> 1.) They lie, so either that's going to be commonly known/accepted OR a giant millstone around the neck of any existing company.
You hint at an under-mentioned point here: we want laws that encourage companies to be aware of their users and to protect them, and an unintended consequence of laws that say, "you can continue operating as normal as long as you don't know any of your users are kids" is that companies hear, "don't make any moderation or safety features that might open you up to that kind of accusation."
Of course demanding that companies know all of their users perfectly is an obvious privacy violation with obviously even worse consequences. But even though it's better than hooking up ID verification to social networks, "pretend teenagers don't use the Internet" isn't harmless policy, it's not just that there are popups people click through.
----
I personally feel like this kind of "don't knowingly target" stuff is often counterproductive to keeping kids safe online. It means that when they hang out, almost every space they enter is going to be specifically designed for adults, and will systematically ignore the fact that they exist or might have unique needs -- because ignoring that kids exist and removing safeguards is now the safest thing for the website to do.
On a really small scale, think back to when Youtube got targeted for programming "aimed at kids". One short-term result I saw from that was animators/streamers trying to deliberately make their streams less child-appropriate so they wouldn't be swept up. It's anecdotal and I'd like to see more research on it, but I vaguely wonder if the result of these crackdowns isn't often to make social sites more dangerous for kids.
> But even though it's better than hooking up ID verification to social networks, "pretend teenagers don't use the Internet" isn't harmless policy, it's not just that there are popups people click through.
Related to that, we can't just pretend teenagers have no ability or agency. Honestly, it's a toss up who would 'win' a cat and mouse game between the MN legislature and a group of teens with programming capability. Adolescents are in a developmental stage where they're establishing themselves as individuals away from their parents/adult authorities; it's natural that they're going to seek out spaces that either their parents don't know about or don't want them going to. Our job as adults is to make sure that process is safe for them while still allowing them the autonomy to learn to make good decisions.
> I vaguely wonder if the result of these crackdowns isn't often to make social sites more dangerous for kids.
I wonder this too. I was a very digital kid back in the day before there were regulations against it, and there were opportunity costs to kicking out the under-13s that would be very magnified for 13-to-18s.
It prevents kids from having their own social structures and spaces. For example, 7-10 year old me ran a curatorial site for the Geocities' kids neighborhood and late elementary school me also had an IRC channel. It seems bonkers, but there were advantages: Since I/some of the other kids could run things ourselves (with some adult help from trusted adults), it kept creepy adults from integrating themselves into the group by providing resources. (Think the stereotypical college kid buying high schoolers booze; if kids can't sign up or learn how things work, then they have to play in adult playgrounds instead of making their own.) It meant I could kick people and that the conversation was age-appropriate (because that was where I talked about kid stuff and how dare you be off-topic in my channel [kids make great dictators]).
Related, having an admin/building group of kids is really helpful as a buffer, especially in the teen years. Lots of teens aren't going to tell their parents much, but they will tell other teens, so having some teens around who know how stuff works and gives advice is helpful.
You can't legislate for teens without remembering that they have agency and will act independently.
You hint at an under-mentioned point here: we want laws that encourage companies to be aware of their users and to protect them, and an unintended consequence of laws that say, "you can continue operating as normal as long as you don't know any of your users are kids" is that companies hear, "don't make any moderation or safety features that might open you up to that kind of accusation."
Of course demanding that companies know all of their users perfectly is an obvious privacy violation with obviously even worse consequences. But even though it's better than hooking up ID verification to social networks, "pretend teenagers don't use the Internet" isn't harmless policy, it's not just that there are popups people click through.
----
I personally feel like this kind of "don't knowingly target" stuff is often counterproductive to keeping kids safe online. It means that when they hang out, almost every space they enter is going to be specifically designed for adults, and will systematically ignore the fact that they exist or might have unique needs -- because ignoring that kids exist and removing safeguards is now the safest thing for the website to do.
On a really small scale, think back to when Youtube got targeted for programming "aimed at kids". One short-term result I saw from that was animators/streamers trying to deliberately make their streams less child-appropriate so they wouldn't be swept up. It's anecdotal and I'd like to see more research on it, but I vaguely wonder if the result of these crackdowns isn't often to make social sites more dangerous for kids.