>The European Parliament is set to vote on Tuesday on new rules that could see teenagers banned from internet services such as Facebook, social media, messaging services or anything that processes their data, without explicit consent from their parent or guardian.
>The last-minute amendment to the new European data protection regulations would make it illegal for companies to handle the data of anyone aged 15 or younger, raising the legal age of digital consent to 16 from 13.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/15/europe-ban-teenagers-facebook-internet-data-protection-under-16
explicit consent as in "are you 18?" in random porn sites?
>>9198
This... might be a good thing. We need less kids on the internet.
>>9218
I'm sorry, but as a teenager who grew up on the internet into the adult he is today, I wouldn't have survived if I didn't have the internet
hazard a guess that applies to you too
this is the most basic type of censorship, in my opinion, and it's completely abhorrent
teenagers need to be given the freedom to explore their own minds, and these days. the internet is fucking crucial in doing that
if you don't give them that freedom, you condemn them
>>9244
It only seems to apply to websites that collect personal data. So really you're just barring teens from social media, which little resembles the internet we grew up on.
Also, enforcement will probably be a joke.
>>9198
Good luck enforcing this. And as we know, telling teenagers not to do something always results in them not doing it
>>9246
true
but I still think these are massive steps in the wrong direction
it might not resemble the internet we grew up on, and althought it may not seem like it, to them it's effectively the same thing
teenage facebook is a hilarious place
the kids are alright tbh
>>9198
>Europe to ban teens from internet
It's more to ban internet from teens.
Or ban some internet companies (FB, google, I-know-EVERYTHING-about-you.com, etc.) from teens.
Just like a contract signed by someone who couldn't understand* said contract has no legal value. They just raised the legal age of being able to consent to collection of personal data by big evil companies (and the NSA). Responsibility to sign/click "I accept terms and condition" next to "open account" belong to legal tutors, usually the parents.
*because different language/analphabetic, is a baby, is senile from old age, is a retard, etc. It includes "had a gun pointed to the head" in the following paragraph.
The idea was to make scamming illegal, not say "people are free to get scammed or not" with a redneck accent before realising all cables companies are fuckers who made sure you can't go to the competitors, FB collect all the data regardless of the law, microsoft forces the sell of windows with new computers, and someone apparently sold an ugly necklace to your senile grandma for the price of all her money plus some debts for you to inherit.
Nanny state doesn't work perfectly, but it's not worst than crazy capitalism. USSR showed that over-doing doesn't work, but within reason it looks kinda OK.
Also, maybe I should start a journal instead of writing useless walls of text on Azerbaijani textplanks.
>>9346
>Also, maybe I should start a journal instead of writing useless walls of text on Azerbaijani textplanks.
You could start using http://4-ch.net/ and/or http://www.anontalk.eu/ if it's ephemerality you're worried about, 4-ch has a built-in archive and AnonTalk probably does as well.
>>9247
what if these teenagers have to obey their parents or suffer consequences?
>>9244
Teenagers do not "explore their own minds", they just explore Facebook nowadays. You see, Anon, I joined the Internet in 2002 when I was 10. The websites I used to visit were totally different than the sites teens nowadays visit. Newgrounds is dead, Kongregate is dead, Xgen is dead (actually, only 4chan on the list of sites I used to visit isn't dead). Why? Because teenagers do not explore the Internet. They stay in the same site until a new one appears and everyone in the first site move on to the second site.
I'm glad Europe is doing this, but it isn't going to work. Spoiled kids will annoy their parents until they give them Internet access.
i came here when i was almost 14 back in 2011
and knew about here since 2009
the fuck?
>>9244
you shoud've seen life before the internet. i was around 15-17 when it came out. shit wasnt so bad. people still thought they knew everything. it was just harder to contact people and you really had to be an invalid loner to not leave your house
>>9352
What if they have to obey or be shot in the head?
>>9198
This would be great. They should do it in canada too.
