when the IT guy came to the school to do their thing, this was in the early 2000’s so it was not hard. If I were to be in high school today, it may be a little more difficult if I did not know what I know now about networking. Funny story about how I found out how the school was blocking things was I misspelt an address and it brought me to some porn site, so I went looking for where the blocked sites where stored.

In no way am I saying this is going to stop kiddos from using the traditional, or whatever they called it, social media and AI. “Life it finds a way!” I am not calling the internet life I am calling the children life.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 2 points 1 day ago

The more I think about it, the more it's clear that the intent here isn't to prevent kids from using social media - it's about forcing the social media companies to implement "adequate safeguards."

There's an exception available for them if they do, and a surprisingly hefty fine for violations.

[–] Warehouse@piefed.ca 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Sure, but we don't have to give our biometric data to a US weapons manufacturer in order to purchase alcohol.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 2 points 1 day ago

Well, that's why I said "on its own" - the rest of the bill is extremely vulnerable to criticism.