FRESH

Hacker News

Home

Norway set to become latest country to ban social media for under 16s

390 points by 1vuio0pswjnm7

by kdheiwns

18 subcomments

We can't even get countries to agree on a unified drinking age, but somehow the whole world is simultaneously coming to the conclusion that you need to be 16 to use social media, and websites and operating systems all need North Korean ID verification to prove you're over 16. There is a zero percent chance this is organic

by seniorThrowaway

2 subcomments

The liability shifting and real identity linking to all online usage that big tech wants is proceeding nicely for them I see.

by sunaookami

7 subcomments

This sudden coordinated worldwide effort to ban social media for kids (hint: it's not because of the kids) needs to stop, it's dangerous and people need to stop being so naive and stop supporting this.

by softwaredoug

15 subcomments

I feel like education, not abstinence, is the way forward.
Prohibition doesn’t work. Educating consumers and holding companies accountable works. It historically takes time though for that pressure to accumulate to the point of having political will.
We also need teen social media education - like we have about alcohol and drugs. Where we’re frank about the real research. Don’t moralize. Talk about the realities of the situation.

by n8cpdx

3 subcomments

Wouldn’t it be more effective to ban non-chronological feeds? TikTok, Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook would be transformed into useful tools overnight.

by 6thbit

0 subcomment

Meanwhile I’d like a reverse filter, like don’t show me anything posted by people under 25. And I’m sure lots of young people would love to filter out anything posted by people over 40.

by herf

3 subcomments

Doing this without the parents on board does not work. Kids can lie about their birthdate by a few years. Facial age estimation has error bars of like 5 years and many teens don't have any ID. Younger kids use a parent's phone. Many are not supervised by parents or have parents who are complicit/encouraging in getting them more access. Oh you could be famous! But it is clear that more persistent identifiers online will make anonymity much more difficult for everyone else.

by Quizzical4230

1 subcomments

I really liked this post by System76: https://blog.system76.com/post/system76-on-age-verification

by geremiiah

1 subcomments

IMHO, social media itself is not the issue. The issue is rather, why are teenagers glued to their screens? The answer is because they aren't doing something else that is social and physical. So if you ban their access to TikTok or whatever, they are still stuck at home, bored and glued to their screen. Other online entertainment will capture their focus. Before you know it you'll end up trying to ban the whole internet.

by midtake

1 subcomments

Social media is a cancer today. When I read news like this, I think "darn kids will never know how good we had it, the internet was for nerds and not hostile!"
But as I roll that thought over in my head I wonder, was the internet ever really safe? Maybe there weren't companies messing with your psychology for profit, but perhaps it was all an espionage platform the whole time. The internet, http and html in general, has a smell of being designed from the ground up as a spy tool. It's as if we've all been filling out Obsidian documents on ourselves and voluntarily linking them, and somewhere there is a central node that can see the whole brain.
Maybe it wasn't hostile in the same way where it turns your brain into mush, but it seems like it was never safe.

by programmertote

2 subcomments

These bans, in my opinion, are not the right way to go. Who says that once you are 16+, you are mature enough to interact with the social media apps? I'd argue that if one has never used social media when growing up, it'd even be more dangerous to open the floodgate (so to speak) once s/he reaches 17. Then, that person is not going to know what to avoid and how to curb addiction.
Educating kids about the potential harm, and also making parents take some more responsibility seem like a more positive approach to me.

by dandaka

0 subcomment

Any research supporting this? And proposing guidelines / best practices? What exactly are we banning and why? What is allowed and has little risk? Asking as a parent.

by Geee

0 subcomment

So, by disabling all social features (comments, chat) kids can keep using Instagram and Youtube? Is it really the social features which are harmful? I'd guess that it's the addictive content which might be more harmful.
Also, does these bans extend to text-only social media such as HN?

by Fire-Dragon-DoL

0 subcomment

When they ban social media, what do they actually ban? Like is whatsapp social media? I say no, but news outlets say otherwise.
There is no social media official definition from my understanding.
The bad ones are the ones with the uncontrolled (by the user) algorithmic feed

by WaltPurvis

0 subcomment

https://archive.ph/rSce4

by brazukadev

7 subcomments

It is funny to see all countries afraid of doing what should be done: fine and block the social media companies that don't fix their brainrot algorithms.
Adults are not better at handling them than kids.