Teenagers are so easy to brainwash and incredibly susceptible to echo chambers (see: tumblr).
But i think my above statement proves that isreal would never let this pass
is this board /pol/ without fun
I think we can all agree the internet was a mistake.
>>9388
It's reddit.
>>9391
so /pol/ without fun?
This can only be a good thing
Fuck kids
>>9218
"fewer"
We need fewer kids on the internet.
>>9244
It's just social media shit, not the whole internet.
If you wouldn't have survived without social media, then you probably shouldn't have survived.
There's no redeeming quality to be found in social media.
It's not censorship, kids aren't supposed to be using social media, anyway.
>>9244
>teenagers need to be given the freedom to explore their own minds
lol
There's never been a greater hivemind factory than Facebook. Everyone thinks the same, everyone has the same opinion or you're completely ostracized.
It's anti-intellectual.
Teens aren't prevented from reading books, or discussing shit. They're just prevented from posting stale memes and being forced to think the exact same way as everyone else.
whoa.
this is actually a good thing.
but like others said, impossible to enforce
Nice, this would eliminate 90% of cancerous posters
>>9244
this is probably the most retarded thing I've read today. Social Media is the reason teenagers don't have opinions anymore. Because they never had any chance to explore their own minds!
Everyone cares about what their friends think, instead of what you think yourself and maybe even think twice whether or not this is a nice opinion. They are totally redundant.
>>9244
As a teenager who grew up on the internet into the adult he is today, I wouldn't be nearly as much as an autistic failure if I hadn't spent my entire youth sitting alone at a computer.
>Europe to ban teens for the internet
Oh god how I wish this was true. Kids have absolutely ruined this place. Well general adoption of the internet contributed too, but no other factor has caused so much destruction of communities, and of a general level of discourse as children.
I'm sensing They're planning on pushing new propaganda and indoctrination in the children's schools, and don't want the kids to collaborate on the web and figure out it's going on all over
Eh, it doesn't really matter.
So they can't handle data of children, that's not going to stop children from going on the internet.
Plus kids will do just like we all did when we were minors: fake their ages to be able to register in websites they want access to.
It doesn't mean the internet will be devoid of content for children, it only means corporations can't handle children's data.
Dumb fucks
>>9198
This would remove the primary demographic of social media sites, forcing them to either ease up on data collection or go out of business.
Seems like an unqualified good, even from a libertarian perspective, since it is fundamentally about protecting rights.
>>9525
Theyre smart itll make the internet have less edgy trolls.
>>9244
Lol how old are you kid?
>>9203
Ayy lmao, this.
>>9518
>Plus kids will do just like we all did when we were minors: fake their ages to be able to register in websites they want access to.
Well yeah. FB is, iirc, for 13+, unless legal tutor creates the account (and is responsible for what's posted).
EU just (plan on) increasing the age limit to 16.
Idk what they plan to do with cheaters. Delete their account I suppose. It's not like they'll send kids to jail for giving a fake birth-date, we all did it, even before the internet (ah, reading dirty magazines as an underage, hiding physical paper from your parents was harder than putting porn vids in C:\Windows\System\DoNotClick\ Some kind of nostalgia there...)
>>9198
>The European Parliament
Theres no such thing dumbass
>>9583
>American education
Take a look at this, m8: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/
They don't do shit because the structure of the Union doesn't give them any important responsibility, but they're there.
>>9583
Are you daft?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament
>>9583
Please just leave this board. You have no understanding of the world around you, yet you feel qualified to call other people 'dumbass'. You are the worst kind of person and should not be posting.
>>9198
Correct me if I am wrong, but that does not sound like they want to ban anyone below 16 from the Internet but rather forbid companies from processing their data if they selected an age below 16 during the sign up.
>>9609
>You have no understanding of the world around you
implying you do?
>>9613
Yes I do.
