this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2026
189 points (97.5% liked)

Ask Lemmy

38401 readers
1385 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I'm asking for public policy ideas here. A lot of countries are enacting age verification now. But of course this is a privacy nightmare and is ripe for abuse. At the same time though, I also understand why people are concerned with how kids are using social media. These products are designed to be addictive and are known to cause body image issues and so forth. So what's the middle ground? How can we protect kids from the harms of social media in a way that respects everyone's privacy?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DFX4509B@lemmy.wtf 102 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Parental controls have been an effective way for decades. In combination with actually looking over your kids, of course.

[–] osanna@thebrainbin.org 56 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

yeah, but that would require, you know, parenting, which is something we can't do.

[–] bigfish@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 2 weeks ago

This is capitalism people. Hire a parent doula. Let them do the busywork of digital parenting like minding internet activity, scheduling playdates, managing ad blockers, paying the Roblox allowance, or whatever largely digital activity your kids are involved with.

[–] otter@lemmy.ca 18 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Unfortunately a lot of parental controls aren't that helpful, and they're more of an afterthought

https://theconversation.com/parental-controls-on-childrens-tech-devices-are-out-of-touch-with-childs-play-257874

I agree with parenting in general though

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] gukleszl4hs48ughgxhr5xgd@fedia.io 48 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

By not allowing parents to outsource the responsibilities of being a parent.

[–] madnificent@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I'll reply to this random one with that statement. There's no winning move as a parent.

Problem is being locked out. If your kid is the only one not on social media and all other kids are, your kid will be socially left out.

All kids are on a chat platform you don't support. What do you? Disallow it and give them a social handicap that might scar them, or allow it and take the risk?

The same goes for allowing images on other platforms. Since GDPR schools seem to care. Yet if it's a recording that will be put on social media you can explain your 4 year old why they weren't allowed to participate... It sucks.

I don't know what the right way forward is. I don't think this is it. Something is needed though. We should at least signal what we find acceptable as a society. Bog stupid rules which are trivial to circumvent might be good enough, or perhaps some add campaigns like we did with smoking (hehe, if it's for something we support then adds are good?).

Regardless, the current situation clearly doesn't work. It would be great if we could find and promote the least invasive solutions.

[–] frostedtrailblazer@lemmy.zip 11 points 2 weeks ago

I feel that communicating your concerns with other parents and their school can help. I feel it can make sense to have some forms of socialization when they are in middle school or high school, but even then you’d want a pretty locked down system, imo.

I feel that not every parent is going to let their kids use technologically to talk to their friends, especially not all the time. That’s not how I grew up and I was fine developmentally speaking. As a parent you can seek out other parents that live by similar philosophy locally for your kids to have as friends as well.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 31 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

People said the exact same thing about books, radio, TV, movies, video games and music.

You come up with some sort of arbitrary rating system. Any child with intent will find a way around it, and eventually they'll try to find a way to protect their kids from something else.

[–] ageedizzle@piefed.ca 34 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Social media does seem unique though just because of how addictive it is. If you look into the details of how meta targets children and intentionally tries to addict them it paints a pretty sinister picture: https://techoversight.org/2026/01/25/top-report-mdl-jan-25/

[–] Drbreen@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 weeks ago

Well, with that comment, I think you have your answer.

[–] FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Counter argument: alcohol, weed, tobacco, cocaine, drinking and driving, speeding, and acid were all so incredibly commonplace that people were confused when they were phased out or delegalised.

Social media is not on the same level as books, radio, tv, movies, video games and music. The sacred sextuple.

Social media is, however, similar to the afforementioned things, in that partaking in the substance or activity regularly gives you illusions that it benefits much more than it really does, whike ultimately just being bad for you and predisposing you to binging.

I think people are ao defensive over social media because A) they're addicted and of course B) they're worried kids won't be educated on political issues, which i think is probably the more pressing issue than privacy. Becauae we already don't have privacy on mainstream SM

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 weeks ago

Except when you went outside back then, or to school, you couldn't take the TV with you. And parents controlled the TV at home

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lemmy_outta_here@lemmy.world 29 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Kill the engagement algorithm. Your feed should contain a chronological list of posts made by people you subscribe to. In one stroke you could end the doomscroll - not just for kids, but for everybody. Also, infinite scrolling should be banned.

