zlacker

I fully expect this to get ignored like all the other similar revelations. Heads should roll, literally, but nothing will happen. Does anybody have any earnest hope for reform? Even in Europe where the public is supposedly keyed in, and where there is some political traction for getting away from American companies, nobody seems to take the idea of banning these corporations seriously.

>>mikkup+(OP)
I think the possibility of banning certain sites at least for minors is being discussed, after Australia set the precedent. But this of course has downsides, too, as some form of verification has to be implemented, that would almost certainly reduce anonymity and carry risks to personal data protection. A complete ban is unrealistic since people actually like to use these platforms. Plus, it would certainly entail massive political repercussions from the US government. This is already happening when US American companies are simply fined in the EU.

>>mikkup+(OP)
The idea of banning meta or Google is indeed not serious. What's realistic is forcing them to behave by issuing fines that make such behavior prohibitively expensive. Admittedly there's nobody doing that in Europe seriously yet, but that's because the current unhinged head of American state has meltdown every time American bigtech get a wrist slap.

>>mikkup+(OP)
how would you ban it?

I don't want the russian-style ban enforced by ISPs

Probably punishing companies who pay YouTube for ads would work

>>integr+x4
> What's realistic is forcing them to behave by issuing fines that make such behavior prohibitively expensive.

Europeans have been saying that for what, 20 years now? How long does it have to not work before we stop saying that it's a realistic solution?

>>mikkup+(OP)
Social media is being banned for minors in multiple countries, and more are seriously considering it.

But if people keep proselytizing that nothing will happen and all is hopeless, it's going to be hard to get people together to support a change. You and others here are doing the work of social media companies by spreading that - on social media. In fact, nothing can stop the public if they want something.

>>tryauu+s5
On which grounds would you punish some companies which are using a fully legal platform? If you had beef with the ad contents, you'd punish them already for that. But if you have beef with the platform algorithms, punish them for exactly that. Not over proxies! As long the algorithm was designed for creating dependence, than regulate that - exactly like you (should) regulate other substances creating dependence. And some countries are going exactly this way: not only Australia but also Finland, Spain...

>>jmusal+54
Does that outweigh the loss of privacy involved? I really don't think it does personally, I should not have to show anyone ID to have an Instagram account, privacy and anonymity is a feature not a bug.

>>mikkup+s9
There were no serious attempts at enforcing the rules.

>>reorde+Ta
To me, the claim of privacy is the wrong concept. Anonymous would be a better description. People are posting things on a public website to be viewed by the public.

>>fsflov+eg
If that's so, then is it realistic to expect that to somehow change? These corps have been fined more times than I can count, but it's clearly not working.

>>tryauu+s5
Much if not all of Europe already has ISP level bans. If they can use those bans against football streaming sites, why not Facebook?

And actually I think just banning them from conducting any business, accepting payments/etc, would be mostly sufficient. They could continue to operate at a loss, but it would put American corps at such a disadvantage that domestic social media might be able to compete, and enforcing regulations against domestic companies should be far more feasible.

>>reorde+Ta
The privacy issue is one of the reasons I favor a total ban.

>>mikkup+Er
The fines were too low. If Europe is serious now, it can change.

>>soco+4a
Ok, imagine a law punishing a platform comes out. How will it be enforced? You can fine the companies but they can just close presence in europe. YouTube will continue to work even if all the YouTube's servers in europe are gone.

Or should the only outcome of the law be that the police could confiscate phones from kids? punish parents for allowing social media? Laws are not useless, at least teachers and parents will have a clear call to action. But still

>>mikkup+3s
Your name sounds finnish... Finland ISPs have only primitive dns based blocklists which can be bypassed by any kid, they need to purchase dpi-capable hardware to block websites by (still not encrypted) SNI

Man it's nice to live in the country not prioritizing internet censorship