>>9357
>teenagers do not explore the Internet
That seems about right. I can see it with my younger sister and her friends, they use the Internet much more extensively than I do (and I was already a borderline addict back at that age), yet they hardly know anything outside of FB, Twitter, Youtube and Twitch. Maybe Wikipedia for homework.
You cannot really tell me that these are absolutely fundamental for the mental development of a teenager, I'd argue it is rather the opposite because what all those websites have in common is that they are essentially nothing but consumption.
>>9244
You are the most basic type of autist.
>>9357
>I'm glad Europe is doing this, but it isn't going to work
>Spoiled kids will annoy their parents until they give them Internet access.
I agree, if even that. I remember signing up for a forum when I was 12 and you had to be at least 13 to sign up, else you had to get permission from your parents. Didn't really stop me from signing up, just ticked the box where I agreed I was 13 and made myself a year older.
I imagine this will be enforced the same way.
I grew up with extreme parental overbearing and supervision so I'm pretty sure this is basically just like forcing kids into my old life.
My parents trying to shelter me and keep me in turned me into more of an autist tbh and I didn't have any moral limits because in the past my parents were the ones holding up the bars, so I turned to drugs in high school.
Basically, breathing down the necks of t(w)eens isn't gonna help
>>9198
This could be a good thing, if it's enforced as well as music piracy.
Normies get scared, and stop rotting their brains on facebook. Everyone else does it anyways, and grows up with the resources of the world at their fingertips. Win-win.
>>9198
So they can't register on websites and will have to find somewhere else to post that doesn't have this requirement. Umm, guys.
Yeah, I get it. You people want the kids that boast 'I'm ten and I know about sex' off.
But when I was a kid, I'd get on here- in secret, of course, my parents never would of let me- and talk as adult as I could.
>>9457
>Because they never had any chance to explore their own minds
Good bait fam
>>9615
oh, fuck, you bested him
>>9198
Won't they just register as adults and won't this just make enforcing the law harder?
>>9775
I guess it depends how far the law requires companies to go for it to be considered a good faith attempt at compliance. Could be as simple as an "I totes swear I'm 16+" checkbox or it could require users to submit legal proof of their age before they register an account.
>>9198
GENIUS. I like it.
This law happens in the context of the re-writing of the Safe Harbour. A paper that said how it was OK for American companies to store data from European users.
With the wikileak stuff, it became clear the NSA was reading everything, so it wasn't renewed.
They have to find a solution, otherwise things will continue to be as fucked as they have been in the last years... (yeah, pretty convincing.)
But here, it's just to lay down some bases, that will be hard to apply, but at least will exist. Sending a message, all that.
FB will be banned from having data from kids under 16 instead of 12 or something. Same with google, Apple, etc.
Maybe they should also make them pay taxes instead of evading by localising the (international) company wherever they like. And find a way to enforce the law to mega companies who don't give a fuck (microsoft has been in trial for abuse of monopole since windows 98 or something...)
>>9198
>Banning stupid fucking kids from Facebook
Considering how easy it is to ruin your life by posting stupid shit to Facebook, this might be a good idea.
Seems like a slippery slope tbdesu fampai. What kind of powers would this extend to governments in controlling internet usage?
>>9244
Fuck off
>>9198
I fucking hate the EU.
>>9198
>Europe to ban teens from internet
If only.
>>9248
>teenage facebook is a hilarious place
Kill yourself
>>9198
I am all for this; hopefully it spreads to the U.S.
Fuck The Children, aka the special snowflake pieces of millennial shit. I did not have internet until my late senior year, and even now I can live without it, and don't even have social media.
>>9198
Yes, all my yes, and elsewhere on the internet they should have high school-college math equations to solve in captcha, so it brings down the shitposting.
>>9244
The internet back then is nothing like it is now. And most teens are not exploring different ideas, sites, etc. They are visiting the same old bullshit social media site.
So did it pass?
>>9198
In other news, 4chan will receive only 1/4 of the hits that it gets from European countries if teens are banned from the internet.