[–] Skavau@piefed.social 8 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Your feed should contain a chronological list of posts made by people you subscribe to

Should that be the only way the feed should be organised by law?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social 28 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (5 children)

By getting rid of shitty corporate social media that makes money by exploiting people.

This is like suggesting that the solution to protecting your kids from tigers roaming the street is to lock them in their rooms. Nah, just rid of the fucking tigers.

[–] ageedizzle@piefed.ca 7 points 2 weeks ago

As long as corporate social media is closed source, it would be hard to know if a no-advertising policy is being fully adhered to. A good example of this is the class action lawsuit against Chrome’s incognito mode: for years, Chrome got away with collecting personal browsing data when people browsed in incognito mode despite insisting that they didn’t do that. Something similar might happen with social media. To get around that, there could be a legal requirement for social media to be open source. That might run into issues with intellectual property law though, and the lobbying against it would be so intense that I’m not sure if a law like that would ever pass without massive political will.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] shaggyb@lemmy.world 24 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

Stop. Giving. Them. Phones.

Stop whining. No they don't need one. NO THEY DON'T.

No.

No they're not special.

No they're not too busy. Neither are you.

No iPad either.

Stop. Shut up. No. Phones.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Nalivai@lemmy.world 21 points 2 weeks ago

There is no "harms of social media" per se. There are harms of unregulated companies that purposefully create addiction machines that are harmful to everyone, young and old alike. Our collective grandma became an antivaxer at the ripe age of 71, our collective dad became racist not at 13 either.

[–] Kazel@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 2 weeks ago

Maybe its time for parents to parent their fucking kids...

[–] draco_aeneus@mander.xyz 16 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The government already knows all our ages, right? They issue our IDs after all. Have the government provide a "yes, this person is over 18" service. There are ways of providing signed files/tokens which don't contain personal information.

If the government wants to write a law, then I think it's reasonable they're also responsible to help with a solution.

[–] remedia@piefed.social 14 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

In order to provide a "yes, this person is over 18" service for a vendor, the vendor has to know which real name (or other personally identifiable piece of information) to look up, don't they?

So if you have to provide the vendor with a real name, phone number, ID card number or selfie that identifies the account "draco_aeneus@mander.xyz" with "John Doe/555-4556/X1234567" that eliminates your anonymity, they've accomplished surveillance over your personal opinions and whatever other content you share. The real problem isn't age verification, the problem is they're trying to eliminate anonymity.

[–] tatterdemalion@programming.dev 11 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

The vendor/site does not need to know a name.

The idea is that people already trust the government with their identifying info. So what the government can do is issue, for example, an opaque "age ID" that is only to be used with an "over 18?" service hosted by the government. Then anyone visiting a website with age-restrictions would provide their age ID, which tells the site nothing about the user. The site checks the "over 18?" service. At no point do arbitrary websites need to collect identifying info.

Now obviously as I've described it, there are multiple problems:

  1. People could easily publish their age ID for anyone to use.
  2. If people aren't careful (they aren't) then they will give too much identifying info away to sites anyway, and then those sites could correlate the age ID with their identity.

One solution is to make the age ID into a "one time password" (OTP). Much like an authenticator app, you could have an app provided by the government which generates a new random OTP on request, and it would expire in a minute or so. Then users provide that instead of a constant age ID. Like before, the site checks the "over 18?" service using the OTP.

It's still not perfect, but you'll never solve the "adult buying beer for kids" trick without counterproductive measures. There are probably some additional tricks to make it better, but I don't want to get too far into it.

EDIT: One more point. Having this "over 18?" service is itself a privacy risk, because it relies heavily on your trust in the government not to conspire with the sites you are visiting or to just log info about all of the age-restricted sites you visit. There are apparently solutions to this problem involving zero-knowledge proofs, but I don't know quite enough to explain that entirely here.

EDIT2: I got curious and did a little more reading. The zero-knowledge proof idea kinda fails to prevent credential sharing, unless you rely on some kind of hardware cryptographic vault thing. I'm not sure if that ends up being strictly better than the service idea.