by sackfield

0 subcomment

How is it going in the other countries that are trying this? Do we know yet? If not, why move forward with legislation based on untested theories, especially when other countries are currently testing it for you?

by notepad0x90

0 subcomment

we desperately need an internet-standard for establishing age without disclosing the identity of the user. this is very much possible, and I won't rant here about all the ways it is possible. Currently, meta and openai have hijacked this to abuse it for their own nefarious ends.
If you're European, you should be happy about the law but very angry about how it is going to be implemented. but better than anger, please spread the word on the need to establish a standard protocol for age establishment that does not involve bigtech in any way, shape, or form.

by nacozarina

1 subcomments

Normalized credential-harvesting will make it possible for govt to enforce digital exile.
The govt will be able to deny computer access for anyone it doesn’t like, for as long as they don’t like them.
There will then be many ‘underground’ internets, which will all be banned, where the underclass lives. It is also where real innovation will live.
It’s a brand new day and our dystopia has new frontiers available for the brave.

by voidfunc

1 subcomments

Remember kids, always sign-up with a fake birth date.

by ottah

0 subcomment

No, they mean, the latest to implement mandatory id for all residents to access the internet. This is not a health issue, it's not demand from lazy parents, this is the elites desire to abolish anonymity on the internet.

by PunchyHamster

4 subcomments

Speedrunning the way for the loneliness generation. Everything remote yet you can't even meet people

by spacedoutman

3 subcomments

They tried this in australia, now more kids than ever are on social media.

by gverrilla

0 subcomment

Congratulations for Norway!

by firefax

1 subcomments

The issue is not the age you come online, it's what happens when you do.
Delaying from 13 (COPPA) to 16 won't change a thing.
When I was a kid, I was obsessed with Home Alone -- I thought if I had one of those talkboys, I could get some changes made. But in an age where every teen has a recording device in their pocket, I continue to see the kinds of stories that made my blood boil... because when it came time to get the authorities involved they dragged their feet the entire time, if they would even file a report at all, and that inaction is paired with a "zero tolerance" policy on any kind of self defense that sends kids out into the world reluctant to give folks the rightful punch they deserve if they act out (and are entitled to give in most stand your ground states.)
Extending adolescence doesn't solve the root problems here, and conversely, more adults should reread a copy of "1984" and be a little more fearful they're held to the rules and norms they instill on the youth.

by jmyeet

1 subcomments

The one part I was curious about was who would be responsible for this? The app or the OS? The article says the app makers, which I think is correct.
In the US, Meta in particular is pushing for OS-level age verification [1]. What a surprise. The company without an OS wants OS makers to do it and, more importantly, to be liable for it.
Many purists believe such a move is bad for freedom of expression. I'm sympathetic to this argument to a degree but I think we've shown that it's been a failure. More to the point, whether or not you agree with age verification, it's coming regardless so the only issue really is what form it takes.
This will go beyond social media too. I'm thinking specifically of gambling. I'm including crypto gambling as well as sports betting and prediction markets. In the real world we require you to go to a casino to gamble and you will have your age checked at the door. We've just been removing the barriers to gambling addiction and extending it to minors. My prediction is that this will change.
For anyone who thinks teens will just get around this with VPNs and other workarounds, of course some will. Not everyone will. And blocking such measures will get better over time. Also, network effects will come into play. What will it do if half your friends aren't on social media? What about 75%? 90%?
Also, this is going to cut into advertising to minors. That I think is a win. Companies won't be able to target minors in affected markets. Meta (etc) will be legally responsible for making sure they can't. That's good.
Just like tobacco bans to minors aren'100% effective, neither does this.
[1]: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/reddit-user-uncovers-beh...

by dude250711

4 subcomments

Should be banned for under 40s and over 70s really...
Also ban giving toddlers iPads with YouTube.

by deadbabe

13 subcomments

Knowing how kids are, they will just snicker and skirt their way around these bans anyway thinking they are some super bad ass. This is mostly symbolic.

by shevy-java

1 subcomments

I claim this is not about "protecting children", but to mandate age sniffing on the OS level eventually.
I also find this all questionable. A 18 years old is not penalised? So why is that a difference? I should say that I don't use "social" media (unless commenting on a forum is called "social" now), but I find the attempt to explain this ... very poor. I could not try to reason about this. I could not claim it is meant to "protect" anyone at all. Is this pushed by over-eager parents, who don't understand what to do on a technical level? I really hate censorship in general. So, even while I think unsocial media such as Facebook should be gone, I hate any such restrictions. Then again I also don't trust any legislator who pushes for this - I am certain this is to force age-sniffing onto everyone. And then extend this slowly. Step by step. Salami by Salami. Until anonymity is gone.

