The question of age verification on the Internet has always been fraught. Every now and then, a usually well-intentioned politician sees requiring age checks as a straightforward policy victory only to realize later not nearly enough consideration had been given to how a practical system would truly work.
Privacy advocates argue users should not need to confirm their age and identity to use apps or browse the Web, even when (or especially when) they are looking for sexual or other content they would like to keep secret. Handing over credit card information, even if there is no charge, comes with obvious security and privacy implications. Another option, such as verifying users by having them upload a government ID, is even worse — not to mention exclusionary. Newer efforts to use computer camera technology to estimate a person’s age show promise, but I would not blame any user for not trusting such a process.
However, that does not mean everyone should just throw their hands up in frustration. Options are not lacking to protect children — we just need to recognize the right ones when we see them. Meta Platforms Inc’s call for federal regulation to add an age verification process to popular app stores is one such example. The Facebook and Instagram owner — which already goes to considerable (if partly futile) efforts to restrict young users on its platforms and keep those younger than 13 off its main apps — is arguing for Apple and Google to always obtain a parent’s approval whenever a child younger than 16 tries to download an app from their stores. Both companies already offer opt-in features to require parental approval for app downloads and purchases, but Meta wants it to be the default, enforced by law.
“This way parents can oversee and approve their teen’s online activity in one place,” wrote Antigone Davis, Meta’s global head of safety. “They can ensure their teens are not accessing adult content or apps, or apps they just don’t want their teens to use. And where apps like ours offer age-appropriate features and settings, parents can help ensure their teens use them.”
This is a technically feasible, light-touch approach that does not intrude on a teenager’s right to be a teen. It does not give parents access to everything their child does in the app, but they do get sufficient visibility into the digital places they are spending their time. Like setting boundaries for where a child can go and play outside in the physical world, this simple measure would help keep children away from the busy roads and dangerous rivers of the Internet.
What it would not do is to prevent minors from using Web browsers, rather than apps, to access inappropriate sites. Indeed, apps that are specifically does not begin and end with naked flesh. It is YouTube videos that contain hateful content; Discord channels that might involve unsuitable conversations or material; bullying and harassment on Instagram. A parent knowing what apps a child has is at the very least a conversation starter. As Davis wrote, parents will have a different opinion, as is their right, about the right age for their children to have access to certain technologies.
In pushing for a law, Meta has something to gain, of course. It is trying to avoid the complexity of dealing with a patchwork of laws across several states. Meta is right to stress that these different approaches mean children are protected inconsistently, and the measures often rely on sites using a hodgepodge of third-party verification services. In Texas, a federal judge blocked an age verification law, saying it contravened the First Amendment. A judge in Arkansas echoed the same about a similar law in that state. Meta’s understandable desire for simplicity in enforcement comes at no cost to the rights of users.
Encouragingly, there is a bipartisan bill on child protection online calling for a feasibility study into how age verification might be handled at the device or operating system level, as Meta is suggesting, though some civil liberties groups have broader concerns about the bill.
Making the app stores function as a centralized age verification mechanism reduces the risk of highly personal data being widely disseminated among several entities responsible for verifying ages on behalf of each and every app. Give those details once to either Apple or Google — something you have likely already done — and you are good to go. (Apple declined to comment on Meta’s blog post; Google did not respond to requests for comment.)
Critics of Meta might at this point scoff at the company positioning itself as some kind of champion of child protection. Its blog post comes just days after a former employee testified to the Senate that Facebook ignored repeated warnings on harassment of teens through the app. Along with other leading apps, Meta faces hundreds of lawsuits that contend its apps are intentionally addictive to young people.
Those criticisms deserve to be heard, but can be treated separately. Protecting young people on the Internet will always be a delicate balancing process: The rights of parents to protect their children, the rights of teens to have their own private spaces, and the rights of everyone to use the Internet freely and without any greater erosion of privacy than has already happened. It is complicated, but when one obvious step can be taken — one with, as far as I can see, no negative consequences — we should not hesitate to take it.
Dave Lee is Bloomberg Opinion’s US technology columnist. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
After more than three weeks since the Honduran elections took place, its National Electoral Council finally certified the new president of Honduras. During the campaign, the two leading contenders, Nasry Asfura and Salvador Nasralla, who according to the council were separated by 27,026 votes in the final tally, promised to restore diplomatic ties with Taiwan if elected. Nasralla refused to accept the result and said that he would challenge all the irregularities in court. However, with formal recognition from the US and rapid acknowledgment from key regional governments, including Argentina and Panama, a reversal of the results appears institutionally and politically
In 2009, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) made a welcome move to offer in-house contracts to all outsourced employees. It was a step forward for labor relations and the enterprise facing long-standing issues around outsourcing. TSMC founder Morris Chang (張忠謀) once said: “Anything that goes against basic values and principles must be reformed regardless of the cost — on this, there can be no compromise.” The quote is a testament to a core belief of the company’s culture: Injustices must be faced head-on and set right. If TSMC can be clear on its convictions, then should the Ministry of Education
The Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) provided several reasons for military drills it conducted in five zones around Taiwan on Monday and yesterday. The first was as a warning to “Taiwanese independence forces” to cease and desist. This is a consistent line from the Chinese authorities. The second was that the drills were aimed at “deterrence” of outside military intervention. Monday’s announcement of the drills was the first time that Beijing has publicly used the second reason for conducting such drills. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership is clearly rattled by “external forces” apparently consolidating around an intention to intervene. The targets of
China’s recent aggressive military posture around Taiwan simply reflects the truth that China is a millennium behind, as Kobe City Councilor Norihiro Uehata has commented. While democratic countries work for peace, prosperity and progress, authoritarian countries such as Russia and China only care about territorial expansion, superpower status and world dominance, while their people suffer. Two millennia ago, the ancient Chinese philosopher Mencius (孟子) would have advised Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) that “people are the most important, state is lesser, and the ruler is the least important.” In fact, the reverse order is causing the great depression in China right now,
RSS