Another way you might prevent the govt from logging all of the age-restricted sites you visit is to put the service behind something like Tor to make the requesting site anonymous. But this still doesn't prevent the govt from just knowing that you visited some age-restricted site at a specific time. Still not ideal.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks ago (12 children)

Yeah, don't give them phones.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

The answer is that we shouldn't have most social media to begin with and parents need to actually fucking parent their kid's usage. Social media is just the television replacement.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Ryoae@piefed.social 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Be a parent. If you're going to fuck and have children, you need to be prepared for the responsibilities ahead. Stop trying to automate it by dumping those responsibilities onto others.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] wesker@lemmy.sdf.org 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HrabiaVulpes@lemmy.world 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Regulate advertising space and personalization algorithms.

Yes, it will kill a large portion of current economy, so maybe do it slowly. But generally speaking you should be able to find what you want on the internet, not what advertisers want you to see.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ChexMax@lemmy.world 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't know why no one has said it, but get rid of social media as we know it. That's the actual only solution. The harms of social media applies to all ages. It's the capitalist side of social media that is the danger. Put limits on advertising and suddenly the algorithms to keep you engaged/ angry/ addicted are pointless, and suddenly social media isn't as harmful.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kissaki@feddit.org 12 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (5 children)

The German passport allows services to verify age through you NFC reading your passport on your phone and confirmation of validity through intermediates state service. All they see is a confirmation of age requirement met. No name, no age, no address, no face.

Some other countries have similar systems. It's already a EU directive to be implemented on a broader European level.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] KingOfTheCouch@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

I like to think I'm a tech savvy parent and the amount of tooth gnashing to setup and maintain child accounts is incredible. I'm convinced the foxes guarding the henhouse are using dark patterns to make parents give up.

Why can't I just get a notification on my phone saying "Hey, kiddo wants to have screen time. Approve?"

Hell, I'd love a notification saying "Kiddo started watching Mr. Blah." If I got the notification and I didn't want them watching that, I could block the video, or creator with a click. WHY ARE WE NOT AT THIS LEVEL OF CONVENIENCE?

A LOT of these concerns would go away if phones/tablets/tv's had these simple controls. Move those privacy controls into the home and MAKE them so easy a neanderthal could operate them.

If I have to *.newsocialbook.com into my router, you can bet your damn ass that "LiveLaughLoveMom<3" is going to keep demanding that someone else do it for her.

[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 6 points 2 weeks ago

Sounds like an opportunity to create something like that. Any devs around here up for it?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I have no answers at this time, but THIS IS THE CORRECT QUESTION

[–] SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 2 weeks ago

Maybe sidestep this by asking more questions.

Why do kids use social media? What do they get from it? What could it be replaced by that's positive? What is social media?

That sort of thing.

[–] epicshepich@programming.dev 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The book The Anxious Generation by Jonathan Haidt had a really clever idea. Create a regulation for operating systems that requires that their parental controls include an option that labels a device as belonging to a kid. When that option is toggled, requests will include some sort of header that labels the request as originating from a kid. Then, place onus (probably through some sort of legislation) on web platforms to restrict what content is shown to kids.

[–] shneancy@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

consider though - politicians nowadays don't think. they think so little, in fact, that the last time i checked websites for self harm/sexual assault support or reporting were considered "too adult" for kids to have access to in the UK

if it was about kids' safety, this wouldn't have been omitted

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] squinky@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

By making it so that social media can’t harm anyone, not just kids.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] PositiveNoise@piefed.social 10 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (8 children)

The good news: approaches have already been developed to mostly allow this. The bad news: incompetent or lazy or corrupt people try to NOT implement these, and doomers always show up to loudly say that everything sucks and we should all just live in despair.

Nothing is perfect, but implementing the stuff mentioned below would be a big improvement to balancing privacy and security compared to virtually all previous human history. It involves the government implementing a few things and citizens having new ID-type-things that are not like photo IDs.

If these systems are set up correctly, a person can digitally prove that they are 18 years or older, but without providing ANY other information. Not there name or photo or anything other than 'yup. I'm 18+. Let me do my thing.'

Here are three critical tools to leverage, and do a bit of research on:

Verifiable Credential (VC)

  • What it is: A digitally signed attestation about you, issued by a trusted entity (e.g. a country government).
    Example: a university issues you a credential saying “PositiveNoise earned a Master’s degree in 2008.”