by bitwize

2 subcomments

> government: bans social media for under 16.
> hackernews: "Good. It's about time government took action. The only cure for these abusive capitalist companies is government regulation."
> government: passes law requiring age verification at the OS level
> hackernews: "Oh no! How could this happen? We have to fight this you guys. For sure if it weren't for big tech lobbyists we wouldn't have to worry about draconian laws like this."

by JamesLeonis

1 subcomments

I want to come at this from another angle: We are about to tell the entire world wide web where all the kids are.
The more these laws are enforced, the more we hand over this information to any unscrupulous website operator, app developer, or advertiser. Are we about to hand Elon Musk [0] your kids' PII? How about Zuck, who (friendly reminder) sold your 2nd-factor phone number to advertisers [1]? How about all of the leaks from these ID services [2]? Or how about these services doing far more than Age Verification [3][4]?
Given the terrible track record of data breaches in tech, this means all this information leaks into even worse hands with little recourse for people and no punishment for companies.
From a security and privacy perspective it's in kids' own self-interest and self-protection for them to undermine all of these laws.
0: "I really want to hit the party scene in St Barts or elsewhere and let loose. The invitation is much appreciated, but a peaceful island experience is the opposite of what I’m looking for." https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2011/EFTA02706...
1: https://www.securityweek.com/facebook-admits-phone-numbers-m...
2: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/06/hack-age-verification-...
3: https://stateofsurveillance.org/news/persona-age-verificatio...
4: https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2026/02/age-verificat...

by 10xDev

10 subcomments

Good, social media is cancer on society and will only get worse with LLMs, Deepfakes etc. All the astroturfing in favour of social media couldn't possibly change my mind on how harmful social media has been on society.

by nephihaha

0 subcomment

Oh look another one. Funny how they seem to do this at the same time.

by walrus01

0 subcomment

There's a solid point to be made about the problem with brainrot algorithms and slop content pushed by default to every (instagram, tiktok, facebook, whatever) user even without banning anything. People in tech who've curated their social media feeds to unfollow/block/dislike brainrot content should seriously sit down with the phone of an average 15 year old (or 75 year old) and spend an hour scrolling.
I am equally as worried about slop content being pushed to the social media feeds of gullible people of the older gen-x and boomer generations as I am of young people. The general problem of human attention span being monetized as a commodity for social manipulation, political manipulation and just generally selling things (the advertising industry in general) is getting worse, not better.

by miroljub

1 subcomments

Europe slowly becomes a totalitarian fascist federation.
The social media and children protection bullshit serves only to introduce a mandatory identification for accessing the internet.
And we all laughed at the "conspiracy theorists" who were constantly warning us.

by aftergibson

0 subcomment

[dead]

by mastermanas1234

0 subcomment

[dead]

by krautburglar

0 subcomment

[flagged]

by benj111

6 subcomments

Is there any evidence for all this?
This sums up my understanding of the current situation (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/understand-the-im...)
That isn't anywhere near definitive.
Further it seems to me, this will just allow the tech companies to assume there are no kids, and remove the protections currently available.
Yes there is an issue of quantity, but it seems that we should be focussing on social norms for what is acceptable parenting in the 21st century. I'm 42, probably the lower age range for having a teenage kid, I have a couple of kids myself, and I'm not 100% sure on what the correct approach to take is, as I suspect the situation is for most other parents as the situation is so different to what we experienced at that age.

by dyauspitr

3 subcomments

We need this in the US yesterday.

by holoduke

0 subcomment

Fu Norway. This is an example of lobbyists succesfully make regulations based on a fake reason to serve their own totally different interest. Dumpsters in Norway have no idea how they are being played. Noone cares about children. They only care about introducing id verification for everyone everywhere. Again. Fu Norway.

by greenleafone7

0 subcomment

Yes, the Epstein group is worried about.... ummm children. What they are worried about is wrong-speech and they are desperate to stop people from talking about the swarming waves of immigration and our declining way of life.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=623122650149799