The message from Europeans is clear: children deserve a digital world where they can grow up free, safe and protected.

[asardinianabroad@mastodon.social]

@theloopfarm @usernomnomnom @EUCommission my apologize then.

[theloopfarm@mastodon.social]

@ASardinianAbroad @usernomnomnom @EUCommission awe thanks!

[paul@social.lightlyseared.online]

@onepict @EUCommission This.

[samueljohnson@mstdn.social]

@The_Universality @proscience @penguinrebellion @EUCommission I have corresponded with an MEPs. They are technologically illiterate, naive about the collateral effects, subjected to lobbying by both big tech firms and law enforcement that always wants more surveillance and uses horror stories effectively. In addition, some are religious fundamentalists with latent authoritarian instincts.

None of that amounts to corruption.

[killick@dmv.community]

@EUCommission

You want a digital world for kids, then go ahead and create it and leave the internet alone. The internet is for everyone, but it's not a nursery. If it's not safe for your kid, don't let your kid use it. Use that Digital World thing you want, whatever that is.

What, exactly, is so hard about telling your child no?

[the_universality@mastodon.novotnykrystof.com]

@samueljohnson @proscience @penguinrebellion @EUCommission That's why I've said at most, although I shall have been more specific.

You are right on this. The good old nescience and/or incompetence is behind most.

(I'll edit my previous message to mention this.)

[samueljohnson@mstdn.social]

@The_Universality @proscience @penguinrebellion @EUCommission Thanks for your clarification. The EU has its faults and there have been corrupt and dishonest individuals in parliament and elsewhere, but to dismiss the entire EU as corrupt is simply wrong. It's currently the only organization on earth capable of regulating big tech, in Europe at least.

[inctail@infosec.exchange]

@EUCommission

Then maybe address it the right way, you write the following:

the negative impact of social media on their mental health (93%),
cyberbullying and online harassment (92%)

These two are addressed if you go after the real problem, Big tech and their algorithms, not restrict citizens rights by making us send more information to them.

assuring mechanisms to restrict age in appropriate content (92%).

This is plain and simple parenting, all my children have iPhones, none of them have social media because I speak to them about the issues and set boundaries, now none of them want it.

[the_universality@mastodon.novotnykrystof.com]

@samueljohnson @proscience @penguinrebellion @EUCommission
Indeed. I didn't meant to suggest dismissing the EU as corrupt. If it seemed that way, excuse my phrasing.

As for the ability to regulate big tech, I wouldn't be that optimistic.

(Not all things are verified)
https://rebalance-now.de/en/von-der-leyen-halts-billions-dollar-fine-against-google-criticism-from-parliament-and-civil-society/

[samueljohnson@mstdn.social]

@The_Universality @proscience @penguinrebellion @EUCommission I am also not optimistic about the EU's *willingness* to regulate big tech. Willingness and ability are not the same thing.

Apart from anything else the EU is currently constrained by matters of timing and circumstances may change later this year.

[riley@toot.cat]

@killick You know, if we kept dangerous sillionaires off the Internet, it could be as safe to kids as it used to be before Bocefaak.

@EUCommission

[basiep@fosstodon.org]

@EUCommission
Parents are responsible. Not companies.
Also, digital safety doesn't allow for mass surveillance (called age verification)

[neongod@mstdn.social]

@EUCommission You could dismantle the whole attention economy by making it impossible to offer their services for free while making their users the product. Just by regulation, without any tech.

If for-profit social media would not be free, most kids would have no access. In fact, most adults would stop wasting their life there too. It would not only solve child safety, but make everyone’s life better. Without the need for age verification and building a surveillance state.

[ryoma123@livellosegreto.it]

@EUCommission Avete toccato un tasto che qui, sul fediverso, non dovevate toccare.

[corbden@defcon.social]

@EUCommission Regulate companies not people.

[jakekb@mastodon.social]

@EUCommission @gnemmi Then why did Ursula von der Leyen scrap a fine to Google last week without any explanation? How is that holding them accountable for violating dsa?

[xjki@mastodon.social]

@EUCommission All is good but age verification systems are not the solution.

[brobot90001@mastodon.online]

@EUCommission

Except that isn’t! You are actively assisting big tech with this move.

Asking children and adults to identify themselves online isn't holding big tech companies responsible!

Verifying who everyone is with government ids is not a solution. It’s a massive data breach waiting to happen.

You are enabling much much more harm to children and everyone using the internet by pushing this narrative of verification.
#chatcontrol #idverification #privacy #eu

[cid_terron@social.linux.pizza]

@EUCommission very high. Good.
You've made quite a few laws ensuring child safety.
Let's consider a law successful if children are safe.
Have the unsuccessful tries been revoked and the incompetent supporters been removed?
No - you definitely should. Child safety is important. But I consider abusing children for mass surveillance as child abuse.

[rhoot@mastodon.gamedev.place]

@EUCommission by providing a method to verify that a person is an adult, you are implicitly also adding a method for bad actors to verify that someone is underage, and someone they can take advantage of. The only safe solution is for sites to know less about their visitors, not more.