smarken blog

Digital Sovrignty, Privacy, EU Law & Legislation, IT, Linux

Before we start checking who’s old enough to scroll, we should ask why scrolling is so hard to stop

EDRi skriver på Linkedin :

Age verification is having a moment in Brussels. But before we start checking who’s old enough to scroll, we should ask why scrolling is so hard to stop. Our member D3 has brought the first class-action lawsuits of their kind in the EU against Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and YouTube over what it describes as “addictive design”.

The cases challenge features such as infinite scrolling, autoplay, persistent notifications, personalised algorithmic recommendations and gamification, all designed to keep us engaged for longer

And yes, children and young people may be particularly vulnerable to these features, but the attention economy has all of us in its sights.

The EU must seize the opportunity to tackle the business models and design practices that exploit vulnerabilities and manipulate behaviour, rather than simply asking users, parents or children to navigate around them.

Age-gating an unsafe environment doesn’t make the environment safe. With the #DFA, EU lawmakers have an opportunity to build a digital space designed not to exploit anyone’s attention in the first place.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dfa-share-7505181538158919680-l3JB/


EDRi linker så til D3's egen side "D3 files the first class-action lawsuits in Europe over ‘addictive design’ against Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and YouTube"


Vigtige kommetarer (på Linkedin)

Jan Leindals :

There are already rules on age limits and the protection of children online. The problem is not a lack of rules, but a lack of enforcement.

ICCL makes another important point: it argues that Ireland, as EU Council President, should stay out of EU digital policy matters during its presidency due to a conflict of interest.

The biggest problem is a business model where users pay with their personal data, attention and behavioural data. This conflicts with the principles of the GDPR.

Age verification can give tech companies even more data, even though they can already estimate age from the many data points collected today.

The US shows that tech giants can face tough enforcement. Meta has reached a multibillion-dollar settlement with US states over allegations concerning the harmful effects of children and young people's use of Meta's platforms. At the same time, the US has required TikTok's US data to be handled under American control, strengthening US data sovereignty.

China has chosen a different model. TikTok does not exist as TikTok in the Chinese market and Meta's services are blocked.

The EU is losing more and more digital and data sovereignty. The six horsemen of the digital apocalypse are already here!

Joop B:

Age verification only treats the symptom but it doesn't tackle the underlying cause. Addictive platform design, endless scrolling and personalised feeds make social media apps so hard to put down. It affects both children and adults. High time we do something about the cause, not the effect.

European Digital Rights (EDRi):

Read our recommendations for an ambitious, far-reaching Digital Fairness Act that addresses the underlying platforms' architecture of manipulation and exploitation https://edri.org/our-work/breaking-the-extractive-digital-business-model-a-rights-based-digital-fairness-act/


Af Dr. Imran Rashid (Linkedin) Original på Linkedin

For nylig blev Metas egne interne studier gjort offentlige af whistleblowers på sitet: https://metasinternalresearch.org/ - og de efterlader ikke meget tvivl. Meta har i årevis vidst, at deres platforme kan forværre mental trivsel, især hos børn og unge, gennem øget social sammenligning, kropsutilfredshed og symptomer på angst og depression.

Det mest afslørende er måske, at Meta selv har undersøgt, hvad der sker, når brugere tager pauser fra platformene. Resultatet var tydeligt. Folk fik det bedre. Mere ro. Mindre stress. Mere nærvær.

Det her handler derfor ikke om uvidenhed eller utilsigtede bivirkninger. Meta har haft data, indsigt og tid. Alligevel er forretningsmodellen i al væsentlighed uændret, og incitamentet er stadig maksimal fastholdelse frem for trivsel.

Set fra et sundhedsfagligt perspektiv er én ting svær at komme udenom. Dette ansvar kan ikke placeres hos den enkelte bruger eller forælder. Det er strukturelt og indbygget i designet.

Derfor bliver spørgsmålet ubehageligt, men nødvendigt: Hvorfor accepterer vi, at et kommercielt system med dokumenterede negative effekter på mental sundhed i praksis regulerer sig selv? 🚸

Læs Metas egne ord. Ikke for at blive forarget, men for at forstå, hvor klart vidensgrundlaget allerede er.

👉 https://metasinternalresearch.org/

Hvad tænker I, der arbejder med børn, sundhed, forskning og regulering – hvor længe kan vi blive ved med at kalde dette et individuelt ansvar? 🌱