Quote:
Originally Posted by jem
a) define an ‘adult site’, yes Pornhub would probably apply, but Readit?
b) Who sets up the device? Is it a child who is given it as a present, who, I’m sure will enter their actual date of birth, or the parent who is firstly technically competent to do it, or is sufficiently tech-savvy to understand this stuff and have had the appropriate ’talks’ with their children.
Now ‘duty of care for their user’, except how can sites possibly know who or how old their users are, and whether or not they need protecting.
Which all circles round to age verification, and how do you do this without forcing everyone to hand over personal information to whoever provided the lowest tender bid - lowest for a good reason.
|
What sites children should not be able to access until a certain age (these may be different eg social media at 16, porn at 18) would have to be universally agreed upon, so that everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet.
It would be up to an adult to set the phone up, but we are then faced with the same problem if some parents not being capable if doing it or that they couldn't care less.
The legal cases surrounding 'duty of care' have involved users of all ages. The last one involving a child could equally apply to an adult:
Quote:
A landmark legal battle in Los Angeles set a major precedent when a jury found Meta and Google liable for intentionally designing addictive algorithms that harmed a child's mental health, ordering them to pay \(\$6\text{ million}\) in damages.The landmark lawsuit centers on a young woman known as Kaley (or K.G.M.), who began using YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at age 9.Case Details & Health ImpactsUsage: Kaley testified to spending up to 16 hours a day on the apps, driven by a cycle of seeking validation through likes and interactions.Mental Health: By age 10, she developed severe depression, anxiety, social phobia, and engaged in self-harm. She was also diagnosed with body dysmorphic disorder, attributing her obsession with her appearance directly to the apps' editing filters.
The Verdict: The jury found the tech giants acted with "malice, oppression, or fraud," ordering $6 million in compensatory damages and \(\$3\text{ million}\) in punitive damages (Meta pays 70%, Google pays 30%).Global ImplicationsThis bellwether lawsuit is one of thousands winding through US courts, often likened to historic lawsuits against "Big Tobacco". While Meta and Google intend to appeal the verdict, the legal and public pressure is pushing governments globally to take action. Countries like Australia have moved to restrict or ban social media for users under 16, and the UK is running pilot programs to evaluate similar safeguards..
Meta and YouTube found liable in social media addiction trial27 Mar 2026 — Updated 27 March 2026. * Parents and campaign groups seeking tighter restrictions on social media have welcomed a Los Angeles jury handing down an unprecedented...BBCThe US social media addiction case and its implications27 Mar 2026 — The US social media addiction case and its implications. 27 March 2026 Technology. An expert comment piece written by Dr Hellen Mukiri-Smith of Loughborough Uni...Loughborough UniversityZuckerberg defends Meta in landmark social media addiction trial18 Feb 2026 — The case is one of thousands of similar lawsuits brought by families, state prosecutors and school districts currently winding their way through US courts. The ...BBCShe spent 16 hours a day on Instagram. Jury to decide if Meta is to ...14 Mar 2026 — Kaley had soon created dozens of accounts on both platforms in an effort to drive likes and interactions with the content she was posting – selfies on Instagram.
|