  • Structure: Typically uses the W3C Verifiable Credentials standard — it’s a JSON document signed cryptographically by the issuer.

  • Key idea: You hold it (not them). You can present it later to anyone (“verifier”) to prove something about yourself, and the verifier can confirm the signature without calling the issuer.

Analogy: A digital version of a stamped diploma or driver’s license, but one that lives in your own encrypted wallet rather than a government database.


Zero-Knowledge Proof (ZKP)

  • What it is: A cryptographic technique that lets you prove a statement is true without revealing the underlying data.
    Example: Prove “I am over 18” without showing your exact birthdate.

  • In relation to VCs: VCs can include data that can be selectively revealed or proven via ZKPs, so you never have to expose full documents.

Analogy: Showing only the needed part of your ID through a frosted window, but mathematically guaranteed.


Digital ID Wallet

  • What it is: The software or hardware container where you store and manage your Verifiable Credentials.
    Think of it like a crypto wallet, but instead of coins, it holds identity proofs (e.g., driver’s license, student ID, health certificate).

  • In relation to the others:

    • It stores your VCs (the signed attestations).

    • It lets you create ZK proofs on demand when sharing data.

    • It maintains control and consent: you decide when and what to share.

Analogy: A private digital passport holder that can generate “proof slips” without handing over the whole passport.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] 4grams@awful.systems 9 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Same as always, better parenting.

My three boys don’t have filters on the internet, instead of blocking them from the world, I raised them in it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ChristerMLB@piefed.social 9 points 2 weeks ago (12 children)

Some of it can be accomplished by just setting universal demands for how social media works for all users:

  • ban targeted advertising
  • make it mandatory for companies to ensure algorithms don't prioritize posts for making users angry, scared or depressed

Stuff like that. These kinds of regulations don't involve ID checks, and could take care of a big chunk of the problem.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Nightsoul@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Better parent supervision is the main way to combat these issues.

Companies should also either ban minors completely or allow parents to set up child accounts linked to their account with expansive parental controls that then can be migrated to full adult account once they reach legal age.

I don't think either will happen because there are so many stupid and lazy parents in America that don't care what their kids do as long as it's not bothering them

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] socsa@piefed.social 8 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

I cannot emphasize this enough: I do not give a single living fuck what other people's children do on the Internet.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

ban social media metrics and information trading/markets. make it a truly anonymous service like it was in the early 2000s.

if protecting children was the point they would stop corporations from identifying all users and selling their identities/profiles online.

but, protecting the children is NOT the point. the point is control of freedom of speech, or rather who gets to have the freedom of speech.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] curiousaur@reddthat.com 7 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] vogi@piefed.social 7 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Make chronological feeds mandatory. Accounts you follow shall not be filtered nor censored and posts of accounts you have not followed should not be shown. Algorithmic feeds are allowed but should be opt-in inside the settings.

And also schools teaching and parents parenting.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago

You can't, however you frame this issue there's going to be a sacrifice. We have to all digest this.

The best kind of sacrifice you can make though for the best outcome is to limit your child's screen-time, AND ALSO YOUR OWN. Spend more time together, practice what you preach, you are also a child being harmed by social media.

[–] Cantaloupe@fedioasis.cc 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I must state I lack any experience with parenting, but I have this to add:

Both Android and iOS have parental controls built in, just block whatever you don't want your kid to access. There are tools out there that parents can install on devices that are basically spyware for their kids. Parents have to actually use the existing tools, at least what is built in with the OS of the device. Make the iPad not an addictive content serving machine, but instead something with hand picked games, or whatever other apps you trust. Even non tech savvy users could enable parental features.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Profligate_parasite@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

Ban advertising.

No, seriously, think about it. Imagine a word where narrow, strictly defined thing called "advertisement" is illegal. I mean, obviously, we're in magic fairy wonderland here, but y'know... I live in a state where billboards are illegal. Nothing's truly impossible... just 'unthinkable' mostly. Without ads, the incentive to make the platform addictive evaporates, suddenly companies are competing just to, y'know, make a better platform.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] dumbass@piefed.social 6 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Maybe parent your children better, it is your job, not the government's.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›